Soldiers paying respects to soldiers?

(Courtesy South Asia Monitor-uploaded on 23 Dec14)

Vijay Diwas;India needs a national war memorial

For the past 43 years the Armed Forces of India have been celebrating or commemorating the victory over Pakistan in 1971. Laying wreaths at scores of war memorials set up by numerous Military establishments around India, is a solemn and mandatory part of the celebration.

War memorials are meant to remind our citizens of the sacrifices made by their soldiers. That, successive Governments overlooked the need for a National War Memorial at Delhi is well known to most of us. The present Government has made a commitment which appears to be grand and hopefully we will see it materialise within their tenure of five years. Nevertheless, damage has been done to the memory of warriors who have lost their lives in several operations since Independence, both in peace and war. 

Existing Memorials have been erected and maintained by the soldiers themselves with the exception of those erected at Pune and Bengaluru. The former was funded by sustained campaigns conducted by soldiers, citizens/activists along with efforts made by the Indian Express group. The latter is a laudable effort of Sri Rajiv Chandrashekhar MP, who has been championing the cause of the Soldier for many years. The Pune memorial has even received the title of National War Memorial! Such a title is flawed on many counts.

A National Memorial has to be created by society through Governments, preferably in the Capital city and not merely by soldiers fighting for it in any city. In the extant case, it is located like all other war memorials, on Military property which is inaccessible to tourists and visitors for most part of the year, save on occasions such as Vijay Diwas. All the arrangements and invitations are issued by Military authorities and the function is populated by the serving and retired soldiers and not the citizen who wishes to pay his respects. Even ministers or senior civil authorities avoid these functions as they are construed as pure Military ceremonials or perhaps they do not care for the sacrifices of the soldier due to compulsions of vote bank politics.

Unless the caring citizen who wishes to pay his respects to the departed soldier has access to the memorial, such as Rajghat at Delhi, war memorials will continue to remain out of reach of the citizen. Every visiting foreign head of state starts his visit by paying respects to the Father of the Nation; he will pay respects to the departed soldier too- not the unknown soldier but the soldier whose name is inscribed in letters of gold on the walls surrounding the memorial.

Most countries who have fought long wars have realised the need to glorify the profile of the departed soldier so that it remains etched in the conscience of the citizen and consequently the society as a whole. By failing to do so on many pretexts including the one that "Amar Jawan at Delhi is good enough", we have unwittingly relegated the importance of the wars fought after independence.

Vijay Diwas is also an occasion to take stock of the insensitivity displayed by the society as a whole to the plight of the war wounded and disabled soldiers and equally of the war widows of independent India. Why is it that the media or activists have remained silent witnesses to the scores of court cases filed by elected Governments challenging the legitimate claims of the soldier. In most cases the highest court of India has ruled in favour of the soldier and yet Governments have delayed the benefits which were long denied. This is a peculiar if not deviant way of showing our appreciation to the soldier.

One reason could be that most, if not all the wars fought since Independence, have not touched the citizens of India barring those who live on the borders. People were willing to part with their gold if the Government was in need of financial support to fight the war. Yet when the Indian Government ordered our soldiers to intervene in Sri lanka and we lost valuable lives to protect their freedom, our Prime Minister, on a visit to Colombo a few years ago, declined to inaugurate a War Memorial dedicated to Indian Soldiers which was built by the Sri Lankans in the prime property adjoining their own War Memorial. The reason was as impious as coalition politics.

 In comparison millions of lives were lost during WW1 and WW2 in UK,Europe,USA ,Soviet Union and Japan. Almost every family had lost a member and the Wars lasted for years. One may conclude perhaps erroneously that only long wars would sensitise our society to respect the needs of a soldier. Arthashastra contains references to the dangers to the society if soldiers are not well cared for both in service and after retirement.

Both the politician and the bureaucrat are products of our society. An 'uneducated' society would be oblivious to  the justifiable needs of a soldier. If that be so, how would we educate and sensitise the society in the first instance, so that the by-product that enters governance-related structures is well equipped to deal with the travails and tribulations of a soldier?

Given that long wars are unlikely between nations and that terrorism-related and ideological/religious skirmishes have the potential to inflict devastating damage and loss of lives, we need to bridge the yawning gap between the soldier and the state or the soldier and the society.

Making Military training a part of the academic profile of every Indian may well be a solution.