A former Indian Army General's memoir reveals the weaknesses of India's political leadership during the Indo-China border standoff.Manuj Mukund Naravane happened to be the General of the Indian Army who recently wrote his memoir, *Four Stars of Destiny*, which was not yet published, where the former General made some sensational revelations on the weaknesses of Indian political leadership during the Indo-China border stand-off that had begun from 2020 to date. At that time, he was the General of the Indian Army and he wrote that – I am not quoting his writings, but I am only trying to give an excerpt of his writings – so on 31 August 2020 at 8:15 PM, Lieutenant General Yogesh Joshi, then Chief of the Indian Army Northern Command, received a phone call. The information he received was alarming. So we have to remember that the Indian Army for the first time detected deep Chinese intrusion into Indian territory in April 2020, and then Lieutenant General Harinder Singh, I think, who happened to be the commander of Indian Army 14 Corps, whose responsibility is to defend Ladakh, deployed the Indian Army to counter the Chinese. So the Indian Army was already on high alert. We also know that the Northern Command of the Indian Army is one of the strongest army commands, and under Northern Command we have three corps: 14 Corps, which is destined for Leh; 15 Corps that is based in Srinagar, Badami Bagh Cantonment; and 16 Corps is based in Nagrota of Jammu, and Northern Command's headquarters is in Udhampur of Jammu. So the main responsibility of Northern Command is to defend Jammu and Kashmir from both Pakistan and China. So Lieutenant General Yogesh Joshi was the Chief of Indian Army Northern Command. So his primary responsibility was to defend Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, from China and Pakistan. What he had received from the soldiers and his subordinate commanders from Ladakh was a serious matter. He was informed that four Chinese tanks, supported by infantry, had begun moving up a steep mountain track towards Rezing La in Eastern Ladakh. Manuj Joshi immediately reported the movement to the Chief of the Indian Army Staff, General Manuj Mukund Naravane, and who immediately understood and grasped the severity of the situation. The tanks were within a few kilometres of Indian positions on the Kailash Range. So the Kailash Range is just south of Pangong Tso lake, a major tourist spot, but again, you try to remember that in August 2020, the Indian Army and its special Tibetan units executed a brilliant preemptive operation and occupied the Kailash Range, and it was technically a brilliant operation and the Chinese were surprised and the Indians were ready to face them. So definitely the Chinese were trying to retaliate and the four Chinese tanks were within a few kilometres and Indian soldiers who were positioned at the top of the hill were noticing the Chinese movement and the Kailash Range is strategically very important ground for India and under no circumstances can India retreat from it. In this terrain, on the disputed Line of Actual Control – I am using the term Line of Actual Control and I am also using the term disputed because both sides claim, but the Line of Actual Control is the de facto border between India and China – therefore every metre of elevation translates to strategic dominance. What was the first reaction of the Indian Army? I think Grenadiers, I mean the soldiers of the Grenadiers Regiment, were occupying the high positions. They fired illuminating rounds, a kind of warning shot, but it had no effect. The Chinese were advancing. So General Naravane began making frantic calls to the leaders of the Indian political and military establishment, including the Defence Minister and the National Security Advisor, and General Bipin Rawat, he was the Chief of Defence Staff. We noted that the government created a post of Chief of the Defence Staff. At present we have a General, Admiral and Air Chief Marshal, we also have the Chief of the Defence Staff. So General Naravane also dialled our External Affairs Minister and he asked, "What are my orders?" And the situation was deteriorating dramatically and demanded clarity. There was an existing protocol because the Indian Army had clear orders not to open fire until cleared from the very top. His superiors did not give any clear directives. Again, at 9 PM, his subordinate Yogesh Joshi called again. The Chinese tanks continued to advance. Of course, they required time because that was a mountainous terrain and the Chinese were now less than 1 kilometre from the pass. At 9:20 PM General again called the Defence Minister asking for clear directions, either to fire or retreat or negotiate, but none came. Surprisingly, a message arrived from the PLA commander – PLA means the People's Liberation Army – he was Major General Liu Lin. He proposed a cooling down of swords. Both sides should stop further movement and local commanders would meet at the pass at 9:30 AM the following morning with three representatives of each. That was his proposal. So it was a reasonable proposition. For a moment it appeared that an off-ramp was emerging. At 10 PM General again called the Defence Minister and National Security Advisor to relate this message. 10 minutes later the Northern Command rang again. The Chinese tanks had not stopped. The Chinese tanks were now only 500 metres from the top. General recalled that his subordinate Yogesh Joshi saying that the only way to stop them was by opening up with Indian Army medium artillery, which were already positioned. Yogesh Joshi also informed that Indian medium artillery guns were ready and waiting for final orders. Of course, the Indian Army had anti-tank weapons like ATGMs, I think Israeli-made ATGMs, anti-tank guided missiles, and from high ground the ATGMs can easily destroy the Chinese tanks. Artillery fighting was routine on the Line of Control with Pakistan where divisional and corps commanders had been authorised to fire hundreds of artillery rounds per day without any command from the political establishment. But that was China, it was different. An artillery duel with China could escalate into a larger war. Naravane wrote his position was critical, I mean the position of the Indian Army. He was caught between the command who wanted to open fire with all possible means and a government committee which had yet to give me any clear-cut orders. In the operational room at Army Headquarters, options were being considered and discarded. The entire Northern Command was on high alert from Siachen to Jammu and from the Karakoram Range to Demchok areas of likely clash were being monitored by the decision point was Rezing La. So General made yet another call to the Defence Minister who promised to call back. Time was going on, each minute was crucial because the Chinese tanks were advancing. Then our Defence Minister called back at 10:30 PM. He had spoken to the Prime Minister whose instructions consisted of a single sentence: "Do whatever you deem appropriate." That was the order of our Prime Minister. That means now the ball was thrown into the military court. So whatever had to do, the Indian Army had to do. The Prime Minister was consulted, he had been briefed, but he declined to interfere. So Naravane recalled he had been handed a hot potato with a disposable blanket. That means he was given final orders to do whatever was required. Now the burden or onus was totally on him. It was a moment of profound isolation. The General sat with a map of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on one wall, Eastern Command on another. Eastern Command is guarding Arunachal. He could visualise the location of each and every unit and formation because he was a General. A hundred different thoughts flashed through his mind. The economy was faltering, global supply sales had fractured. Would India be able to ensure a steady supply of spares etc. under this condition in case of a long drawn-out action? He thought who were India's supporters in the global arena and more than it what about the collusive secret threat from China and Pakistan? India was ready in all respects, he wrote, but he did not want a war. So he exercised his restraint and diplomatically that crisis was solved, but not by India's political leadership or National Security Advisor, but by the Generals and his top commanders. It clearly exhibits that Indian political leadership are incapable of taking any decisive action. So politicians in India can make loud noises but are incapable of doing anything. We must give General Naravane full credit for his maturity that a major crisis was averted. These were written in his memoir. He successfully handled such a monumental decision where the Prime Minister had effectively abdicated the responsibility of either initiating or avoiding a military conflict.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judicial Conundrum in India

Recently one fire incident in the official resident of Justice Yashwanta Varma led to recovery of crores of burnt notes not only  shocking but also shook people's confidence in higher Judiciary as an infallible institution .One store room of justice Yashwanta Sinha was caught fire while he was not in his resident,and fire brigade came to extinguish fire and crores of burnt notes were recovered.Justice Varma was not in Delhi for any kind of comments at that time.Once he was a contacted ,he immediately denied his involvement in that incident rather he alleged that it was a conspiracy to tarnish his image.The Chief Justice Of India constituted a high powered committe ,consisting of two Chief Justices of High Courts and one sitting judge of a High Court.to enquire the alleged recovery of money.The Supreme Court Collegium recommended his immediate  transfer to Allahabad High Court ,which triggered a hugh protest initiated by Allahabad Bar Association against that transfer,that Alla...
Read more

Hungarian revolution of 1956Is Revolution was also known as the Hungarian uprising, an attempted Rebellion against the communist government , that came into existence after the World War II. Hungry was an axis ally of Nazi Germany. The USSR occupied Hungary and April 28 government was established. Hungary became a satellite state of USSR. Soviet government was actually a totalitarian government. Hungarian people are descendants of Slavic and Huns. In disrespect remember the cruel rule Attila the Hun. The Hungerian revolution of lasted for l 15 days, until it was crushed by Soviet tanks. Several thousands hungarians lost their lives m several hundred Russians also lost their lives.On 23rd of October 1956, some University students appealed to the civilian population to protest against Russian authoritarian rule the domination of USSR in its geopolitical interest. At that time, Hungary was ruled by a Stalinist government. The students demanded reform on 16 points, but all the students were detained by security guards. The Hungarian people rose against the Communist Party and the secret police of Hungary. And the local communists and secret policemen were executed. A new government was formed under Imrey Negi, who was the liberal man. Under his leadership hungry had withdrawn from Warshaw pact. The new government agreed to hold new election, hungry was heading towards democracy.Initially the USSR agreed negotiate with the new government and accordingly delete Army withdrew. Russians apprehended Hungary embrace the Western block live by USA would be a big threat two dog communist block. So the Russians betrayed the hungarians and hungry was invaded by several Russian divisions. The Hungarian Army was no match before the might of Russian army and after Fierce resistance the hungarians were defeated. The free hungarians were expecting Western help but that did not come. Finally the new government was rendered useless the leaders were arrested and executive latter. The communist government again was installed in Hungary and hungry again became is satellite state of USSR . The Communist rule finally collapse in 1989 after destruction of Berlin Wall. Now Hungary is a Democratic state.

Read more

[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan v The State(1950,S.C.R.88) was a momentous case in the Constitutional history of India.Any discussion/ lecture on the Constitutional law is incomplete without first examining this case, whether critically or analytically.This case was decided at a time When the Country got independence from British rule and The Constitution of India had come into force,and more than it , for the first timea chapter on Fundamental Rights had been incorporated in the Constitution .The Supreme Court got a golden opportunity to interpret the Article 19,21 and 22 expansively against Executive or legislative power of the state.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Brief Fact of the case-A K Gopalan,a radical leftist of the Madras Province was detained under the Preventive Detention Act ,1950,and in fact he was detained for several times under the Act.Under Entry 9 of Union list ,the Parliament has the power to enact law on Preventive Detention.Though Preventive Detention is an anathema in modern time,it was justified as a necessary evil to protect the unity and integrity of the state.Even in Britain and America it was used only during the war time ,that too against suspected enemy aliens[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan filed a habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and challenged the detention ordering a wide ground that the Detention Act ,under which he was detained was void for violating Articles 19 and 21 and also on a narrow ground that it did comply with the requirements of Article 22.Article 22 prescribes certain procedural safeguards against it.Learned Counsel M K Nambiyar on behalf of Gopalan contended that the Detention Act 1959 violated Article 21 and was void on following grounds1.Personal liberty included the freedoms conferred by Article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) and the impunged act ( detention act) did not satisfy the test of Article 19(2) to (6).2.The Preventive Detention Act directly violated Gopalans right to move freely , because the freedom of movement is of essence of personal liberty.3.Article 19 (1) and 21 should be read together because Article 19 dealt with substantive rights and Article 21 dealt with procedural rights.4.The reference in Article 21 to Procedure established by law meant due process of law and the Act did not satisfy the requirements of due process of law.5.The word law in Article 21 meant not the state made law but jus naturale ,of the principles of natural justice.The law did not comply with the requirements of Natural justice[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: It will be seen that from 1 to 5 that the proposition that Article 21 applied to the Preventive Detention ,was the foundation of all the reasons,and learned Attorney General M C Seetlevad countered by contending that Article 22 was a complete code and Article 21 didnot apply to Preventive Detention law.All the questions raised some points of immense Constitutional importance and a Six Judge Bench comprising CJI H L J Kania ,Justices P .Shastri ,M C Mahajan,B K Mukherjee ,SS Das and Fazl Ali S was constituted to hear the matters .All the six judges delivered separate judgments after a lengthy hearings .Five learned judges( Fazl Ali dissenting) held that Article 19 did not apply to Preventive Detention thought the freedoms as a result of detention freedoms may be curtailed.Fazl Ali dissented and held that Preventive Detention was a direct infringement of Article 19 and was subject to Judicial review even it was narrowly construed The majority judges did not hold that Article 22 was a complete code ,so they disagreed with learned Attorney General contention and only M C Mahajan alone held Article 22 was a complete code on Preventive Detention.Fazl Ali dissented by holding that " No calamitous or untoward result would follow even if the Provisions of Penal code became justiciable".CJI Kania, and Justices Shastri, Mukherjee and SS Das held the concept of right to move freely throughout the territory of India was entirely different from the Concept of the right to personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Except Justice M C Mahajan who held that Article 22 was a complete code, majority held that Articles 19 (1) and Article 21 did not operate in the same field, because Article 18 conferred rights only one citizens, article 21 conferred rights on all persons. Again if article 21 conferred only procedural rights then the most precious right the Right to life was nowhere found in our Constitution. Therefore the majority held that Article 21 also conferred substanrive rights also. It may be observed that far from holding that fundamental rights were mutually exclusive, Mukherjee held that a substantive law authorizing the deprivation of life must conform to the requirements of Article 20.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: CJI Kania, Justices Mukherjee and SR Das held that law in Article 21 had been used in the sense of State made law and not in the embodying the Principle of Natural Justice, and Procedure established by law meant a law made by Union Parliament or by State legislatures. Justice Shastri held that the law meant Positive or state made law and did not mean jus naturale, but the procedure meant well established criminal procedure. Justice Fazl Ali dissented by holding that whatever Procedure established by law may mean, and must include 1 . Notice 2.opportunity to be heard 3.impartial tribunal 4.orderly procedure. So according to fazl Ali a positive law must include jus naturale.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: The majority judges held that the Procedure established by law didnot mean due process of law as understood in United States of America. The report of Drafting Committe showed that the words Procedure established by law were substituted for the words without due process of law. Our founding fathers were well aware of its abuse by American judges during the New Deal period.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: So in this case, different views were expressed by different judges, so no common points emerged on the correlation of articles 19 to 20,21 and 22 or the meaning of the expression personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: But Justice Fazl Ali dissenting points are regarded as one of the greatest dissents of all time. Justice R Nariman paid a rich tribute to Fazl Ali foresight by saying "simply takes our breath away".

Read more