LEGENDARY BAND OF MEN WHO LAID THE FOUNDATION FOR THE INDIAN AIR FORCE.

By Sanchari Pal…

Around 84 years ago, an important event took place in the history of the Indian subcontinent that subtly, yet irrevocably, altered the dynamics of the relationship between British Raj and its subjects in colonial India. The event was the birth of the Indian Air Force (IAF) on the October 8, 1932. Although unheralded by any fanfare, the gazette notification that carried the announcement was a moment of great import. It embodied the hopes and aspirations of a subjugated nation that wished to prove that its youth were the equals, if not the betters, of their colonial rulers.

In 1930, six young men (Harish Chandra Sircar, Subroto Mukherjee, Amarjit Singh, Bhupendra Singh, Aizad Baksh Awan and T.N. Tandon) were sent to England to train as pilots at RAF Cranwell, while 29 were recruited from railway workshops in India to train as hawai sepoys or apprentice aircraft hands. This is the little known story of the legendary band of IAF men who were the earliest pioneers of military aviation in India.

The first squadron of the IAF, No.1 Squadron, was formed in 1932 equipped with just one Westland Wapiti (the British called this aircraft “what a pity”) aircraft. However, it was only in 1937 that the Indian pilots, who had by then familiarised themselves with flying rules and regulations, were sent on their first field operation in the North-West Frontier Province, where they proved their worth.

On September 3, 1939, in a landmark event, the IAF’s No.1 Squadron got its first Indian Commanding Officer, Subroto Mukherjee, and all British officers were withdrawn making it an all-Indian squadron for the first time.

It was in early 1942, during the Burma Campaign, that the IAF truly came of age. The Second World War had broken out, and the British, who were outwitted by the Japanese on the eastern war front, were left with no alternative but to draft the No.1 Squadron of the IAF into Burma (now Myanmar) to counter the invading Japanese forces.

In recognition of the services rendered by the IAF, the King of England prefixed “Royal” to the service. Thus, the IAF was known as RIAF until January 26, 1950, when India became a republic and the RIAF was reconverted to IAF.

One of the most remarkable stories of this historic campaign is of IAF engineer Harjinder Singh, whose wizardry at repairing and modifying planes was the stuff of legends. After having graduated as an engineer from the elite MacClaghan Engineering College in Lahore, Harjinder had signed on as a lowly Hawai Sepoy with the IAF.

During the Burma Campaign in World War II, Harjinder was a Warrant Officer in the IAF. A zealous nationalist, he wasn’t convinced that Indians should fight for the British. Once, when he was in the company of his Indian commanding officer, Squadron Leader Karun Krishna “Jumbo” Majumdar, Harjinder wondered out aloud:

“Why should we fight this war for the British?”

His commander, Jumbo, reasoned with him, saying,

“Harjinder, if we do not fight in this war for the damned British, we shall be nothing better than a flying club when the war ends. We must fight, and we must aim to expand the IAF while the going is good. After the war is won, India will be a Dominion, and we shall have to run our own Air Force.”

A little later, on February 1, 1942, Harjinder and Jumbo were with their squadron at the Royal Air Force base in Toungoo, Burma. The next day, the base was hit by a Japanese bombing raid. At that point of time, the British campaign was not going well and the talk about withdrawing from Burma had further brought down the morale of the pilots.

While the RAF was putting up a dispirited fight, IAF’s daredevil and unorthodox Commanding Officer, Jumbo, had a most audacious idea that he shared with his engineer. He wanted to bomb the Japanese air base with obsolete reconnaissance aircraft. Harjinder took up the challenge.

Seven decades before India started talking about ‘Make in India’, the first engineer officer of IAF converted a whole squadron of 12 slow-moving Lysander planes into deadly bombers. The missions were flown un-escorted by Indian pilots who carried out daring dive bombings and pin-point attacks. Jumbo personally led a series of successful offensive strikes against numerous Japanese airfields.

The IAF squadron also supported the Chinese army operations in the campaign. The squadron performed so well that in appreciation they were presented a “Gold Wing” by the Chinese – a rare honour indeed.

Jumbo’s plan worked – the heroic exploits of the Indian pilots at Kohima and Imphal were counted in aviation history as among the most effective counter-attacking aerial campaigns under siege conditions.

While Jumbo became the first Indian pilot to be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross in World War II for his exploits in Burma, Harjinder was awarded an MBE (Member of the Order of the British Empire) for his incredible effort and ingenuity.

It was a sweet revenge of sorts for the men — when they had first joined the IAF, they had received the most disappointing welcome message from Air Marshal Sir John Steele, the first chief of the IAF.

“Indians will not be able to fly or maintain military airplanes. That’s a man’s job,” Steele had said to the Indian members of the fledgling IAF.

The exploits of these pioneering men were largely unknown till former RAF officer and British Airways pilot Mike Edwards wrote out this epic tale, using personal diaries, letters and other memorabilia kept safe by J R Nanda (whose uncle Air Commodore Amrit Saigal was Harjinder’s staff officer).

Edwards is also involved in the resurrection of the IAF’s vintage flight and flies the refurbished Tiger Moth and Harvard of the IAF.

Harjinder Singh went on to have many firsts to his name – he was the first Indian NCO, Warrant Officer, Corporal, Flight Sergeant.. More than five decades ago, he rolled out the first Indian made aircraft — the Avro 748 — from the Aircraft Manufacturing Depot at Kanpur in 1961. He continued to run a programme to design and build indigenous aircraft way till he retired as an Air Vice Marshal in 1964 (the Indian government abandoned the programme after he retired).

Also, the very talented aircraft engineer never forgot his dream of flying. Having spotted the wreck of a Spitfire in Kanpur, he completely restored and rebuilt the plane (with some help from Rolls Royce) and started flying it to all his meetings. In the 1950s, Harjinder finally underwent military pilot training from the IAF, and successfully got his wings, that too in his own Spitfire!

Post Independence, Harjinder and his fellow IAF pioneers gave up a life of ease and comfort to lay the foundations of India’s air force. Having given independent India an entire bomber fleet by cannibalising and restoring destroyed British and American planes, these men could well have been be the poster boys of the government’s ‘Make In India’ program.

As their first commanding officer in war (the 1937 North-West Frontier Province), Flight Lieutenant Cecil Bouchier. later recalled,

“The Indian Air Force is what it is today because of one thing only—the imagination, the courage, the loyalty of the first little pioneer band of Indian officers and airmen.”

   Air Vice Marshal Harjinder Singh’s son Col M S BAINS was commissioned in EME on 30/06/1963 through NDA.

(This was received from the web)

Dear Veterans,

The Government of India orders issued today is attached.

Please read the attachments carefully, and send documented to respective CDAs to get the arrears in time. Document to be sent to CDAO Pune for Army Offices is also attached.

1. Those in service on 01 Jan 1986, will get benefit of full rank pay till the date of retirement (corresponding to their rank on various dates) and half of the rank pay from the date of retirement till 31 Dec 2006.

2. The officers who retired before 01 Jan 1986, will get half of the rank pay as addition to their earlier pension, starting from 01 Jan 1986, till 31 Dec 2006.

3. For the revised pay in both cases the additional DA will also be added.

4. Interest will be given only with effect from 01 Jan 1986. Rate of interest has not been defined in the Supreme Court order. It may be defined in the subsequent letter by the Government.

5. Whether the income tax due will be deducted at source or you will have to pay later is not known at present.

Thank you Pay Cells of The Three Service Headquarters.

Of course the MoD deserves NO THANKS.

GOD will suitably look after all the Babus who are responsible for this gross cheating with the Defense Officers in the case of Rank Pay.

Format for Army Offrs to Submit to CDA

Final Govt orders on Rank Pay of 4 th CPC

(Contributed by Commodore Bhim Uppal)

Members:
Here are occasions to wear medals, or miniature medals.

Wearing Full Medals:

Wearing of Miniature Medals

(Contributed by Commodore Bhim Uppal, President IVOANA)

Dear Veterans,

The Government of India orders issued today is attached.

Those who retired before 01 Jan 1986, should read the letter carefully.

For grant of Rank Pay arrears the order does not make any distinction among officers who retired before or after 01 Jan 1986 – SO PLEASE RELAX.

Salary of all officers whether they retired before 01 Jan 1986 or after that date, will be revised upwards.

1. Those in service on 01 Jan 1986, will get benefit of full rank pay till the date of retirement (corresponding to their rank on various dates) and half of the rank pay from the date of retirement till 31 Dec 2006.

2. The officers who retired before 01 Jan 1986, will get half of the rank pay as addition to their earlier pension, starting from 01 Jan 1986, till 31 Dec 2006.

3. For the revised pay in both cases the additional DA will also be added.

4. Interest will be given only with effect from 01 Jan 1986. Rate of interest has not been defined in the Supreme Court order. It may be defined in the subsequent letter by the Government.

5. Whether the income tax due will be deducted at source or you will have to pay later is not known at present.

For the well drafted GoI letter we need to once again thank Lt Col BK Sharma President RDOA and his Team Members of Retired Defence Officers Association.

Of course the credit also goes to the Three Service Headquarters who took Colonel Sharma in confidence while drafting this letter.

Thank you Col Sharma and all members of the Executive Committee of the RDOA.

Thank you Pay Cells of The Three Service Headquarters.

Of course the MoD deserves NO THANKS.

GOD will suitably look after all the Babus who are responsible for this gross cheating with the Defence Officers in the case of Rank Pay.

(Contributed by Commodore Bhim Uppal)

Why Does India Tend to Collapse So Often?

Editor’s Note: We feel a sense of deep sadness in writing this article. It is likely to anger almost everyone of Indian origin regardless of where they live or what they do. We sincerely hope that, after their initial burst of anger, they take the time to think about our points and analyze themselves. We also hope they begin learning about the time when India was a winner, a society that believed in conquests, in eradicating evil by terminating it.  At the very least, we hope that some of the readers think about their decisions before they “give up”. 

Some time ago we spoke to an Indian-American professor, an economist with a sterling record of success, an adviser to global organizations and a professor at a prestigious American University . He had appeared on a major Financial TV network and in that interview, the European-American anchor mangled his simple name. This professor did not correct the anchor’s pronunciation, he simply went on with the interview. We asked him why he chose to accept the indignity silently. He said softly, “I have given up“. He is not unique. This is probably true of every single Indian guest who appears on American TV. 

 

Then there was our conversation with a Professor who runs India Studies at another prestigious American University , a man with a distinguished academic record. Another unit in the same University had made awful comments about Indian Religion & Culture. We asked this Professor, this Head of India Center at the same University, why he didn’t write a rebuttal or make s strong protest within that University. In a tired, disgusted voice he told us “I have given up“. 

In January 2012, the Indian cricket team simply collapsed against the Australian cricket team in every single match of that series. Brad Haddin, an Australian player, said of the Indian players:

•  “they break quicker than any one in the world”…..”…this side can be as fragile as any in the world if things aren’t going their way…”.
•  

Any one who has watched Indian teams play cricket over the past few decades knows this to be true. Unfortunately, this is true of Indians in just about every sphere. They celebrate wildly when things are going their way and then totally fall apart when the momentum changes. 

This is exactly what happened to the Indian Rupee last November and to the Indian economy this May. Indians were celebrating their status as a shining star in the Emerging markets space. The Indian Rupee was strong at around Rs. 44 to the U.S. Dollar. Then in one single month, the Indian Rupee simply collapsed. It fell vertically from Rs. 44 to the Dollar to 54.  

The story was repeated this May. This time, the collapse wasn’t vertical. It was an unrelenting, steady fall that happened every day. The Indian media, the Indian Government and all of India were bewildered and helpless just like the Indian Cricket team was in Australia in January.

This seems to be the story of India and Indians – no tenacity, no backbone, no gritty determination to make a stand. Instead, as Brad Haddin said, in almost every sphere India and Indians seem to break when things turn against them. They simply give up, just like the professors above.

Why do Indians give up so easily, so soon without a fight? Why has this tendency worsened after India ‘s Independence ? Below we lay out our views.

The last 1,000 years of India

The reality is India has been a defeated, occupied society for the past 1,000 years. From about 1,000 CE to 1761 CE, invaders from Afghanistan . Tajikistan & Uzbekistan invaded India with regularity. The invaders always managed to surprise the Indian kingdoms who were never prepared for the invasions. The invaders always had better technology, better weapons and they always won over larger Indian armies. 

India was probably the richest country in the world at that time. So first the raids were simply intended to plunder and take the loot back. Then the invaders began staying back and occupying Indian territory . In a series of dynasties, the invaders from the northwest ruled Delhi . In 1300, Allah-ud-Din Khilji, the Turko-Afghan ruler, invaded and plundered south India . The subjugation of India was completed by Akbar, the 3rd Moghul in late 1500s.  

It is not that Indians were not brave. There are tales of extraordinary bravery by Indian men and women over the past 10 centuries. It is just that, baring a couple of exceptions, barring a 150-year interlude, Indians were never winners. They almost always lost, despite bravery, despite greater numbers, despite fighting on their own terrain.

By late 1500, it had become clear to India ‘s local kingdoms that fighting and resisting the invaders meant destruction while a surrender allowed survival. Akbar achieved this psychological supremacy by brilliantly adding carrots to the heavy stick. The local kings who surrendered and cooperated were treated with semi-respect and allowed to keep their kingdoms. Virtually, all kings in the northwest and the north surrendered. Akbar gave glorious titles to the kings who accepted his sovereign rule, titles that these Indian kings wore with pride. These kings began giving their daughters to the Delhi rulers in marriage, a traditional gift from a defeated king. 

The one valiant exception in north India was Chittod. When it finally fell to Akbar, Akbar reportedly ordered a general carnage. That battle was the end of Chittod and today, it lies in ruins. This destruction taught North Indian Kings that that those who surrender become rich & elite, while those who fight are ruined. The descendents of these Kings remain rich to this day. 

The British did exactly what Akbar had done. They had it easier. For 700 years before them, north India had become accustomed to surrender and acceptance of the dominant military. The British persuaded weaker Kings to outsource their military to the British. With their superior technology, the British used the Indian armies to defeat the rivals of their allied kings. Slowly the British took over the weaker kingdoms one by one. The Akbar story was repeated. The kings who surrendered to the British remain rich to this day. Their descendants own opulent palaces and some of them are ministers in today’s Indian cabinet. The British followed Akbar’s tactic of showering titles on important Indians who expressed loyalty to them. To this day, even after 60 years of independence, Indians proudly display their British-given titles. 

But those who fought the British for their country, their palaces, their forts, their homes, their businesses were destroyed by the British and no trace can be found of their descendants.

  
 (palace in Jaipur – surrendered to Akbar)                     (palace in Jaipur – surrendered to Akbar)

     
      (palace in Jodhpur – surrendered to Akbar)                (Fort in Jaipur – surrendered to Akbar)

   
      (palace in Gwalior – surrendered to British)             (palace in Jaipur – surrendered to Akbar)

    
       (ruins of Chittod – Fought Khilji to Akbar)            (Shaniwar Vada – Palace of Maratha PM)
                                                                   (Fought the British till the end)
                                                              (palace burned to the ground in 1828)

When you look at the pictures above, you understand why Indians prefer to surrender than to fight and why they simply give up when the going gets tough. It has been bred into them for the past 1,000 years.

This posture, imbibed over centuries of foreign subjugation, was vividly described by Greg Chappell, ex-captain of Australian cricket team & ex-coach of Indian cricket team:

• “The culture of India is such that, if you put your head above the parapet someone will shoot it. Knock your head off. So they learn to keep their head down and not take responsibility…”
• “The Poms (British) taught them really well to keep their head down. For if someone was deemed to be responsible, they’d get punished. So the Indians have learned to avoid responsibility. So before taking responsibility for any decisions, they prefer not to…”
•  

The above might explain why Indian TV guests refuse to protest when their names are mangled by European-American anchors. They are afraid that such defiance might lead to their banishment from  American TV networks. So better to suffer the indignity than give up the honor of being seen on National TV.  

Violence Directed Inwards

India always was and remains a violent society. When Indian Kings surrendered to foreign invaders, they didn’t give up their competitive spirit, they simply redirected it inwards towards other Indians Kings. The Mughal rulers of Delhi encouraged this attitude and practice by constantly playing off one Indian King against the other. These warring Kings would take their quarrel to Delhi and Mughal ruler would decide the winner. 

This attitude and tendency was the principal medium for the British conquest. They used the warring Kings to their advantage, selected the winner and then in a few years, took over both the kingdoms. The British were much smaller in number than the Afghan invaders. So they maximized the various internal fissures within India and constantly manufactured fights that they then would adjudicate. 

This attitude continues to this day. In 1948, Nehru was persuaded by Louis Mountbatten to not take back Pakistani-occupied Kashmir by force but instead to take the dispute to the UN. To this day, Indian Prime Ministers publicly beg the World to do something about Pakistan , even though India is much bigger and militarily much stronger than Pakistan . The old Indian desire to invade and capture territory was totally vanquished first by Akbar and then by the British. 

You can see this attitude of servility towards winner foreigners and arrogance towards fellow Indians in just about every sphere. Just observe, for example, how Indians behave differently on Air India flights and United-Continental flights to New York . You saw this attitude during and after the disastrous cricket series against Australia in January 2012. Instead of summoning their collective resolve and battling against the Australian team, the stars of the Indian team simply gave up against Australians and then began fighting with each other to become the next captain.  

The Post-Independence Deterioration

The revolt against the British was led not by the north or northwest but by other states like Maharashtra, Gujarat and Bengal . The early fight for Independence was launched by Lokmanya Tilak in Pune, the capital of the Maratha Empire, the last Indian regime. There were many others who fought along side Tilak in Maharashtra . After Tilak, the leadership of the Independence movement went to Mahatma Gandhi from Gujarat . The state of Bengal on the northeastern coast was also the seat of freedom struggle. Subhash Chandra Bose was the most prominent leader from Bengal . He escaped from the British, went to Germany, then to Japan to raise a Free India Army from the Indian soldiers captured by the Japanese. He & his Free India army did more to make the British leave than just about anyone else. 

India became a one-person, one-vote electocracy after independence in 1947. In such a system, the states with the largest populations win. And so in Independent India the winners are the northern states, the same states that never won a victory against any invader, the same states that were the first to surrender to foreigners, the same states that have lived supinely under foreign occupation for 1,000 years. 

Slowly and surely, their influence has grown in India . Their language is gaining in use nationwide. They are being catered to by India ‘s media, by Bollywood as well as Television soaps. And states like Maharashtra, Gujarat and Bengal . the stalwarts in the fight against the British, are slowly succumbing to the influence of north-Indian customs and culture. 

As a result, instead of becoming mentally stronger, instead of inculcating tenacity, instead of building an aggressive fighting spirit, India is becoming more prone to giving up and breaking down. 

An exercise for readers

If you are of Indian origin, close your eyes and think of a conqueror, a victor from your province, someone who fought an invader and won, . Think of an inspirational, stirring victory of  your community, one that can inspire in you the tenacity, the sheer indomitable will to fight hard when your back is against the wall. If you can, you are one of the very few and fortunate Indians.

If you are not of Indian origin, ask an Indian friend, an Indian acquaintance to tell you about an Indian conquest, an Indian victory, one that touches them, one that lights up their soul. 

This simple exercise will tell you why fighting when their backs are to the wall, resisting indignities, standing up for their rights, is almost foreign to today’s Indians. You will see why, just like our professors above,  Indians tend to just give up despite their success, wealth or achievements. That is why today’s India tends to collapse so often and in so many areas.

Real India & Real Indian Culture 

What we discussed above is the culture of loser India , the India subjugated by the Muslims & British. That is not real India or Indian culture. The word ” India ” is derived from the culture developed on the banks of the Sindhu (or Indus ) river at the beginning of known time. India became and remained one of the most powerful and richest countries in the world. This was over a period of about 3,000 years from about 2,000 BCE to about 1,000 CE. This era is broadly divided into 3 main periods – the Vedic Age, the Imperial Unity Age that encompasses the first example below and the Classic Age, the Golden Age of India, that encompasses the second example below. 

India peaked as a strong, cohesive and aggressive society between 700-800 CE. India was probably the richest country in the world both because of its global trade and because of its internal vibrancy. Rome , at its glory, had an annual trade deficit of about 50 million sesteces with India . China ‘s Dynasties sent emissaries and scholars to Indian courts and Indian Universities. This India was backed by a massive military machine and India ‘s strength in metallurgy ensured an edge in weapons over invaders. 

This was the Indian society that marched into the territories of potential invaders and killed them in their own countries rather than wait for them to attack. Invaders considered great by outsiders were made to flee, routed and sometimes massacred. Allow us to mention just two invaders who are well known to European culture. 

Robert Kaplan mentions Alexander’s “disastrous retreat from India in 325 BCE” in his book “Monsoon”. Alexander had such a hard time defeating a mere satellite king of today’s Peshawar that his troops rebelled at the thought of facing the real Indian armies. His successor, the famous Selecus I (mural of whose reign adorns the lobby of Harvard Business School ) was routed by Chandra-Gupt Maurya and gave his daughter in marriage to Chandra-Gupt. 

Let us jump to the menace of Huns who ravaged Europe and brought the Roman empire to its knees. Their armies caused havoc and spread terror wherever they went. After destroying Persia , they turned to attack India around 450 CE. That was not today’s India . Crown Prince Skand-Gupt took an army from the capital in northeastern India to today’s Af-Pak area to engage the Huns. The battle was decisive and the Huns were massacred. Indian rule over Af-Pak was reestablished.

Between 700-900 CE, India became softer and turned its focus inward. The thirst of conquest metamorphosed into the thirst for eternal salvation of the soul. The glory of renunciation became the preferred trait. Invasions and conquests were considered passe and immoral. India slowly turned into a soft, nonbelligerent, rich society that was ripe for plucking. And by 1000 CE, the raids began. 

If modern India wants to get back to even a semblance of the ‘winner’ India , it basically has to go back to its roots. It has to reject what happened during the Muslim, Portuguese and British invasions. It may even have to embrace its attacking spirit once again. 

If you look closely, that is what Secretary Hillary Clinton seems to be urging. She spoke in Chennai, the seat of old Indian forays into South East Asia , and urged greater Indian involvement in ASEAN. She visited Kolkatta and urged both Indian Bengal & Bangladesh to build a highway from India across Bangladesh into Myanmar and then to Thailand . This would expand India ‘s scope into South East Asia . But today’s ‘educated’ Indians remain oblivious to Secretary Clinton’s message. 

Getting back to the old ‘winner’ India is not an impossible task. India is not old Babylon , old Egypt , old Greece . India is unique in that the old history, the old winning tradition is alive in the hearts of most core Indians. We are beginning to see Indians hark back to their real roots in small steps all over India . The only people who stand in the way are the two sets of ‘educated’ Indians and the Indian Government they influence. But more on that in another article.

by G Parthasarathy

MEETING officials and academics in Washington just prior to the Chicago Summit gave me an interesting insight into the mood in Washington, even as the “end game” in Afghanistan gets under way. Amidst much fanfare, President Obama administered two direct snubs to the Head of State of “major non-NATO ally,” Pakistan. After making it clear that he had no intention of meeting President Zardari unless the supply routes to Afghanistan from Pakistan were reopened, President Obama chose to conclude the Chicago Summit by paying handsome tribute to Russia and Central Asian countries, which had facilitated the transit of American supplies to Afghanistan, while pointedly excluding any mention of Pakistan.

Even American journalists and academics, who have for years been apologists for Pakistan’s military, now fret and fume at the very mention of its name. It is a pity that it was the affable President Zardari, and not the crusty and jihadi-oriented General Kayani, who was to be the Pakistani recipient of this American dressing down.

Nothing surprising emerged from the Chicago Summit, with NATO members falling in line for an extended commitment of assistance to Afghanistan, well beyond the day they would end combat operations. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen averred: “We will stay committed and see it to a successful end”.

Standing beside President Obama, President Karzai made it clear that Afghanistan intends to do its best to ensure that it “is no longer a burden on the shoulders of our friends in the international community”.

There is little doubt that if allowed to determine their own destiny, free from Pakistani malevolence, Afghanistan, which has huge natural resources of coal, copper, iron ore, cobalt, gold and lithium, estimated to be worth $1 trillion, can become an economically vibrant country. It could serve as a conduit for Central Asia’s natural gas to India. And, it has substantial potential for the export of agricultural products. But, will the Generals in Rawalpindi, blinded by their quest for “strategic depth” and “jihad” against India, even as their own country is consumed by extremist violence, have the good sense to allow this to happen?

The road map for future American policies was set out in the Strategic Partnership Agreement that President Obama signed with his Afghan counterpart of May 2, the first anniversary of the day the American Special Force targeted Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad and exposed to the world (but evidently not to our “romanticists” in Pakistan), the duplicity that characterises the policies of General Kayani and his cohorts. This agreement is valid till 2024.The Strategic Partnership Agreement confirms that American combat operations in Afghanistan will end in December 2014.

The US has, however, pledged to provide military assistance to Afghanistan “so that Afghanistan can independently secure and defend itself against internal and external threats, and help ensure that terrorists never again encroach on Afghan soil and threaten Afghanistan, the region and the world”. The assurance is, therefore, that Afghanistan will be assisted to deal not only with threats to its security, but also to eliminate terrorists who operate across international borders.

While the lead role for counter-insurgency operations will be handed over to the Afghans next May, after substantial reduction in force levels, the US and Afghanistan will have to negotiate a Bilateral Status of Forces Security Agreement in the next year to provide the framework for a continued presence of US forces in a counter terrorism role beyond December 2004.

Clearly recognising Russian and Iranian anxieties, the agreement stipulates that Afghan soil will not be used against any third country and includes an American assurance that it does not seek permanent facilities in Afghanistan.

Alluding to efforts for dialogue with the Taliban, the Afghan Government has pledged that any agreement reached with the Taliban “shall uphold the values of the Afghan Constitution”. While these affirmations may appear reassuring to some, one has to carefully see how the situation plays out in Afghanistan.

While American officials proclaim that the US will not leave Afghanistan till their task is completed, there is a body of Americans who feel that what happened following American military interventions in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somali could well be repeated. There is, however, realisation that an ignominious withdrawal from Afghanistan will only embolden radical Islamists to target American interests across the world.

While the Americans and their NATO partners have been able to hold firm in rejecting Pakistani conditions and extortionist demands for reopening of supply lines to Afghanistan, it is evident that the process of American and NATO engagement with Pakistan will continue.

In the meantime, Pakistan’s economic woes are mounting as its internal debt reaches 65% of GDP and its external debt exceeds $60 billion. Pakistan has already defaulted on payments to foreign power producers. While General Kayani and his colleagues know that their grandiose plans for military modernisation will suffer grievously as the US Congress places tight conditions for further American assistance, the civilian government will have to face the public backlash, should it choose to reopen supply routes for the Americans. But it does appear a face-saving way will be found in course of time for reopening NATO supply routes in Pakistan, whose air space remains open for such supplies.

The focus of attention in the coming years is thus going to be on whether the Afghan forces will be able to hold major towns in Southern Afghanistan like Kandahar and Jalalabad in the face of Taliban attacks. It appears unlikely that the Afghan National Army (ANA) will be able to hold rural and mountainous areas near the Durand Line, particularly in South-Eastern Afghanistan. This will necessitate a continuing “counter-terrorism” role for the Americans.

There are, however, doubts if the war-weary American public will relish this. So an important question which remains is whether the Americans will fulfill their commitment to ensure that “terrorists never again encroach on Afghan soil and threaten Afghanistan, the region and the world”.

Pakistan has two alternatives to choose from. The first will be to join the international community and regional powers in building a stable and self-reliant Afghanistan through regional trade, oil and gas pipelines and development of Afghanistan’s vast resources of gold, copper, lithium, coal and iron ore. India and China are already in the process of investment in resources like iron ore, coal and copper and in oil exploration and steel. Alternatively, General Kayani can continue on the present path of jihad and “strategic depth,” unleashing more destruction and misery on the hapless people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

During the controversy over the Joint Parliamentary Committee in Parliament, Union finance minister Pranab Mukherjee stated on February 21, 2011, “Parliament cannot be mortgaged to the conceding of a demand”, warning that if “hatred for the parliamentary institution was generated, it will lead to the rise of extra-constitutional authority as in the neighbouring country in 1958 when martial law was declared”. It is indeed surprising that 63 years after Independence, and in spite of the Indian Army’s proven apolitical record, a senior and experienced political leader should fear a military coup. No responsible leader in the West would express such a fear, even though the UK had a Cromwell and France a Napoleon.

Supremacy of the civil over the military is an imperative for a functioning democracy. Even in colonial India, the Viceroy, representing civil authority, was supreme. The Curzon-Kitchener dispute did not question this. It was related to organisational matters and functioning procedures. Till Independence, the Commander-in-Chief in India also held political authority in his additional capacity as War Member and senior member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council. Thus, in a way, he was both the Defence Minister and the deputy Prime Minister. The Defence Secretary was his subordinate. Till 1920 this appointment was held by a major general, but thereafter a civil servant started holding this office. Before Independence, the role of the Defence Secretary was limited to issuing government letters, as worked out by military officers with military finance, answering questions in the Central Legislative Assembly, interacting with other ministries and provincial governments, and looking after Defence lands. He hardly had any say in decisions pertaining to military matters. After Independence, a radical change took place. The Defence Minister now controlled the Defence Services and the Defence Secretary, as his staff officer, became a key functionary. The civil service lobby tried to get a higher protocol status for the Defence Secretary than the Service Chiefs on the analogy of other ministries in which departmental heads are subordinated to their concerned secretary. Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India, torpedoed this and the Service Chiefs retained their higher status vis-à-vis the Defence Secretary. This continues to be so but the latter has acquired a higher functional status. Service Chiefs have to put up papers to the Defence Minister through the Defence Secretary. In 1962, when the appointment of Cabinet Secretary was introduced, a higher protocol status was accorded to him than the Service Chiefs. As secretary-general in the 1940, Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai did not have this high status. When General Manekshaw was promoted Field Marshal, a unique ceremonial rank, his protocol status was kept lower than the Cabinet Secretary. No wonder the funeral of the military leader, under whom we achieved the greatest victory of Indian arms of the last millennium, was a tame affair. The Government of India was represented by a minister of state at his funeral. The funeral of the Duke of Wellington was not only attended by the head of state and head of government of his country, but of several European countries. The colonial pattern of administration, in which the generalist civil servant exercises authority over the specialist professional, obtains in ministries of Government of India like health, home, transport, agriculture and so on. This pattern was now introduced in the Defence Ministry. The Railway Ministry has been an exception. The Railway Board, comprising specialists, interacts directly with the minister. This is like the service councils in Defence ministries of democracies in the West. In our higher Defence Organisation, the civilian bureaucrat has a complete stranglehold. The supremacy of the civil has come to mean the supremacy of the civil servant.

As per our Constitution, the Supreme Commander of the Defence Forces is the President, like the US President is the Commander-in-Chief of American Defence Forces. In 1955, our Commanders-in-Chief were designated Chiefs of Staff. This has been a misnomer as they continue to function as before. They are separate entities from the ministry. They cannot take any governmental decisions nor do they have direct functional access to the minister. The committee system introduced after Independence at the instance of Lord Ismay, the great expert on higher Defence organisation, provided for participation of Defence officers in decision-making. This has been gradually scuttled. The Defence Services have been increasingly isolated from the process of decision-making in military matters. In 1962, Jawaharlal Nehru, on his way to Sri Lanka, told the press that he had ordered the Army to throw out the Chinese from the Himalayas. The Army Chief was reduced to asking a joint secretary in the Defence Ministry to give him that order in writing. The latter promptly obliged. The rest is history. This incident shows that the Army Chief had not been consulted before that grave decision was taken. After the 1962 war, I was sent on battlefield tour from the Staff College to formulate our training doctrine on mountain warfare. I came to the conclusion that our debacle in the Himalayas was largely due to our faulty higher Defence Organisation.

The reports of several parliamentary committees urging organisational reforms were ignored. On March 25, 1955, addressing Parliament about designating the Service Chiefs as Chiefs of Staff, Nehru stated that Service Headquarters will be integrated with the ministry of defence and gradually the council system will be introduced.The civil bureaucracy has been much too entrenched in seats of power to allow this to happen. After the Kargil war, the Kargil Review Committee set up a working group on Defence under former union Minister of state for Defence Arun Singh. He requested me for a draft on our higher Defence Organisation. I was then governor of Assam. I made out a draft recommending introduction of the appointment of Chief of Defence Staff and integration of Services Headquarters with the Defence Ministry. My draft and recommendations were incorporated by him in his report. The Group of Ministers approved these recommendations but the entrenched bureaucracy derailed them. A headless Integrated Defence Staff without a Chief of Defence Staff was set up, defeating its very purpose. A meaningless cosmetic integration of Services Headquarters with the MoD has been carried out. The civilian bureaucracy has been playing on the fears of the political leadership of the man on horseback, and with the latter’s lack of knowledge and interest in matters military, has managed to have its way. Our national interests and Defence functioning continue to suffer. The Defence Services receive step-motherly treatment. India is the only country in the world without a Chief of Defence Staff or equivalent and with a MoD working on a “we and they” syndrome, rather than an “us” outlook. This gravely undermines our Defence preparedness and our ability to face the current very serious national security challenges.

Veteran Lt Gen SK Sinha, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as Governor of Assam and Jammu & Kashmir