Each person draws lessons his own way. Sir Bertrand Russell explaining the theory of relatively once stated, “If everything was relative to one another there would be nothing for it to be from”. He further stated that each person measures time his own way, a girl and a boy travelling would find the train journey engrossing, a flea travelling in the same compartment fulfilling, a sick man nerve wracking and so on. Similarly hearing the speech of Shashi Tharoor and now reading his book one wonders how did a nation that can be pointed out on a world map with a pencil; rule a subcontinent that is nearly the size of a clenched fist. How did four thousand British civil servants rule four crores Indian citizens for nearly two hundred years? The answer is simple -- lack of unity and cohesive defence structure.
Are we repeating the same mistake, which allowed the invasion of India from the Delhi Sultanate until 1947? Do we as a nation, even though we boast of Chanakya, subconsciously lower the defence forces for vested interests; are we not learning from our history.

 
Tharoor’s book places historical facts in the correct perspective; the nation was famous for its wealth. At the beginning of eighteen century, India’s share of world economy was 23 percent writes Tharoor. Today the United States represents 24.32 percent of the world economy. If one were to say that the Indian economy of that time was as much as the American economy of today and yet India was enslaved for two hundred years the magnitude of the effect is very demoralizing. What went wrong needs more than a serious introspection?  The Indian economy in 2017 is 2.83% of the world economy the seventh largest yet in GDP terms India spends 1.65% on defence. This is a poor amount as today India is one of the few countries in the world that has a two and half front hybrid threat from the second largest world economic power and the centre of terror factory. What is even worse is that the civil military chasm is at its deepest with lack of civil military leadership and recently a general officer of the army wrote on the poor state of generalship in the Army quoting instances from 1947 onwards.

Besides Sardar Patel, who was the home minister on independence yet showed remarkable qualities as a civil military leader, India has a poor track record of civil military leadership? The current defence minister is keener on Mr. Robert Vadra and merely having a cup of tea on Diwali with Jawans does not settle the civil military divide. Morale is the key, some issues and policy decisions taken such as stopping of entitled rations in peace for officers and equating officers up to Majors with group B service, the case is due for hearing on 26 October are all issues which affect the “Izzat and in turn the Morale of the Service.”   The recent statement after the Army Commanders conference regarding Combat and Service Arms just shows that certain issues are reaching boiling point and need immediate attention.
The answers are known to all just as the problems are. India just needs the political will to bridge the gap between the political class and the Army, even if it means amending the Conduct of Business Rules of the Government of India. The second issue is arming the soldier such that he has the confidence in his weapon, it should not be a product of the L1 (lowest rate tender), but a weapon tailor made and designed to kill, not injure. The 5.56 rifle was not meant to kill it was meant to injure being more accurate, so as to increase the logistics train of the affected nation. Soldiers except Special Forces fight militants with a rifle meant to injure, why?  If India had good civil military relationship and leadership, made in India would have happened in 1947, the armed forces headquarters would not be attached to ministry of defence and peace and a single front war would have been a reality. Is this the price of peace?

(The writer is an Indian Army veteran and author of books Gorkha: In Search Of Identity and Gorkha: Society and Politics)