As an Indian Army veteran, I felt immensely proud to see a video in circulation on the brilliant demonstration given at the recent UNTCC Chiefs’ Conclave to 33 Service Chiefs and Senior officers from different countries in the presence of Gen Upendra Dwivedi, Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), by troops of 50 (I) Para Brigade at Agra. The demonstration on the art and craft of warfare, coordinated with high-end technology equipment and drones, has once again showcased the Brigade’s operational readiness; and indeed all need to be complimented.
However, what caught my eye was the demi-official (DO) appreciation letter written by the COAS to the Chief of the Central Army (Army Commander), complimenting him on the event, which is in circulation on social media and perhaps at the behest of the PRO/ADGPI under the aegis of the Press Information Bureau (PIB). While the letter is worded with deep thought and feeling and deserves to be applauded for the exquisite content, the letterhead of the page on which the ‘Shabashi’ is shared is the reason for my observation.
It has a number of insignias embossed, which makes me slightly quizzical on the rationale of such a missive, and I therefore flag the issue. In the letterhead, I see a large insignia embossed—‘Op Sindoor’, something to be obviously proud of, but it also carries a message with an added veneer that ‘Op Sindoor’ is the first successful mission carried out by the Indian Armed Forces, and perhaps the only operation that has brought laurels, does lead to such an inference.
‘Op Sindoor’ was an extremely well-coordinated four-day victory, which to some extent has changed the narrative of future wars in the subcontinent, but it certainly was not the only major operation (not even a full-fledged war) that was carried out by the Indian Army since the institution of the office of the COAS. Hence, my question is: Does ‘Op Sindoor’ merit an endorsement and find a ‘Pride of place’ on the letterhead of the Chief of the Army Staff?
To me, the insignia is reflective of a message beyond the intended message in the communication through the medium on which it has been conveyed.
‘Op Cactus Lily’, the nickname given to the 1971 Indo– Pak war under the military leadership of then Gen Sam Manekshaw, has, to date, been acknowledged as one of the most successful operations ever carried out by the Indian Army, wherein Bangladesh was created and 93,000 Pakistanis were taken as prisoners of war. I do not remember having seen the insignia of the nickname endorsed or embossed on any Chief’s letter heads. It may just be that the past wars and operations, which have not been fought by the present military leadership, are merely for posterity and to be safely archived. However, the religion-linked nickname given to the recent operation requires to be showcased on a pedestal.
Soldiers will follow instructions, but there is a need for the leadership to speak up and challenge when required. Such endorsements on a letterhead do raise red flags as those who fought bravely in other wars with equal vigour and more do get slighted on seeing such practices carried out in the Army. I am sure on the eve of Infantry Day (October 27), we need to celebrate all victories in equal measure with a blank space against any particular operational insignia being endorsed on the Institutional letterhead.
I further add that it was perhaps because of such observation that earlier Chiefs refrained from publicising a particular operation. The appreciations or otherwise and various views were conveyed verbally or by other means, like crypt messaging among others. Even as per the existing norms across world armies—as shared over social media—do mention that COAS' do not routinely publish open letters after military operations. Communications, if any, are typically internal, and public statements come in the form of official speeches, press releases or commendations. Historically, this has been the norm after having observed instances in the past wherein letters, which have become public, often involve controversy or internal assessments rather than leaning toward direct public messaging.
However, I guess the social environment has since changed and the colour of ‘OG’, ‘Blue’ and ‘White’ now merges to blend with other shades being prominently displayed across the country. These are the concerns, which we as a uniformed community (past and present) need to be sensitive and cautious and introspect appropriately for the supposed good of our military. For it is the little things which are often overlooked, and can be a cause for controversies in the future.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK.
