Insulting and demonising others has become an attention-grabbing strategy for some of our politicians. They need to know where to stop
After the Indian Army chief being compared with the infamous General Dyer by social scientist Partha Chatterjee, Congress leader Sandeep Dikshit’s statement, calling him a “sadak ka goonda”, is the second personal attack on General Bipin Rawat within 10 days. later, after having faced criticism, Dikshit promptly apologised, saying, “I have reservations on a comment of the Army chief, but I should have chosen appropriate words. I apologise.” On the other hand, Chatterjee is still unapologetic.
However, the story is not just about Dikshit and Chatterjee. There is, in fact, a long list of politicians and also intellectuals who have shown disrespect to the Army and other institutions, either by words or deeds. The communists often accuse the Army of rape and human right violations under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act . Two weeks ago, in Kerala, Communist Party of India(Marxist) secretary, Kodiyeri Balakrishnan, accused the Army of behaving unlawfully, random-shooting and raping women.
The communists’ stand can be understood as they believe in a totalitarian state where there is no space for the ideals of mutual respect and separation of power within the arms of the state. For them, the Army is nothing more than an armed cadre of the ruling party at the Centre. The problem, however, deepens when a national party like the Congress, which has had a rich history, starts dragging the Army into political debate. In October last year, soon after the surgical strikes, not only Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal demanded proof of the strikes but even Congress leaders like Sanjay Nirupam and P Chidambaram raised doubts over its validity. This reached to the limit that Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of doing “khoon ki dalali”.
A similar attitude was visible in regional parties too. In 2013, former Rural Works and Panchayati Raj minister of Bihar, Bhim Singh, when asked about the absence of ministers of the Janata Dal (United) when the bodies of four Army men, who died on the line of Control (loC) reached Patna, he tried trivialising the matter saying, “People join Army or police for shahadat (martyrdom)”. Rashtriya Janata Dal’s Shiv Narayan Yadav allegedly justified the killing of 18 soldiers in Uri attack.
When the nation was mourning the loss of Ummer Fayaz, an Army officer who was kidnapped and killed by suspected militants in Shopian district, former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Akhilesh Yadav, was busy asking questions about the Provinces from which the martyrs belong. He asked, “Why is that there is not one martyr from GujaratIJ”.
There can be two explanations to this phenomenon. The Opposition comes up with such reactions due to political frustration. Surely, opposition parties have been rapidly receding ground against the BJP’s appropriation of nationalism. It can also be said that their attack on the Army, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the BJP and also the Prime Minister, is a sign of desperation. This theory succeeds in explaining the statements of Rahul Gandhi, Nirupam and Dikshit but fails to explain the objectionable comments on soldiers by BJP-backed Maharashtra’s Member of legislative Assembly Prashant Paricharak, who is facing suspension of one-and-a-half years for the same.
There are two basic problems. First, most of our political and intellectual class constitutes of privileged sections of society and have a superiority complex. They believe they have the right to disrespect our laws and institutions. Second, is the high command and supremo culture. Such attitude gives rise to a political system where insulting, disrespecting and demonising the opponents becomes the way to gain prominence. These people do not understand the fact that along with debate and discussions, a democracy is also about respecting the institution; of knowing individuals; as well as the limitations of the institution.
They do not seem to comprehend to the fact that for the larger interest of the country, the military’s conduct must not be made a subject of partisan political debate. The political environment is so much infested that even those with a humble background are giving up their modesty and hurting sentiments of others. For example, in Bihar, a vehicle carrying the dead bodies of the Central Reserve Police Force martyrs, was stopped to allow the smooth passage of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s cavalcade.
In India, we are fortunate to have an Army which knows its limitations; unlike the Pakistan Army. The Indian Army has never ever stepped in the shoes of the politicians. And, it is disheartening that when the Pakistani troops were shelling the Indian forward posts and the civilians, areas along the loC in Jammu division, instead of standing with the Army, our politicians were giving statements against the Army chief. It will be better if Dikshit, before lecturing the Army chief on the depth and gentleness of the Indian Army and its culture, learns the history of his party, particularly the relations of mutual respect which Indira Gandhi had with the Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw.
(The writer is a post-graduate student, Centre for Informal Sector and labour Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University)