Dear Manohar Parrikar, Indian Army is fighting battles everyday to keep this country stable
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said in a seminar in Jaipur on Sunday that the respect for the country's army has diminished because India hasn't gone to a war in the last 40-50 years. He defended his remark saying he isn't favour of wars but felt the soldiers have lost their importance.
Late American author-politician George S McGovern had once said: "I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in." Had he been alive today, what would be his reaction to Parrikar's statement?
Dear Minister, is this jingoism or an effort to woo soldier fraternity after the OROP disappointment?
Though
the
BJP
has
stood
by
Parrikar's
side,
but
what
was
the
need
for
the
latter
for
making
such
a
remark?
Is
he
trying
to
show
a
jingoist
side
of
his
government
or
buying
more
time
in
the
One
Rank
One
Pension
issue
by
showering
praise
on
the
army
in
general?
Was
the
latest
remark
aimed
at
Pakistan
again?
One
fears
what
Parrikar
said
was
a
genuine
reflection
of
right-wing
thinking.
He
and
some
other
ministers
of
the
Narendra
Modi
government
were
seen
issuing
strong
statements
on
Pakistan
following
a
retaliatory
action
by
the
Indian
Army,
reportedly
in
Myanmar
territory.
One
suspects
Sunday's
remark
is
an
extension
of
the
same
mission
of
indirectly
targetting
the
hostile
neighbour.
But
dear
Mr
Parrikar,
India
is
not
the
United
States
of
America,
even
the
people
of
which
have
not
been
impressed
by
their
former
war-monger
president.
Indian
Army
is
fighting
battles
at
the
borders
and
inside
the
country
to
keep
the
country
stable;
it
is
also
saving
helpless
citizens
during
natural
disasters
How does the army lose its sheen if it's not fighting a war? The Indian Army is always engaged in a serious conflict in the borders against elements backed by external enemies and inside the country against domestic menace. Have we seen a drop in the army's casualty figures if indeed the soldiers are sitting idle and losing their edge?
An army is not evaluated by wars it fights but by its commitment to the nation
Do we respect our soldiers less despite seeing them risking their lives to save helpless civilians during devastating natural disasters, both at home and abroad?
When Saurabh Kalias are killed in wars, then why their cases are not pursued?
Moreover,
the
NDA
government
couldn't
take
forward
the
case
of
Saurabh
Kalia,
who
was
mercilessly
killed
during
the
Kargil
War,
which
was
not
even
a
full-fledged
war,
in
1999.
It
hasn't
succeeded
to
help
the
slain
soldier's
family
get
justice
so
far
in
its
latest
stint.
And
here
we
have
a
defence
minister
who
is
speaking
in
favour
of
war
as
a
means
to
heighten
the
army's
stature.
The
world
has
shunned
the
war
route
today
The
world
is
not
taking
the
war's
route
any
more.
We
have
seen
how
devastating
wars
have
proved
for
the
entire
world.
'Peace' is
a
term
that
the
entire
planet
has
struggled
to
achieve,
irrespective
of
endless
talks
and
signing
of
instruments
to
end
conflicts.
If
India
is
doing
well
economically,
it
is
because
it
has
not
gone
to
any
war
If India has seen its economy grow decently since the dawn of liberalisation (we are not debating at what percentage did the economy grow under separate governments), one of the big reasons is that it has not gone to any kind of military mission that could impact its resources adversely. Look at countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq... how much have they gained from their wars? And how much have their armies gained from bloodsheds?
India already has enough problems, is there any need to turn jingoist?
Such jingoism is not required when India has enough problems in its hand already. If Parrikar wanted to boost the army's psyche, which is a good thing to do since India is always surrounded by hostile elements, he could have done it in a better way. Linking war with soldier's good health is not a desirable thing to do.
Are our nuclear weapons also getting rusted because they are being unused?