It has been two weeks since the army chief named political parties in a seminar on the North East, yet the controversy over those remarks continues to simmer. Even earlier his comments on Kashmir and seeking a Bharat Ratna for Field Marshal Cariappa had come in for criticism.

He speaks as a true soldier would, direct and to the point, informing the nation of the problems borne from political errors. His naming two specific political parties or suggesting a Bharat Ratna has been considered by some as diverting from the apolitical stance of the army. This accusation is debatable.

In India, the armed forces have been kept away from government decision-making for too long. Their advice is never sought while they are involved in resolving situations created due to political blundering. Looking back at history, there are a few examples of major political errors that led to situations which the army continues to battle. Avoiding it in the future would benefit the nation.

After the 1965 war, the government handed back Haji Pir Pass to Pakistan, a decision which haunts us today. It was captured with a prohibitive cost of lives and has immense strategic value. It is amongst the main routes through which infiltration attempts are launched.

After 1971, despite holding all aces, India lost the moment when Kashmir and Siachen could have been settled permanently. Army advice was never sought and the result is well known. Siachen and Kashmir remain combat zones.

The government permitted and justified illegal immigration into the North East even passing the Illegal Migrants Determination by Tribunal (IMDT) act in 1983, authorizing change of demography in Assam.

Though the act was struck down by the Supreme Court as illegal, the damage had already been done. The state has over six million illegal immigrants, which has led to regular clashes and violence. It has benefitted the AIUDF, whom the army chief referred to in his speech.

In Kashmir, when it was initially on the boil, requisitioning of the army was delayed, resulting in massacres and mass migration of Kashmiri Pundits, changing the demography forever. Even at present, stone pelters are being pardoned, while those that fire in self-defence are being questioned.

Appeasement of the population continues, while the army bears the brunt. Appeasement actions never involve army advice, though it remains the only organisation with contact at the grass roots level and doing more for the welfare of people than even the local government.

Despite the army raising the issue of the presence of Rohingyas around Jammu as also the security and demographic risk they project in multiple forums, little has been done, solely because state governments are concerned with vote banks. Their increased presence would enhance security problems, which the army would be compelled to battle in the days ahead.

Internally, political blunders have resulted in large-scale riots, with the army being called in to restore peace, Godhra, Panchkula and Haryana being examples. When agencies fail to produce results or complete their assigned tasks within a stipulated period the army is rushed in.

Constructing stands for the Sri Sri event in Delhi, Foot Over Bridges in Mumbai or even laying mats for International Yoga day are some examples. When state governments fail to clear the muck dumped by tourists who visit their remote areas, it is the army which is tasked.

The army chief represents the force which is most in demand across the nation, always there to resolve problems created by governments that seek to protect vote banks. Hence, sharing the concerns of the force is logical and should be accepted. Similarly, if political parties can criticise the army for every action which it takes, there is no reason for the army not sharing its concerns on political blunders.

If soldiers are being martyred because of poor political decisions, then the chief is right to comment on such issues. His words should be accepted in the right spirit; after all, the army is resolving what politics either created or failed to resolve. Naming political parties is no crime. He has neither suggested that the party be banned, nor that voters ignore them.

He has stated facts and as an Indian citizen he has his rights. His wearing the uniform does not take away the rights granted by the Constitution, neither does his holding the office of COAS debar him from speaking his mind. His comments were neither political nor was he conveying that the army is saffronized.

Critics should realize that this is no longer the period covered by the historic poem, ‘Charge of the Light Brigade,’ written by Lord Tennyson. Its famous lines, ‘There’s not to make reply, there’s not to reason why, there’s to do and die’ wherein soldiers charged to their death despite knowing that the order was wrong and death imminent, are no longer valid. The soldier is educated and aware, hence would question wrong decisions.

Criticism of the chief flowed from those political parties whose follies either created the present situation or the ones that gained politically from them. Other arm chair critics are being either myopic or have yet to overgrow the Tennyson era, which is long past.

The army is presently more on the lines of what General Patton stated during World War II in his address to graduating cadets, “You don’t win a war by dying for your country, but by making the other soldier die for his”. The army has thinking generals who are responsible for their troops.

Hence speaking against what is harmful for their soldiers is legally and morally right. Soldiers can no longer be sent to slaughter due to political bungling. They also have a right to life. The chief’s comments should be understood, his advice seriously considered.

The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army