English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest Politics News

Surgical strike overhyped, bad to politicise military operations: General who oversaw operation

Published

on

Surgical strike overhyped, bad to politicise military operations: General who oversaw operation

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]While Prime Minister Narendra Modi, his party and other ardent followers have never stopped taking credit for PM’s boldness and bravery for the surgical strikes Indian troops carried out on terror launch pads across the Line of Control in the wake of the Uri attack in 2016, a retired army officer who oversaw the operation has criticised the hype and the attempt to gain political mileage out of it.

Lt General (retired) DS Hooda, who was the Northern Army Commander in September 2016 and oversaw the Indian army’s surgical strikes, said too much of hype over the operation did not help and it is not good when army operations get politicised, reported The India Express (IE).

According to a report in The Hindustan Times, he said: “The military leadership must guard against becoming a tool in the hands of politicians. We can’t take military action to suit someone politically.” He added that though the action needed publicity to boost soldiers’ morale, the excess hype and political one-upmanship around it was uncalled for.

The veteran was moderating a session on the “Role of cross-border operations and surgical strikes” on Day 1 of the Military Literature Festival organised by the Punjab government at Lake Club in Chandigarh on Friday.

Hooda said following the surgical strikes, there were accusations that the issue had been politicised, that there was an “attempt to keep a purely military operation in the political domain by selective leaks of videos, photographs etc”.

“Did the overhype help? I say, completely no. If you start having political resonance in military operations, it is not good. There was too much political banter, on both sides, and when military operations get politicised, that is not good,” he said. On the possibility of the strikes impacting the thought process of decision-makers in future operations, the former Army Commander said “if you hype a successful operation, then even success has its burden”.

“Will we think next time (what) if there are casualties? Because it has been so overhyped, will it impose caution on leadership? What happens if it does not have the same level of success? It may impose some caution in future. If we had done it quietly, it would have been much better,” he said.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1544274175251{border-top-width: 10px !important;border-right-width: 10px !important;border-bottom-width: 10px !important;border-left-width: 10px !important;padding-top: 10px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #bcbcbc !important;border-radius: 10px !important;}”]Army Chief General Bipin Rawat on Saturday said that he respects the view of Lt General DS Hooda (retd) on surgical strikes being over hyped as Hooda was a part of the operation.

“These are individual person’s perceptions so let’s not comment on them. He was one of the main persons involved in conduct of these operations so I respect his words very much,” said Rawat.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Responding to remarks from panelists that the strikes were purely tactical in nature with short-term goals and of no strategic value to deter the Pakistan Army from backing future terror attacks, Hooda said: “When we were planning it, there was no thought in our mind that Pakistan will stop doing Uri-like incidents. At least in the Northern Command, there was simplicity of purpose. For us, it was very simple,” he said.

He said ever since 2013-end, terrorists had been coming from across the LoC to attack Army installations in Samba, Hiranagar, Janglote, Pathankot and Uri. “Since July 2016, Army had been under pressure due to protests following (militant commander) Burhan Wani’s death. The Chief of Army Staff flew in and we went to Uri. We walked in three-inch-deep ashes of the camp which had been attacked. There was no doubt in our mind that we had to do something and we had to hit Pakistan camps across the LoC. You may call it revenge but in our mind, this had to be done,” he said.

The aim of the strikes, he said, could not have been fulfilled through artillery fire. “We had had massive artillery duels but it was not helping. Planning had been going on in advance. We pulled out our old plans, refurbished them a bit and sent the Special Forces across. Should it have been publicised? There was no option. Too many questions were being asked. The media and our own Army soldiers were asking, ‘what are we doing about so many deaths of soldiers’,” he said.

He said following the surgical strikes, the Army noted a “fair amount of panic” on the Pakistani side. “Their leaves were cancelled. We caught their chatter on radio. There was talk that we might repeat it in some area. There was fair amount of shock on their part as to how have these guys come in and done this operation. This did impose caution on them in some limited sense,” he said.

Responding to a question from the audience, Hooda said in hindsight, it would have been better had the strikes been done secretly.

He also added that it was not that the directions to carry strike came from the political bosses. “It was purely a military decision,” he added.

“It was natural to have initial euphoria about the success but the constant maintenance of hype around the military operations was unwarranted. It should have been kept quiet,” Hooda concluded.

Some of the noted veterans who were part of the panel discussion, also questioned the publicity given to the surgical strike saying that glorification of the military operation was unwarranted, as it could not serve any major tactical or strategic purpose.

Other officers agreed with Gen Hooda

Veterans were also of the view that the much touted surgical strikes had failed to deter Pakistan, which was continuously infiltrating on Indian soil even after that.

Noted military veteran, Lt Gen NS Brar (retd), who had also served as member of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), even cautioned the Centre asking, “Whether the political head would have owned the responsibility had there been causalities in the surgical strike.” He said that it was difficult to assume that the September 2016 strikes forced the Pakistan to change or review their policy.

Gen Brar added that in future there was need to have long term impact on the enemy while conducting such operation. He gave an example of air strikes carried out by Israel in 1981, on Iraq’s nuclear sites causing huge damage.

Former Deputy Chief of the Army Staff (DCAS) Lt Gen JS Cheema (retd) said that it was too simplistic to assume that Pakistan would rethink its course of action against India after the much advertised surgical strikes. He, however, said that the operation was successful and had boosted the morale of troops.

Another noted veteran and an expert on defence and strategic issues, Col Ajay Shukla (retd) said that there was nothing new in the surgical strike, as this is a way of life for the troops at the Line of Control. He added that the excessive publicity of the September 2016 strikes, which had in fact been a reactionary strike conducted after the Pathankot and Uri attacks, had set a dangerous benchmark for the Indian political dispensation, which they would find difficult to maintain in the eventuality of future terror attacks.

“Success has its burden, Pakistan had in fact been emboldened by the strikes as they knew now that the Indian government would be always be under immense pressure to strike across the border after each terror attack,” Col Shukla added.

The event was attended by Punjab governor VP Singh Badnore and former Army chief, General VP Malik amongst a battery of former generals and Army commanders.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

INDIA bloc likely to meet on September 30 over Gyanesh Kumar row

INDIA bloc parties are likely to meet in New Delhi on September 30 amid growing opposition to Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Published

on

Rahul-Gandhi

Opposition parties belonging to the INDIA bloc are set to meet in New Delhi on September 30 to discuss concerns surrounding the Election Commission, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and a proposed removal motion against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The proposed meeting comes amid growing coordination among opposition parties over the functioning of the poll panel and demands for action against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The parties are also discussing a possible joint response to the developments.

Why is the INDIA bloc meeting being planned?

The INDIA bloc meeting on September 30 comes amid reports of objections within the Election Commission over certain decisions and orders related to the SIR exercise. 

According to the report, Opposition leaders have been discussing a coordinated response to their concerns over the Election Commission and the electoral-roll revision process. 

The issue is also expected to be discussed at the Congress Working Committee meeting scheduled for September 29, a day before the proposed INDIA bloc meeting.

Gyanesh Kumar removal demand in focus

The demand for the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has become a major point of contention between the Opposition and the Election Commission.

The CPI(M), CPI and CPI(ML)-Liberation have demanded Kumar’s removal and an immediate halt to the SIR exercise. Congress has also intensified its criticism of the CEC.

Opposition parties are also working on a fresh removal motion against Gyanesh Kumar. The September 30 meeting is expected to finalise the strategy for the motion, including the collection of signatures. According to the report, this would be the Opposition’s third such attempt. 

What is the SIR controversy?

The political dispute is linked to the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, or SIR.

The controversy intensified following a report that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had recorded objections on several occasions concerning decisions and orders related to the SIR process.

The Election Commission has said that differing views and observations are part of normal deliberations in a multi-member constitutional body. The poll panel has also maintained that its orders have legal sanction and follow statutory procedures, while stating that the final decisions on the SIR were taken unanimously. 

TMC and Left parties coordinate over the issue

The developments have also brought the Trinamool Congress and the CPI(M) together on the Election Commission issue, despite their political differences in West Bengal.

CPI(M) general secretary M A Baby proposed an immediate meeting to discuss a joint strategy. According to the report, Mamata Banerjee spoke with M A Baby and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, after which the leaders settled on September 30 for the meeting. 

What could be discussed at the September 30 meeting?

The proposed meeting is expected to focus on:

  • Concerns surrounding the Election Commission
  • The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls
  • Opposition demands concerning CEC Gyanesh Kumar
  • A possible fresh removal notice against the CEC
  • A coordinated response by INDIA bloc parties

The exact agenda and participation will depend on the discussions among the opposition parties before the proposed meeting.

Continue Reading

India News

Gandhi Parivar vs Sangh Parivar, Revanth Reddy’s remark sparks BJP attack

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks contrasting the Gandhi Parivar with the Sangh Parivar triggered a BJP response accusing Congress of prioritising the Gandhi family.

Published

on

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks comparing the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar have triggered a political exchange, with the BJP hitting back at the Congress leader.

Speaking in Kerala on Friday, Mr Reddy described the contest over India’s future as a fight between the two “parivars”. He said the Gandhi family had made sacrifices for the country while accusing the Sangh Parivar of attempting to divide India on the basis of religion, caste, region and language.

What Revanth Reddy said

Mr Reddy cited Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi while speaking about what he described as sacrifices made by the Gandhi family.

He also referred to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi, saying they had given up positions, power and high office.

The Telangana Chief Minister said he had no remaining personal political ambitions and described his objective as working towards a Congress-led government at the Centre with Rahul Gandhi as Prime Minister.

Mr Reddy also appealed to people to stand with the Gandhi Parivar and oppose the Sangh Parivar. He described the latter as a threat to India’s democracy.

BJP hits back

The BJP responded to Mr Reddy’s remarks on Saturday.

BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said the Telangana Chief Minister’s comments amounted to an admission that Congress’s objective was to bring the Gandhi family back to power.

He also linked Mr Reddy’s remarks to the ongoing political debate around “vote chori”, the Election Commission, the Constitution and democracy, arguing that the Congress’s focus was instead on the Gandhi family.

The exchange adds to the political confrontation between the BJP and Congress, with Mr Reddy presenting the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar as opposing forces in India’s political future, while the BJP has interpreted his remarks as evidence of Congress’s focus on the Gandhi family.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

on

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com