sanjay-o-vaach open hearts dead brains

8/14/2019 Sanjay-O-Vaach Open Hearts Dead Brains

1/57

SanjayOvachayaa: Open Hearts, Dead Minds

Open Hearts, Dead Minds

Copyright Sanjay Matkar, 2001-02 1


2/57


Introduction:

I decided to write this book to say out aloud a lot of things that concern every one of us,and while we say these in private we are always afraid to even mention them in public.These are important political and social issues affecting our society today.

Many events mentioned herein are specific events and may not have any cutting edgerelevance, especially by the time this is published. But, in considering the issue oftimeliness it is prudent to consider that analysts and commentators must offer theirobservations within the timeframe of these events as well as after the fact. In reality,events are simply vehicles, which allow us the opportunity to illustrate our beliefs andto define them.

I believe in specific ideas and I believe that each idea has a consequence of action. Ibelieve in the individual person, in less government so as to allow each individualmaximum freedom to create and to achieve; I believe that societies that are founded onrestraining the bureaucracy rather than the individual are more successful; that everyindividual is smart enough to solve his own problems and does not need to depend onthe government for resolution of all his problems; that my belief in individuality andlimited government does not preclude me from advocating the requisite amount ofgovernment authority to ensure a strong law and order in our society; that our abilityto enjoy peace vis--vis other nations is directly related to our militarystrength and power; that the best we can hope for in this imperfect society will be mostlikely achieved by maximizing individual economic and political freedom.

I firmly believe that social utopia cannot be achieved through government grants andaids; that compassion is defined not by the number of people who require governmentassistance, but by the number of people who do not require it; that society owes its

people equality of opportunity butcannotguarantee equality of outcome; thatstrong, wholesome family values are still the core of a healthy, productive, prosperousand peaceful society; that these values cannot be instilled by government decrees, butcan be eliminated from society by well intentioned but destructive governmentprograms; that human life is sacred and that the Divine Creatorhas placed humans ina dominant position over other creatures in nature; that healthy environmentalawareness should not be confused with mindless environmentalism based on wronginformation and hysteria.

I further believe that religious rivalry and hate cannot be removed by government edict;that there is only one Divine Power called God (whether referred to as Allah,

Bhagwan or Jesus Christ) and that our country was established on this firm belief; thatour morality emanates from the Divine Creator whose laws are not subject toamendment or modification; that certain fundamental differences exist between menand women; that the freedom of rights granted by our Constitution should not beabused to preclude the recitation of our National Anthem in schools, educationalinstitutions or public gatherings; that India was, is and can be the greatest nation onearth; not because we have the best government, but in-spite of it; and that most of usstill believe in the words and spirit of our Constitution.



3/57


Writing this book has been one of the most difficult works I have ever undertaken. I hadnever written a book before. I was unaware of the magnitude of thought that is requiredto write a book. Thinking is a demanding and tiring. It is an exercise for the mind andfor that reason alone, it has been an invaluable experience.

Having said all this; I realize that some, if not many who read this book, will feeloffended when reading certain parts of this compilation. Throughout my life I havemanaged the incredible feat of arousing hatred and anger amongst many a bureaucratand minister. A few more will not matter. For those others who may be more ambient, Iadvise you just one thing. Dont let serious thoughts overcome the need to laugh, forlaughter is by far the most precious commodity.



4/57


People: Think for Yourself.

I have always been concerned that too many of our people are simple, too willing toaccept all the propaganda that is showered upon them daily by the politicians and the

governments propaganda machine. That is why I provoke people into thinking forthemselves, and not blindly accepting all that they are spoon-fed by the media.

And this brings us to an issue close to our hearts, or rather to our wallets. Taxation! It istime to get serious and tough about the tax policies in our country. Look at the size ofour deficit. It grows every year. We could cut spending and we need to do that, butthere is clearly a need for more revenue. We cannot and should not reduce defensespending and we cannot cut all of the middle class entitlements. We cannot cut expenseson any major fronts. And, we cannot continue to try and rob the rich. Tax evasion hasbeen a major activity in our lives specifically because the government has been punitiveagainst the rich in India. Because of this entrepreneurs are not motivated to invest intomodernization of technology or Research and Development and instead try to eitherinvest into tax-free environments or into farmland schemes. And who are the peoplewho are hurt the most by this? The white collared middle class suffers the most.

Instead of trying to bring down the achievers in our country, who make a lot of money;instead of trying to punish these people for working hard and succeeding; what weshould do is teach others how to succeed. We have to keep trying to motivate others toput in their hard work rather than be pacified by indictments of the rich and promisesthat they will be made to pay more than their fair share because they are rich. Of course,the governments answer to increase revenue is simple; just raise taxes on the middleclass. One of the reasons that India has a constant recession is because the middle classdoes not have any more money to give to the government. The middle class has been

taxed at a confiscators rate for 55 years and is now broke.

Taxes go up every year. And they go up the most on the middle class because that iswhere the bulk of the money is, that cannot be hidden from the government. Considerthe taxes we pay on cooking gas, petrol, food, clothing, and entertainment. When youadd it all up, is it any wonder that we are perennially broke? The average middle classfamily cannot afford to give their children good schooling or health because, instead ofusing their money to support their children; they are supporting a giant, bloated cow inNew Delhi called the Government of India.

The middle class coupled with the rich should make this country work well. Should, but

never does. What is slowing this country down? I will say out loud what it is. The Poor.And the Farmers. I can almost hear the howls of protest from many people, but thereality is that the poor, the farmers and the so-called backward classes of our countryhave been having a free ride since independence. It has become noble to remain poor orbackward. Look at how we treat those who shun money and wealth. We celebrate them,make romantic figures of them. We make movies about them and teach people that it iswonderful to be destitute. The poor of our country, combined with the farmers are thelargest herd of calves feeding off the mother cow in New Delhi. They feed off the



5/57


largesse of our government and give nothing in return. Nothing! They get all the benefitsand they are the ones always pandered to by the politicians. The government has beenencouraging poverty by subsidizing the increasing number of poor. And politicians lovegiving money away to the poor because it makes the poor dependent on the politiciansand helps to ensure re-elections. And do the poor pay anything back to the

nation? No. Do they pay any taxes? No; because they are poor and cannot afford topay taxes. They do nothing, but take from the nation. On one hand there is the middleclass who are infusing everything into the nations economy. These are the people whowork hard every day, throughout their life; always obeying the rules and contributingtheir fair share and more. These are the givers. And who are the takers? The poor, ofcourse!

Look at the farmers. Free of any tax burden many have become millionaires andpoliticians. From the 50s to the new century, look at most of our politicians. More than90% will state their profession as farming. Each will have palatial houses (defined for taxavoiding purposes as farm-houses); each will have at least one expensive car in theirdriveways. Each will become rich every year on the farming subsidies that thegovernment will dole out to them. In the earlier years, the tax-free status for farmers wassupposed to be an incentive for them to grow more crops. Yet 55 years later we importalmost half our requirement of Wheat, Barley and Sugar. Why? Because the farmers donot have to perform for their subsidies. Only in India is failure rewarded, and rewardedhandsomely.

It is time to get serious about raising taxes on these people. It is time they started payingtheir fair share of the revenue, instead of being treated like a bunch of helpless invalidswho can survive only if the government provides for them. It is time to stop treating thepoor as objects of sympathy and force them to work in overcoming their poverty status.There is no reason we should have the level of poverty in this country that we have. Tax

them; the poor, the farmers, the so-called socially backward classes. Let us balance thebudget on the backs of these special interest groups that feed off the governmentsubsidies and grants, and show them what life is like for the rest of us.

And what if they cannot pay? Let us start a system of sweat equity in taxes. Taxavoiding citizen-laborers whom will have to contribute certain hours per week in theform of sweat equity in place of the taxes they owe to the country. These labor partiescan be used to sweep our cities clean, to maintain existing roads and to build new ones,to help build cheap housing for the masses, to lay water and sewage lines, to farm thethousands of acres of farm land that is being neglected by their owners; every area thattheir sweat equity will help in building and developing. This idea does not emanate

from any socialist or communist principles, but from practical thought. Thiswill get the poor off the streets, keep them gainfully employed and away from criminalactivities. Our society and our nation just cannot afford to pamper the poor and thefarmers anymore. And it is time we all said this loudly and clearly.

Frankly, we need to force people to contribute to the economy, not just sitaround blaming everyone and everything. We need to have a system to get the poor outof their situation, rather than glorifying and perpetuating it. Encourage them to be



6/57


economically equal members of our society, rather than a collection of sycophants sidingup to the bloated cow in New Delhi and looking for the biggest feeding nipple they canfind.

How? By self-reliance! We have got to install that into the poor, rather than the

dependency mentality fostered by the politicians. Let us force the poor to rid of thementality that being poor is advantageous. It is not. Look at Sonia Gandhi. How doesshe try to get credibility to herself? By being a friend of the poor, of course. Travelling ina million-rupee car-cade, surrounded by bodyguards who cost the taxpayer thousandsevery day, this government subsidized Maharani will sit around in some village once ina while to show her solidarity with the poor. And we are supposed to think, Oh Gosh,She Cares! She sits with the poor and feels compassion for them. She goes aroundsaying she is sorry for the plight of the poor and that just for a few hours will join theirlifestyle. But, this does not help the poor. It may make Sonia Gandhi feel good andassuage her guilt because she has shown that she cares; but it does nothing, nothingfor the poor. She only encourages the feeling that it is better to reduce themselves to thelowest denominator, rather than encouraging the poor to emulate those who aresuccessful and productive.

Finally, there is the hidden wealth in the land, the unaccounted for, untaxed blackwealth that runs almost 50% of our economy. If that money could be brought into mainstream economy, the nation will again be rich in monetary terms. The current tax system isnot only archaic, but also punitive. This has spawned a huge, corrupt bureaucracy whostifles free enterprise and has the overall effect of making people cheat on the taxes; buthas also given the government a weapon which it uses to silence dissent against itself, andits corruption.

The people of this land are habituated to saving as much of their income as possible. They

save in the form of land, gold, jewelry or cash, often stashed at home. All these are assets;assets that can enhance the treasury many more times, if they can be bought into the open.Then, there are the draw-backs that need to be eliminated; subsidies that cost the nationalexchequer huge amounts with no positive results, high import duties which inhibit rapidgrowth of the technology sector as well as restrict the consumer boom, and the quotasystem of permits and licenses which fuel the corruption of the bureaucracy. We canachieve a lot and make progress while the changes take place, but first we have to get ridof our image of being a poverty stricken land. We have to stop going around theworld with a begging bowl in our hands. For, the people of our land do not haveto beg from anybody. Our land has material wealth, intellectual wealth and themonetary resources. All that we have to do is use this to our national advantage.

We are always led to believe by the people in power that one class of the nation isstealing from the other, the rich are getting richer while the poor will always remainpoor. This is just not true. I do not believe that our country or our economy is a zero sumentity; in other words, if I have more, that means someone else will have less. I believethat our economy is like a fruit-bearing tree. Just because I have more fruits or someoneelse has more, does not exclude everybody else from savoring the fruits of that tree.Unfortunately, successive governments have treated our economy as a zero sum entity,



7/57


that there is only so much and it has to be shared by more equally. Except of RajivGandhi, none of them could comprehend expanding wealth or creating wealth; theyhave always viewed it as limited and finite and want to redistribute it. There is greatprosperity in our country that is available to everybody; if you can learn how to availyourself of it, how to believe in yourself, to be self sufficient and to force the government

to help us avail of it without interference.

Sympathy never brought prosperity or happiness to anybody. These public displays ofsympathy are not for the poor, but to make those expressing it feel good and look goodin society. We have to be self reliant in every strata of our society. The poor are weaningoff the government cow. The middle class who gets nothing in return is feeding the cow.The country in itself is losing its self-reliance by being dependent on foreign countriesfor aid, food, weapons, oil and even cultural development. People have to be discerningand attentive and must think for themselves. For the good of the country, the goodof the society; but most importantly, the good of yourself.



8/57


We, the Indians: Southwest of the Hind-a-khush!

According to the western archeologists and historians, the original inhabitants of our landwere good natured, peaceful, dark-skinned people known as the Dravidians. To them

were attributed great skills as builders and architects; as can be witnessed by the designsof the ancient city of Mohenjo-Daro. The Dravidians, however were supposed to have noknown skills of written text or proper script. Around 1500 BC, it is said, the land wasinvaded by tribes from the Urals; who were known as the Aryans, white skinned nomadicpeople to whom are attributed the Sanskrit language, the Vedic religion, as well asspiritual writings like the Vedas, Upanishads, Mahabharat, Ramayan, etc.

This theory put forth by mostly the European scholars; showed on one hand that theIndian sub-continental civilization was not as ancient as the western civilizations ofMesopotamia, Sumeria, or Babylon; and on the other hand, put forth the idea that all goodthings developed in this land of ours; be it architecture, literature, or the scripts hadactually been influenced by the West. Further, it is the Aryans to who is attributed thecaste system whereby the priests and the Kings ruled over the merchants and the laborersby virtue of birthright. Thus was born the theory of two civilizations; the high casteAryans who predominantly occupied the north and the Dravidians who occupied thesouth; always pitted against each other and fighting a battle which has endured till todayand is still being used by the politicians. However, to counter this theory is the newscholastic thought based on new discoveries; prominent among them being thediscovery of the Saraswati river basin and the deciphering of the Indus seals. For a longtime the Saraswati river was considered a myth, until the American satellite Landsat wasable to photograph and map the bed of this river. Nearly ten miles wide, its source was inthe Himalayan mountains, and it flowed through what are today Haryana, Punjab andRajasthan before terminating in the area now known as Broach. The Americananthropologist Mark Kenoyar was able to prove in 1991 that the majority of theHarappan/ Dravidian civilization were not situated on the ancient Indus River ashistorically attributed, but on the Saraswati. Professor Paul-Henri Francfort; in the EasternAnthropologist 1992 writes that the Saraswati most probably disappeared around 2200 BCbecause of immense drought in that region. This forced most inhabitants to move awayand settle on the banks of the Indus and the Sutlej rivers. Recently, the Indus sealsdiscovered on the sites of Mohenjo-daro and Harappa have been studied by Dr.N.S.Rajaram and Dr. Natwar Jha who using the ancient Vedic glossary of the Nighantuhave deciphered about 1800 seals. Their conclusions are that the seals, which belong to thelatter part of the Vedic age, prove that the Harappan civilization had close connectionswith the Vedantic works like the Sutras and the Upanishads. Thus, the theory of Aryan

invasion is itself being questioned and it could very well be that it was the civilization ofthe Indian sub-continent that went westwards.

From those days of glory and achievement, the people of this region are now associatedmostly with poverty and corruption. All around the world people see movies like City ofJoy or read about the work of Mother Teresa and assume the whole region is just one bigghetto, full of poverty. India is not really a poor country, but a very rich countryinhabited by a grossly large number of poor people. Just look at the recent history



9/57


of this region. Until the 18th century, despite repeated invasions from across the Hind-a-khush mountains, the Indian sub-continent was known as one of the richest countries inthe world. Till 1947/48 the Nizam of Hyderabad was the richest man on earth, far aheadof the Royalty of England. The land of milk and honey, as the region was thenknown,gave the world the Hope diamond and the Kohinoor; two of the largest known

diamonds ever cut. The Taj Mahal is the only man-made wonder of the world that has nopractical purpose; except to highlight the artistic abilities of the artisans of the country andto showcase the then affluence of the land and people.

However, the British rule exploited the bounty of this land. Because of British industrialpolicy, unemployment and poverty grew, new business did not start up and the industrialsector of this area became secondary to the British industrial interests. Most of the greatfamines of the region occurred during British rule. According to British records famineskilled one million inhabitants during 1800-1825, four million between 1825-1850, almost 15million between 1850-1900; a total of approximately 25 million in one hundred years. Afterindependence from British rule, however, and regardless of the growing economic

poverty; there has never been a famine in the region of India, since the countrygrew self-sufficient in providing at least basic food to the masses.

The British rule left us the legacy of the Brown sahibs; the result of the education systemdesigned by Maculae, the architect of British schooling in the Indian sub-continent.Because of this, we have an education system that promotes with single minded-nesswestern ideas of culture, history, science and medicine. While the western nations stillinclude in their school curriculum classical works such as the Iliad and the Odyssey, or theGreek tragedies; we have all but thrown into the trash-bin the classics of our own land; theVedas, the Puranas, the Bhagvat Gita, Mahabharat and Ramayan; which according tomany scholars, are some of the greatest literary works ever written. Our nationaleducation systems have to use the foundations of the past and make full use

of all available knowledge of the present to build a great future. Every generationof this land has been so confused about their own identities as a nation, that we lack self-confidence, not only when dealing with the western countries; but also with Asiancountries like China.

Indias first prime minister, Nehru was so enamoured with his own vision of a socialistdemocracy; that he had declared India and China to be natural socialist brothers of eachother, the Hindi-Chinee bhai-bhai syndrome, to the extent that the nation did not have aclear defense policy towards China. The only policy that every Indian government seemsto have is to appease China in every way in exchange for non-interference of the Chinesein Kashmir. Not only has this backfired onto India, with China providing nuclear

weapons technology to Pakistan along with the missile technology for delivering nuclearwarheads; but according to Indian intelligence sources, China has also transferred asubstantial amount of its nuclear arsenal to the area of Lhasa in Tibet, with much of itpointed towards India and Pakistan. Both these countries have to acknowledge a bitterreality. With one billion people and growing China needs more space, and has hegemonicaspirations. China occupied Tibet, repossessed Hong Kong, wants to occupy Taiwan andwould like to add Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Nepal to its territories.



10/57


Our land has tremendous potential. We have everything, ready to be manifested again,ready to mold our region into a great nation that it used to be; stretching from the Hind-a-khush Mountains to the southern tip of the continent. And what was this greatNation? Beyond the image of poverty, of backwardness, beyond even the philosophy ofour land there is Knowledge. Spiritual, occult, esoteric, and medicinal; still thriving in

our land. This knowledge once roamed the worlds civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia,Greece, but has now vanished. Today, our personal lives are ruled by religion, with theirdogmas and rituals, their dos and donts, and the idea of heaven and hell. And in all thiswe have lost sight of the Truth, the great sense that is the meaning of our evolution, thelife cycles, who we are and what we represent. All knowledge does not necessarily residein the mystical realm. It can be very practical.Ayurveda, the oldest medical science still inpractice specified the medicinal properties of neem and haldi almost 3000 years ago.Something that the western researchers are validating now! Another is Pranayamthescience of breathing. It is very practical, real knowledge, whose effects have been studiedfor thousands of years in our land. We are totally cut off from our own cultural andscientific heritage and even look down upon it because we cannot get the westernapproval that for some reason we so desperately seek. Unless we start being proud ofour own culture and about ourselves, we cannot progress towards being a SelfConfident and respected nation.

In order to achieve this success, our policies have to undergo a radical change. Permit rajmust be replaced by free enterprise. Economic liberalization has to be total and immediate,and not in small tentative steps. High standards of efficiency have to replace sloth; thechalta-hai (casual) attitude has to be thrown into the gutters. Corruption has to berooted out by use of punitive laws including capital punishment. Separatist troubles haveto be quelled by force if necessary, but rather with better economic opportunities for thelocal people. The Government needs to be de-centralized down to district level. ThePanchayat(village government) system of governance has to be revived and the local

governments allowed functioning, as a necessity of the people rather than the granddesign of the bureaucrats in Delhi.And finally, we need to have accountability. Fromthe Ministers, bureaucrats and above all from the people!

Freedom of information must be made mandatory by Law, where the bureaucracy cannothide the looting of the treasury under the guise of national security and the title of TopSecret. Secret budgets given to every department have to be terminated and each andevery penny accounted for. The government may appoint the bureaucrats, but theirperformance should be open to public review. Those bureaucrats and government officialswho do not meet the goals and aspirations of the People should have their servicesterminated. The current system whereby the performance of bureaucrats is reviewed by

their superiors, called the annual confidential report (ACR) has to be terminated andreplaced by an annual performance reportthat is open to public inspections and audit.The system of ACR has been the breeding ground of corruption and has been misused byofficials to get revenge on subordinates who were honest and ethical. It has also beenmisused to hide the lack of performance of other officers who were good at keeping theirbosses in good humor. Bureaucrats yell and scream when they hear such things; notbecause they think it is wrong, but mostly because such a system will expose theircorruption and nefarious activities. Let us remind them constantly that they are



11/57


public service officials and are thus answerable to the people of the land theyadminister.

As for the People; let us make it mandatory that every citizen regardless of his caste,creed, religion or station in life; has to vote in person in every election and referendum.Let this be made a compulsory duty, a violation of which is punishable by Law, so that thepeople are made responsible for the government that they have elected to serve them.



12/57


Success is not determined by who wins the Elections:

For most people, success does not occur overnight. Rather, it builds slowly and there aremany times along the way where some actually face defeat and lose ground. For most

successful people, achievement is the result of intense, dedicated hard work and there isoften little if any surprise or amazement associated with it. It becomes a matter of fact.Life goes on within that context. In fact, success breeds new opportunities for success,which must be concentrated upon. Ambition and drive keep the successful personfocussed on what is ahead, not on what has happened in the past.

My big break in life and business came in 1992, which was the first time in my life; I wasallowed to be myself. So simple, yet so crucial and I have learned much from thisrealization. I was no different a person in 92 than on all these other occasions I hadnever succeeded. I was a little older and mature, but my personality, sense of humor andphilosophy were the same. The difference was that for the first time in my life I was nottrying to succeed based on what others told me. One will never be ones best if youdo what others tell you; particularly if you utilize talent, as opposed tolearning skills. I am convinced that people have absolutely no idea how good they canbe, at whatever they want to do; the key word being want as against advised orinstructed. They dont know because they are trapped in situations where they areafraid to be themselves.

I never imagined that I would prosper in large part because I was conservative in myviews. I always thought that my political opinion was irrelevant to my success. But, itwas my wrong perception. Lots of people were warming up to me and were talking tome because of my political point of view. A long time ago I stopped being mired inmisery and hand wringing; and began having fun in life, being irreverent and also very

serious about things I felt passionately about. Once in a while an issue will come up thatI feel strongly about and I usually get very involved. Sonia Gandhis induction into theforefront of politics is one of those. Here is a group of people in the Congress party whohave arrogantly abused privileges no one else in India has ever done. In an effort to gainpower, these political miscreants have made it their mission to entrench a foreigner onthe highest political seat India. Let us be clear on this issue. Sonia Gandhi was aforeigner, is a foreigner, and will remain a foreigner to our country. Attempts bythese congress party persons to foist her upon our country and upon our people arenothing less than treason towards our country. In any other country these people wouldhave been promptly tried in court and executed if found guilty. Yet, we are so lacking innational pride and honors, that we not only tolerate this assault on our country but we

also pay homage to this foreigner as if she is the sole salvation of India. This, my friends,shows us how weak and morally corrupt we have become as a nation and as a society.



13/57


The State of our Republic:

The Indian middle class is just tired and listless. They have to take the brunt ofeverything that is wrong with our country. They are taxed more every year and then are

lectured by the politicians about how they still are needed to help other people who arearound us. Overtaxed, overburdened; the middle class has always been conservative inspending and are always blamed for the problems of the nation.

Look at our parliamentarians. Every year they devise more ways to squeeze taxes fromus. And, then they have the audacity to ask us for votes so that they can continue to robus. People I know of personally have a hard time making ends meet. Members ofParliament exempt themselves from the laws they impose upon us, pass their pay raiseswithout thought or debate, and overdraw on the treasury for their bullet proof cars andtheir bodyguards, and the endless foreign trips. Then, they dare to tell us that it is ourfault for wanting to keep more of the money that we work so hard for and not surrenderit in taxes.

Working people are striving hard to survive against all odds, and all the governmentcan do is view them as a revenue target. While robbing the middle class at every point,the government has the nerve to blame them too, and made to feel responsible for theproblems that we face. We are at the point where the tax producers have beenoutnumbered by the tax eaters of society. Those who chose to accept the responsibilitiesof life have had enough of being told that they should give more to support those whowont accept their responsibilities. We are supposed to feel sorry for all these groups.For the down trodden. And for the farmers. And for those who suffer becausedevelopment will take away their lands. What about feeling sorry for us? Thosewho are living a hard life and paying taxes? Nobody feels sorry for the middleclass. They are asked to give and give till they have no more. And when they say nomore, the government persecutes them with more laws and more taxes.

Then we have the spaced out fundamentalists; both Hindu and Moslem who try to focusattention on ancient ruins of civilization rather than health and education of theircommunity in particular and the nation in general. The people are told that there is civilstrife because of unequal distribution of food and wealth amongst various religioussegments of society. The government spreads insecurity among the people toensure its own security.At school, we are teaching children about Ayodhya insteadof Aristotle. Our children are getting lower grades in general and are getting lesseducated than before. I can go on and on about the insanity that is loose in our country,

much of it tolerated just so a bunch of aggrieved fanatics who dont fit into the mainstream of society can feel better about themselves. These people control many of ourinstitutions, some of our universities and affect major policy decisions of thegovernment. They all have easy jobs and never lose them, or get fired from them.

Each finance minister stands in parliament and asks the people to sacrifice for thebetterment of the nation. What do these politicians think the hardworking people of ourcountry have been doing for all these years, because of the governments policies and



14/57


ideas? People who work and pay taxes have been sacrificing and that too for a lot ofother people who are lazy and irresponsible. And each finance minister wants toincrease the scope of sacrifice by raising taxes. Can these people show one example ofany society in human history that has been taxed into prosperity? It is just improbable.

The people who have been living off the hard work of others, have to be made to startaccepting responsibility for their deeds and actions and stop bleeding the taxpayers ofour country; taxpayers who accept their responsibility every day and work hard to fulfillit and keep our country alive.



15/57


Obeying the Law: Its a requirement, not a privilege.

When you think of it, the amount of crime we tolerate in our society is astounding. It is

unbelievable how we manage to turn a blind eye to the manner in which the legalsystem and the power of the law are misused. Criminals with connections or moneypower walk away from autocracies, while innocents are put behind bars on fictitiouscharges. Every day, every new crime; we see an increasing less concern for the victims ofthe crime and their families or even other potential victims. We have becomedesensitized to violent crime. Even more horrifying is that we have stoppedcaring. We now seem to simply accept that certain people are never going to answer fortheir crimes or be punished for their guilty actions and that there is nothing we can doabout it. We have learned to tolerate it and live with it; rather than fight this injustice inour society and stop the guilty from going unpunished.

In many cases these criminals are no longer seen as people who commit crimes and areresponsible for their behavior; but as victims of society who are driven to behave inways that are defined as criminal. This trend has been glamorized a lot in the latestreleases of the so-called political-action garbage produced in Bollywood movies. Ratherthan punish criminals appropriately and effectively, we are now trying to rationalizeand excuse lawless behavior. Sometimes, we even beg them to obey the law.Look at all the places where communal riots erupt. Ministers and bureaucrats go aroundrequesting the rioting mobs not to burn, pillage and loot. Instead of enforcing thelaw, we as a society are reduced to begging the anti-socials to obey it.

This stems from our cultural teachings, where we are supposed to look for goodnessin everyone, to treat everyone with compassion. Our religious teachings do teach us

forgiveness and tolerance but that should not be taken literally to excuse criminal actsagainst society and from the penalties of the criminal system towards such acts. That isnothing but a prescription for total anarchy and that is exactly what is happening in ournation. By excusing these acts of crime we make ordinary law abiding citizens feel moreterrified and unsure of their place in society. This trend shows a frightening decay in oursocial values, the cheapening of human life to the point where there is no more concernor respect for the sanctity of life.

We have an increasing number of people in our society who want to go through lifewithout facing the consequences of their actions, who want to do everything for theirown pleasure and satisfaction, regardless of how it affects everybody else. A scion of an

arms trader family, in a drunken stupor runs over six people in his car and his familybuys out all the witnesses. After spending a year under court supervision, he isallowed to go abroad for his studies. The law is circumvented with the aid of money andlegal jugglery.

Another young man of a political family gets drunk at a private party and in a fit of rageshoots dead a young, glamorous model. Why? Because she refused to serve him liquor.After the usual front-page news; witnesses lose their memory of the fateful night, the



16/57


law is proven to be impotent and the perpetrator walks free, perhaps to kill again at hiswhim and fancy.

The simple fact is that we have become so desensitized to crime that we have lost ourfocus. The law does not exist to prevent people from enjoying life or for oppressing

them; but to establish limits on behavior.

Laws are the tools we use to build anorderly society. An orderly society cannot be achieved or maintained if we allow peopleto do whatever they want to do, with no regard for anything but their own satisfaction.There is no excuse for hedonism and anti-social behavior. We have to make certain thatthe law is respected and more importantly, feared by all people, including those whomwe trust with the power to administer.



17/57


Capital punishment:

Look at all the cases of murder, rape, arson, and mass rioting. Take a closer look at how

many law-abiding citizens are killed by criminals who enjoy the best protection thatmoney can buy or political patronage can ensure. Look at those who grin diabolicallyinto news cameras and admit to mass killings in the name of religion. How many ofthese people are prosecuted successfully in the court of law and are sentenced to deathat the gallows? In the past 25 years, none; not one political criminal has swung from thehangmans noose for mass killings and inciting communal rioting. Our court systemhands down the death penalty only in the rarest of rare cases. Perhaps the burning ofinnocent people including children in the name of religion and malicious destruction oflives and property is not considered by our honorable judges as rarest of rare cases.Even in individual criminal cases involving murder for dowry, child rape and extortion;the criminal justice system seems to be unable to enforce the death penalty. I attributethis to the socialist philosophy that has been induced into our society for the last 55years.

Remember this about the socialists. They survive and thrive on the fundamentalbelief that the average Indian is an idiot; stupid, ignorant, uninformed, unintelligent,incapable of knowing what is good for him, what is good for society, what is right andwhat is wrong. They believe that their mission is to save people from themselves, not tohelp them become the best they can.

Capital punishment is wrong, they say. We have no right to take human life, they quote.We must be a compassionate society; if you want a criminal to die for his crime, then youare no better than he is; they tell you. And while the socialists tell you all about the milk of

human kindness, the killings continue. So do the rioting, the rape and the pillage.

We need conservative judges in our high courts and our Supreme Court, not liberalswith socialist views. Men and women, who will interpret the law in its correctperspective and not hesitate to hand down capital punishment. We need to reinstatethe jury system; whereby the accused is judged by his peers in society andthis jury will ensure that the capital punishment, if required for the crime committed, ishanded out without fear or favor.

Law enforcement:

Ordinary people in our villages and cities, regardless of their religion, live in fear. Theyput iron bars around their houses and double locks on their doors. They fear to ventureout after dark. Fear is the prevailing emotion in all of us today. Instead of getting to theroots of the problems, our successive governments have come out with socialisticgimmicks that are supposed to prevent crime. We have the National Security Guard(NSG) the glorified if impotent commandos in black dungarees to fight terrorism. Wehave the Rapid Action Force (RAF) in their blue camouflage uniforms to combatcommunal violence. What absolute rubbish! The only time that the NSG was called into



18/57


action during the hijacking of the IA plane to Khandahar, they failed to take any action.Lots of excuses, but no action! The Rapid Action Force is another farce. It alwaysreaches riot torn areas after the rioting is over, after the communal violence ebbs, andthe patrols the debris and the rubble, handing out food packets to the terrorized victimsof the riots; while the actual criminals are going about giving TV interviews to foreign

media about rebuilding old ruins in the name of religion. Its boils the blood in anger,this brutalisation of society, in the name of socialism and religion.

We already have an extensive police force in every town and district of India.Capable people who know all about the region that they patrol and where they enforcethe law. If the socialists just let these people do their job, which is law enforcement, andif we have enough strong willed judges to ensure that the criminal justice system doesits job, we wont require these fancy dressed central police forces called black cats andgray hounds to ensure peace in the society.

Whenever police officers pass out of our police academies, what is told to them? Theyare very rarely told that it is a grim situation that they will have to face. They are not toldthat they are to enforce law without fear or favor. They are not told that they have to goout and fight crime on a daily basis to keep our streets safe. No, this is not what is told tothem. Then what is told to our officers and ranks of the police forces? Do not bebrutal to the accused. Do not embarrass the department or the ministry. Never, ever; putthe minister in an embarrassing situation. Do notuse force to enforce the law, do notchallenge local leaders, and do not force issues that require the government to dosomething about it. Do not take any action without the governments approval.

These are nothing but misplaced priorities. The socialists in power have always put thepolice on the defensive. They are being told what not to do, rather than what they aretrained to be done and what needs to be done. The concern is more about not

doing something wrong, rather than doing what is right;not about doing the jobthat they are paid to do, which is essentially to maintain law and order for the benefit ofall of us, but about political expediency. The end result is that these police officersdecide that the best thing to do is to play it safe; when in doubt, do nothing. Perhapsthis explains in part the delayed response of the police during riots. Of course, there areexceptions to this; notably so officers like Julio Rebiero, KPS Gill, Kiran Bedi, VijayRaman, to name a few; who ensured that the law was supreme and that social order wasmaintained with an iron fist, if required. They never pandered to the politicians and thatit-self proves that all we require to stand out is self discipline and a sense of what iscorrect.

This cautious attitude is not exclusive to the police department alone. Examine everysector, whether military, public enterprise, private sector; everywhere you will discovera defensive mentality on part of the management. The primary concern is not how totackle problems, but rather how to ignore them with the hope that the problems will justgo away. We saddle police officers with this mentality and shackle them withunnecessary restraint. These police officers are people whom we expect to go out everyday and deal with some of the most dangerous criminals in our country. We bind themwith these stupid restrains and then blame them when they are unable to do the job they



19/57


are supposed to do. The inefficiency of the court system compounds thedangers to which they are exposed.The police go and arrest the criminals and afew hours later that criminal is back on the streets, courtesy either the money power orthe political power. So, why should the police even care about doing their jobs?

When mobs of criminals destroy our neighborhoods in a fit of communal rage, we areasked to understand and sympathize; and to have compassion in our hearts to thesemis-guided bigots. Well; what about the rage of the police, who see their effortsthwarted daily by a system which returns an endless parade of criminals back to thestreets to commit more crimes? What about the rage of the cops who have to track thedrug Mafia and the criminal underworld who earn millions violating the law; while they,the cops earn a comparative pittance trying to enforce it? How about a littleunderstanding and sympathy for the cops and what they are facing every day?

At present there is less than one chance out of hundred that a criminal who commits aserious crime will face justice or be punished with a jail sentence. Law abiding people arefed up with this. We would like our lives to be secure, our neighborhoods safe. And wewant the law enforced strongly on all criminals. Not, because we want to see bodieshanging from the gallows, or because we thirst for blood like the rampaging mobs. But,because we want to live in peace. People want to protect their rights to life, libertyand personal security. And these require peace, justice and strong law-enforcement in the community.



20/57


The Battles We Fought, the War We Lost.

Every war can be traced back to its roots deep in the annals of history. Wars do not startout of the blue; rather they are the result of a sequence of slow moving incidents that

inevitably lead to the battle. The Indo-Chinese conflict of 1962 is no exception: its rootscan be traced back to the Chinese annexation of Tibet wherein the first seeds of war weresown.

China invited the Tibetans early in the 1950s to "accede peacefully" and backed up thisemphatic plea by stationing an army near the city of Chamdo in East Tibet. The DalaiLama was forced to sign, under duress, the " 17-Point Agreement of May 23,1951", surrendering to the Chinese. Imposed on the Tibetan government, the"Agreement", the PRC claims, shows that Tibetans not only agreed to, but also actuallyinvited Chinese Communist troops to "liberate" Tibet.

This action and the systematic devastation of the Tibetan people and culture took bothTibet and India by surprise. The huge public outcry in India protesting the Chineseinvasion mainly dealt with the political and cultural facets of the issue. Prior to Indianindependence, the British had earmarked Tibet as a neutral buffer zone in view of BritishIndia's defense environment vis--vis the similar imperialistic leanings of China andRussia. Barring a few people with acute perception, most Indian politicians, alongwith the common man, failed to anticipate the strategic ramifications of theChinese aggression and the loss of this buffer.

Pundit Nehru, the Prime Minister of the newly independent India, following his foreignpolicy of trying to establish its mutual, nonaligned relations on the international scene,held the view that India could ill afford a confrontation over Tibet at this point in India's

history, and especially so during the ongoing Korean War. On November 18, 1950, Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to the Home Minister, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, saying, "Wecannot save Tibet, as we should have liked to do, and our very attempt to save it mightwell bring greater trouble to it. It would be unfair to Tibet for us to bring this troubleupon her without having the capacity to help her effectively. It may be possible, however,that we might be able to help Tibet to retain a large measure of her autonomy."Nehru's two closest advisors at the time were Krishna Menon and India's thenAmbassador to China during the Communist Revolution, K. M. Panikkar. They werelargely responsible for Nehru's decision to recognize Chinese sovereignty over Tibet.Panikkar also had strong Communist leanings, and when called upon by Nehru, went so

far as to state that there was a "lack of confirmation" of the presence of Chinese troops inTibet and argued that to protest the Chinese invasion of Tibet would be an "interference toIndias efforts on behalf of China in the UN." It would seem that Panikkar was moreinterested in protecting Chinese interests in the UN than Indias own interests on theTibetan border. Amazingly Nehru concurred with his Ambassador. He wrote, "our

primary consideration is maintenance of world peace. Recent developments inKorea have not strengthened Chinas position, which will be further weakenedby any aggressive action [by India] in Tibet. Nehru was unclear about how his



21/57


"primary consideration" of maintaining world peace would be served by the Chineseinvasion of an independent-recognized Tibet.

Sardar Patel, however, wanted a strong line to be adopted against the Chinese aggression.He wrote to Nehru that "even though we regard ourselves as friends of China,

the Chinese do not regard us as friends." India moreover had international supportto this matter, with world opinion strongly against Chinese aggression in Tibet. Theworld, in fact, was looking to India to take the lead. The highly influential Englishpublication The Economist echoed the Western viewpoint when it wrote: "Havingmaintained complete independence of China since 1912, Tibet has a strongclaim to be regarded as an independent state. But it is for India to take a leadin this matter. If India decides to support independence of Tibet as a bufferstate between itself and China, Britain and U.S.A. will do well to extend formaldiplomatic recognition to it." It was a testament to Patel's vision that his prophecies ofincreasingly aggressive China, evident from his letters to Nehru at the time, were to beunfortunately proven correct in a decade's time.

It would be instructive to examine the Chinese claims on Tibet in brief at this juncture,since the dispute over the "McMahon Line" that demarcated the border between Indiaand China owes its origins to these claims. The ostensible reason given by China when thePLA entered Tibet was to "liberate three million Tibetans from imperialistaggression, to complete the unification of the whole of China, and to safeguardthe frontier regions of the country". However, it is generally surmised that the reasonbehind China's invasion was to gain control of the highly strategic crossroads of Tibet thatlead to the heart of Western, Central, South and South East Asia.The first boundary alignment here was recorded in 1865 when W. H. Johnson of theSurvey of India trekked across the Aksai Chin and drew a map including this in Jammu

and Kashmir. Johnson was soon appointed Kashmir's commissioner in Ladakh. TheBritish Foreign Office had the opinion that the border should be pushed further to theKuen Lun range to absorb Aksai Chin and to put a British controlled buffer in between toforestall the presumed Russian advance, as the British had done with Afghanistan,though this was never implemented.

In 1892 the Chinese put a boundary marker at the Karakoram Pass and told the Britishthat Chinese territory began there and that the boundary ran along the Karakoram range.The reasons given for this was that Askai Chin is an "integral" and "sacred" part of Tibet,which the Chinese claim. In 1998, Chinese ambassador to India, Zhou Gang, quotedverbatim the Chinese government statement given to the British on this matter when he

stated that "there exists no issue of China's evacuation from Aksai Chin becauseAksai Chin has been China's territory since ancient times and ever since underthe effective administration jurisdiction of China." This claim has no crediblehistorical or legal backing. The British had noted, even in those days, that the boundarymarker could not be considered to have any legal value in international law because theboundary was not demarcated jointly.



22/57


In 1904, a British military expedition was sent to China to prevent China from fallingunder the influence of "foreign" powers. An Anglo-Tibetan treaty was signed with Chinathat granted Britain trading rights and marked the origin of direct British influence in andover Tibet. An Anglo-Chinese treaty of 1906 followed up the previous treaty. In 1913,Tibet declared independence, and a conference was held in 1914 in Simla (India)

regarding Tibetan independence.

The Simla Conference was agreed to be a tripartite one, in which the Tibetans were equalpartners in the talks with the Chinese and British. Legalities of the Tibetan independencenotwithstanding, this cast much doubt on the nature of Chinese position that states thatTibet was merely a Chinese province. Tibet demanded recognition of their de factosovereignty - a proposal intolerable to the Chinese, as China did not wish to give up theirclaim to Tibet, though they did not actually control it. In the end, the only legallybinding outcome of the 1914 conference was that Britain and Tibet,represented by Sir Henry McMahon and Lonchen Shatra respectively, reachedan agreement of a border settlement binding between themselves, bringingMcMahon Line into being. To this meeting, the Chinese delegate was not invited, as the

McMahon line was the agreement on the official demarcation of the border between Tibetand British India; this highlights the fact that all the parties; China included, recognizedthat Tibet had full authority to negotiate its boundary with India. Hence, in reality theMcMahon line legally had nothing to do with China . To this date, the Chinese claimto the Indian areas is based upon the non-recognition of the McMahon Line, regardless ofthe recognition of Tibetan autonomy and Tibet's acceptance of the McMahon Line.

Had these historical facts been put proactively forward by the Indian government induring the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950, the Indian locus standi would have beenstrengthened. Instead Nehru preferred a policy of appeasement and surrender to Chinaand accepted this mammoth change in status quo. Regardless of vehement public outcry

and hurt, the Indian government went so far as opposing the discussion of Tibet's appealto the UN General Assembly of 23rd Nov 1950. Thus, the policy established, was tocultivate Chinese friendship by buying it off. As events were to prove later, this was amost disastrous road to take. Nehru had failed to take into account that China had alwaystried to expand its territories at the expense of its neighbors, and a time would come whenIndian territories would have to be defended against the Chinese.

On 29 April 1954, India and China signed the Indo-Chinese Agreement of 1954, otherwiseknown as the Panchsheel, or the "Five Principles" agreement; under which India gaveup all extra-territorial rights and privileges it enjoyed in Tibet, which it inherited from theBritish colonial legacy, and formally recognized Tibet to be a region of China. The

namesake five points agreed were: Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity andsovereignty; Mutual non-aggression; Mutual non-interference in each other's internalaffairs; Equal and mutual benefit working relationship and Peaceful co-existence.

China's success in promoting these principles at the 1955 Bandung Conference helpedChina emerge from diplomatic isolation. Unfortunately, by the end of the 1950s, China'sforeign policy stance had become more militant, and the Chinese would renege on this



23/57


treaty within three months of its signing. The Indian reaction was somewhat euphoric andexaggerated, and many an MP lauded Nehru's "pacification" of the Chinese dragon.The Indian military in general was reserved in its acclamations, and wished resistance ofsuch a treaty, but was overruled by Krishna Menon who insisted that Pakistan was the

only real enemy. Little attention was paid to the lurking dangers. India and Pakistan hadgone to war over Kashmir's accession to India in 1948. Pakistan saw the advantage overIndia's non-alignment by taking a strong anti-Soviet line, winning the hearts of the West,and the US and the UK in particular. At this time, the Soviet Union had not yet come outvery forcefully on India's side. China looked upon the Kashmir question differently. Theyhad indicated that they did not wish to take sides. They also had their claims on territoryon the Ladakh district of Jammu and Kashmir. It was wishful thinking on the part ofIndia's leaders to imagine that China would remain indifferent or neutral on this matter.Appeals of caution by the Indian army were ignored.

During this time, the military was neglected in areas such as the modernization andupgrading of forces. The Kulwant Singh report of 1952 severely castigated the Indiangovernment for neglect and recommended the raising of several divisions of troops andpurchase of new equipment. Apart from raising the Indo-Tibetan Border Force, the otherrecommendations were shelved, as China was considered a friend by the government.The Army was specifically told to concentrate on India's traditional adversary, Pakistan,rather than China, as war with China was viewed as "extremely unlikely." 1955 to 1960marked the period of increasing tension and clashes on the border between India andChina. Yet India failed to evolve and formulate a comprehensive foreign policy vis--visChina, and tended to treat them as isolated incidents.

The Chinese, wishing to consolidate their gains in Tibet and the surrounding areas,implemented a plan for developing the infrastructure in those regions. A ring road was

constructed which led from China to Tibet and from there via the Karakorum Range toSinkiang and Mongolia and then back to China. The Indian Ladakh district of Askai Chinregion of Jammu and the Kashmir state obstructed the construction of this road, andwould have forced the Chinese to build through the harsh Takla Makan desert - not themost favorable terrain. Faced with this, the Chinese Government had the choice ofbuilding a shortcut through Indian territories inaccessible to India, or build the road in awasteland of the Takla Makan. The PRC decided on the former. Taking advantage of thehistorical quirk that they had not actually signed the agreement reached at the SimlaConference, China published maps showing that Aksai Chin belonged to them, andrefused the de-facto McMahon line in the East of India, that demarcated the border andcontrol of the land. When the public came to know about the Chinese roads, Nehru was

faced with increasingly vocal criticism in the Indian Parliament, and he once angrilyasked his critics whether they wanted him to go to war on this issue.

Before these border incidents, Nehru recommended that the Indian and Chinesegovernments sift through historical evidence and recommend where the border shouldbe. Chou En-Lai's suggestion, made on November 7, 1959, was the completedemilitarization of the entire border to a depth of 20 km, using the McMahon line in theEast and the "line of actual control" in the West. This would effectively have jeopardized



24/57


India's defensive positions in the East, while legitimizing Chinas land grab in the West.Essentially, China wanted a solution based on military and strategic positions, while Indiawanted only a strict adherence to boundaries that had been agreed upon.

Tensions increased further at India's welcoming of the Dalai Lama, who; in March 1959,

with 20,000 followers crossed into India, where he was received with great pomp andwarmth. Mao felt he had lost face at this, and felt that China "needed a victory in somesphere." On August 7, 1959, about 200 Chinese troops intruded into the Indian border atKhenzemane in the Kameng frontier division at east of Thagla Ridge. When challenged bythe Indian patrol and asked to withdraw, they pushed the Indian party consisting of 10men to the bridge at Drokung Samba. China considered the sector as within Chineseterritory, and stated that the international border ran through the Drokung Samba bridge.

On 25th August 1959, around 300 Chinese troops crossed into the Longju region of theSubashin Frontier division and opened fire at the Indian post there. The post wascompletely surrounded and was captured, but the Indian garrison was later released. Inboth cases the Chinese heavily outnumbered the Indians. The Indian posts were isolatedand solely dependent on air supply. They were typically manned by 12-15 men and withno chances of reinforcements, since there were no access roads leading to it. This was agood reminder of things to come, unfortunately all that transpired were a few protestnotes from the Ministry of External Affairs.

By late 1959, Chinese excursions into Indian Territory were getting more frequent, and asa result the Army was finally given control of the Indian border in NEFA. The 4th IndianDivision was ordered into Assam, from their station in Punjab. It was given the task ofdefending the entire McMahon line from the Bhutan tri-junction to the Burma border.Unfortunately, it was task that it was ill prepared and ill-equipped to handle.

India's plans of peaceful settlement were shattered by these acts of aggression. India againseized on an opportunity to settle the issue when Chou En-lai visited Delhi in April 1960.Nehru was advised by the Indian remnants of the joint-expert group that India had a"cast-iron case" that the border should be legally demarcated at Kuen-Lun range furthereast and not the Karakoram range further west, as the Chinese wanted. They informedNehru that the Kuen-Lun was also far better from the defense angle, and that India andChina should nullify the British McDonnell proposal of 1899, which had suggested theborder along a line from Daulat Beg Oldi near the Karakoram Pass in the north, to LanakLa Pass in the south, in mutual settlement.

Nehru was anxious to reach such a settlement, but his advisors, primarily Krishna Menon

convinced him against it. A compromise along this line would perhaps have been possiblein 1960, and might still have been a way out from the impending crisis. Chou En-Lai,however, wanted to reopen the whole 2,000 mile-long border. Each side tried to extend itsactual line of control, and the border question became a matter of prestige and test ofstrength for each.

On 2 November 1961, a meeting was held at Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru's house that wasattended by, among others, Krishna Menon (Defense Minister), Lt. General Thapar (Chief



25/57


of Army Staff), Lt. General Kaul (Quarter Master General), Brigadier Palit and O. PullaReddy (Defense secretary) to discuss the "China issue", and to come up with a pragmaticplan with an appropriate response. It was decided that since China was still a "friendlynation", the response could not be too drastic, but must show Indian resolve. The outcomeof the meeting would prove to be one of the turning points in the Indo-Chinese conflict

and amongst the most controversial pre-war decisions; that in the Ladakh sector, theIndian Army would patrol as far forward as possible from the present Indian positiontowards the international border. Posts would be established on the border of Indianterritories in an attempt to prevent further Chinese excursions and the same would alsoapply to areas in Uttar Pradesh on the Indo-China border where posts would beestablished as far as possible in Indian territories.

The Ministry of External Affairs and the Intelligence Bureau had assumed that this Indianactivity would not elicit a major reaction from the Chinese. As it unfortunately turned out,this assessment proved to be incorrect. In addition to this fundamental misconception, theIndian Army was not geared up for the above task to establish posts in a forward areathat it could not support logistically or tactically. General Thapar had pointed out that theChinese could never be matched in numbers and resources in the region since they had awell developed network for re-supply and reinforcement whereas India had a relativelyunderdeveloped infrastructure. His objections were met with assurances from Nehru andMenon that they did not expect any major escalation. The new orders were transmitted tothe Eastern and Western commands on 5 December 1961. The whole exercise was giventhe code named "Operation Onkar".

In October 1958, Lt. General S.P.P. Thorat, General Officer Commanding, EasternCommand had laid out a detailed paper regarding the defense of NEFA. He had realizedthat mere patrolling or establishing posts could never defend the McMahon line. Instead,he proposed a front line of forward posts on the border that was supported by two layers

of military strongholds. The forward posts were to act merely as early warning beaconsand symbols of territorial possession, and that were not to be regarded as defendedpositions. The second line consisted of more strongly defended posts designed to slowdown the advancing Chinese and to increase their logistical layout. The last line wouldactually stop the Chinese and from their counterattacks would be launched with the helpof reinforcements from the plains.

Thus, it is clear that sound tactical thinking existed in the Indian Army; but thepolitical leadership under Nehru wanted short-term solutions and in a displayof bravado largely ignored the sound military advice. When the Indian Army wasordered into NEFA in closing stages of 1959, it was faced with deployment in a region

without adequate roads and infrastructure, and in itself one of the highest battlefields inthe world. Almost all the posts in the forward and even some in the rear were supportedby airlifts. Nearly everything had to be air dropped, right down to the daily rations, butdue to the severe terrain, it was later estimated that only thirty percent of suppliesdropped were recovered for use.

Another logistic goof-up was the rations provided to the troops, which had a calorie valuesuited more for warfare on the plains, rather then the high-calorie diet that is required for



26/57


mountain warfare. Lentils, which are the staple food of the Indian soldier, could not becooked at high altitudes. Pressure cookers though requested constantly were unavailabledue to "administrative delays". Oil cookers, essential for keeping warm and cooking, werealso in short supply. Since the troops were widely dispersed without connecting roads,medical facilities were poor. Even the helicopters used for airlifts, recently purchased

from Russia, were inadequate for high-altitude operations, and there was a markedshortage of spare parts. Winter clothing, and sometimes even basic clothing, wasunavailable. New recruits rarely had the full list of items that were supposed to be issuedto them. The army had no means of carrying heavy loads in the mountains and hence itsmobility and firepower was severely reduced. Its main means of transport were mulesand human porters. The state of weapons and the training of the soldiers were inadequatefor the terrain they were expected to fight on and the foe they faced. Almost all theequipment and weapons were of 1950s vintage. The 4th Indian Division, which wasdeployed, was not trained nor acclimatized for high altitude warfare. Most of its heavyequipment had to be left behind in the plains because of the lack of transportation. Thusthey had precious little firepower to call upon if needed.

The already grave situation was made worse by a personal feud between thethen Finance Minister Morarji Desai and the Defense Minister Krishna Menon.This had resulted in an obstructive finance ministry that did not allow the release ofessential foreign exchange to buy what little equipment that had been sanctioned. As aconsequence, the Army's equipment became obsolete. Desai claimed that supplies weredeliberately withheld from Indian troops in the affected areas. There was considerableunhappiness about this in the Army, both at this and against Menon in general. Becauseof the playing off of different sections of the military as a result of political maneuveringand infighting, along with the supply crisis, morale was very low. The strategists at thetime were of a general consensus that, to counter the Chinese threat, India should increasethe number of troops, enhance the infrastructure supporting and supplying the troops,

and station sufficient mobile armored troops at strategic points on the plain to check anypotential Chinese advance, whilst keeping an eye on Pakistan. However, these opinionswere ignored, and the principal problem seemed to be lack of interest on the

part of the then Indian Government to enact these suggestions.

The combination of insufficient supplies, lack of combat preparedness, numerical andtechnological inferiority to the Chinese and the heavy-handed decisions taken by agovernment with little care for ground realities of the impending conflict; condemned theIndian Army to fail against the Chinese. The training and professionalism of the Indiansoldier could not make up for the tremendous odds stacked against them. On 8 September1962, Brigadier Dalvi, Commander of the 7th Brigade received a message, that around 8

am, about 600 Chinese soldiers had crossed Thagla Ridge and had surrounded the Dholapost. The post commander had requested immediate reinforcements. The Chinese hadchosen the spot and the timing well; Thagla Ridge, which overlooked the key Chinesegarrison at Leh, was an exceedingly remote area with terrain that was not conducive fortroop movement. In addition, it was a Saturday and it would take a long time for theinformation to reach Delhi along the chain of command. India's chain of command wasfurther drawn out and complicated by Nehru's attendance of the Commonwealth PrimeMinisters' Conference in London. Nehru immediately flew back to India and was asked



27/57


about his reaction. His cautious reply was, "Our instructions are to free our territory. Icannot fix a date; that is entirely for the Army to decide." It was magnified and reportedby some members of the press into, "We shall throw the Chinese out." This misquoting isone of the biggest misconceptions that many hold about the '62 war.

Meanwhile, at conference held by the G-o-C, 4th Division, General Niranjan Prasad it wasdecided that the Dhola post commander would be ordered to stay put, withoutwithdrawing. The Assam Rifles wing at Lumla, which was two days march away, wouldbe ordered to establish contact with Dhola, and detachments of 9 Punjab at Shakti andLumpu would move to Dhola while the ones at Towang would move to Lumpu.Brigadier Dalvi was aware that Towang, along with Tsangdhar and Hathungla, were vitalpositions that had to be defended at all costs. Any diversion of 9 Punjab to Dhola wouldleave Towang defenseless.

There were no plans to cater for a major clash at Towang if one should occur. Also, theroute from Towang to Thagla was fit only for man pack columns, making troopmovement difficult. However, 9 Punjab was ordered to depart for Lumpu. Thus beganOperation Leghorn with the limited aim of persuading the Chinese to leave Indianterritories. The haphazard manner in which 9 Punjab was dispatched exposed the fact thatArmy HQ had no strategic plan in place to deal with a major Chinese response to theForward Posts policy. This happened because Nehru had specifically ordered the militarynot to construct responses to such a scenario.

On 12th September, a meeting was held to reiterate New Delhi's decision to "expel" theChinese from Indian territories. Unfortunately, this was far removed from the groundsituation. Army HQ ignored sound military advice from the field commanders, due topolitical pressure from the Nehru administration. This would contribute to the tragicevents leading to the defeat of 26th October, purely because of the political expediency of

sacrificing Indian security for long-winded, and, in retrospect, empty, Chinese claims ofgood faith.9 Punjab managed to reach Dhola on the morning of 15th September and found Chinesetroops on both sides of the Namka Chu river. The Chinese had control of the whole of theThagla Ridge area, and when challenged, demanded that the Indians withdraw as thePRC decided to demarcate it as "sacred Chinese land." On 17th September, the Chief ofArmy Staff ordered 9 Punjab to "capture" Thagla Ridge. Brigadier Dalvi, the only seniorcommander in the area, refused to execute the order given the ground situation and askedfor it to be countermanded. Meanwhile, in New Delhi the public was being assured that"the Army has been told to drive away the Chinese from our territory in NEFA", a task the

Indian Army was in no position to do. Dalvi realized that the Dhola had become militarilyindefensible, as well as Hathungla and Karpola, given the current troop strengths, andadvised HQ to abandon the posts. However, in Delhi, Dhola had become a prestige issuewith Nehrus political leadership and the army was ordered to retain the post. On the onthe opening day of the war, October 20, 1962; 513 soldiers, 282 NCOs and officers died.

Interestingly, on this fateful day the Prime Minister, the Defense Minister and the FinanceMinister were all abroad, and had not deemed that the NEFA situation warranted an



28/57


early return. In their absence, the officiating Defense Minister, Mr. Raghunath, decidedthat the Chinese were to be evicted from the North bank of Namka Chu, that the ThaglaRidge was to be contained and Tsangle was to be patrolled. These were the exact sameobjectives and orders that were issued earlier to Brigadier Dalvi and later countermanded.The envisaged operation would require supplies and equipment in amounts far beyond

what airdrops and porters could deliver prior to the onset of winter. Moreover, this wasassuming that the Chinese strength would remain constant at one battalion.

When General Umrao Singh saw this draft, he was not satisfied, stating that it was toooptimistic, and forwarded it to General Sen with his adverse comments. Sen overruledUmrao and ordered Dalvi to go ahead with the plan. However, this brought the Umrao-Sen conflict to criticality. Sen met the defense minister and asked for permission toremove General Umrao as G-O-C XXXIII Corps. Krishna Menon agreed and on 3rdOctober it was decided that Lt. General B. M. Kaul (on leave at that time) would replaceUmrao Singh. Kaul arrived in Tezpur on 4 October to take over the NEFA operations. Hemoved to Lumpu on the 5th, and, on learning that 2 battalions of 7 Brigade were stillthere, ordered 1/9 Gorkha and 2 Rajput to move onto Tsangdhar. Both battalions wereunder strength and did not have the requisite supplies or portage. The troops moved outin cotton uniforms with fifty rounds and light weapons leaving other equipment behindfor heights of 14,500 and 16,000 feet. Deaths resulted due to lack of acclimatization. Inspite of operational difficulties, Kaul still planned on the 10 October date laid down byGeneral Sen to complete Operation Leghorn. Kaul planned to place a battalion on ThaglaRidge itself across the Namka Chu river. The task was to be undertaken by 2 Rajput.When it was pointed out that they had absolutely no artillery cover and summer clothingfor 16000 feet, Kaul replied that "determined infantry do not need artillery" and that 6,000sets of clothing would be arriving "soon" via airdrop. Meanwhile at Tsangdhar, the placescheduled for airdrop, the bulk of the airdrops were getting lost due to supplies landingin inaccessible places. There were only 3 days rations available to 1/9 Gorkhas and 2 Rajput

with both battalions spending the nights in summer clothing and one blanket per man.

At 5 am of October 10th, about 800 Chinese troops supported by heavy mortars attacked9 Punjab. With 6 dead and 11 wounded the Patrol commander, Major Chaudhury askedBrigadier Dalvis permission to withdraw. Dalvi requested Kaul to hold furtherimplementation of Leghorn in abeyance in view of the gravity of the situation.Inexplicably, Kaul replied that he had no authority to pull back from Thagla and decidedto go to Delhi to talk with Nehru.

The battle at Tseng Jong was now raging furiously. Major Chaudhary was wounded andmade an appeal for mortar and machine gun fire to extricate his force. Brigadier Dalvi,

who was watching the battle, made the decision not to open up with mortars and machineguns. Firstly, Tseng Jong was beyond his range of weapons. Secondly, it would haveignited the entire 12-mile front in an all-out battle. The Rajputs and Gorkhas who hadbeen advancing to Tseng Jong as ordered earlier would have been mowed down by theChinese machine guns across the Namka Chu. Moreover, Dalvi could not have sustaineda firefight for long.



29/57


Virtually defenseless, and committed against fully supported, fully entrenched, and afully outnumbering enemy, the Indians fought most valiantly, inflicting heavy casualtieson the attackers. But, the over-whelming odds forced the Indians to fall back into Indianterritories, suffering heavy casualties in that process. Surprisingly, the Chinese allowedthe casualties to reach Indian lines. Some time later, the Chinese were found burying the

Indian dead with full military honors, a testament to their professionalism. And due topolitical ineptness, a defenseless India found itself at the losing side of an increasinglyhostile conflict. Kaul reached Delhi on 11th October and met the Prime Minister to apprisehim of the latest developments at Thagla.

Meanwhile at Thagla, 7 Brigade was reinforced by 4 Grenadiers, who had arrived fromDelhi and were in summer clothing with three days rations and fifty rounds ofammunition per rifle, bringing the total to 2,500 men. By 16th October 450 Border RoadsPioneers assisting in carrying loads and collecting airdrops further reinforced them.Interestingly, 7 Brigade, who normally could defend a linear defense of 300 yards, wasnow tasked by Army HQ to defend 12000 yards without artillery cover to break up enemyattacks. Efforts were made to build up 7 Brigade in this regard by increasing the tempo ofairdrops between 15th and 19th October. Between 17th and 19th October the Chinesewere seen steadily building up using their 7-ton road at Marmang. On 18th October, theChinese marking parties were seen moving to forming-up places for a night advance anda dawn attack. Frantic messages were sent by 7 Brigade to Army HQ in this regard, but nodecision was taken.

Predictably, on the morning of 20th October, the Chinese attacked with an artillerybombardment of 76 mm and 120-mm mortars at the Indian positions of Bridge III andBridge IV. Massive infantry assaults followed in divisional strength. The Rajput andGorkha positions in Dhola area were attacked with two brigades. One brigade advancedon Tsangdhar. Other columns were sent to Hathungla to prevent Indian forces from

retreating via Bridges I and II while others threatened the divisional HQ at Ziminthaung.The Rajputs and Gorkhas were completely encircled and cut off from each other. They heldon for over three hours despite lack of artillery support and reinforcements. Manyplatoons were to fight till the last man against overwhelming odds.

By 9 am, the Chinese had wiped out the two regiments of the Rajputs and the Gorkhas. 2Rajput alone had 282 killed, 81 wounded and captured and 90 lightly-wounded andcaptured out of their total strength of 513. Brigadier Dalvi, finding that 7 Brigade wasbeing run over by the Chinese, tried to lead a small retreating party of Indian troops backto Indian lines but was taken prisoner at Dhola. As expected, the Indian posts at Tsanglewere eliminated giving the Chinese control over the western end of NEFA. At the eastern

edge of NEFA, fighting commenced near the Indian strongpoint of Walong. Also on 20October, the Chinese attacked the forward posts in Ladakh. The Galwan post fell within afew weeks as did other Chinese targets. When news of the events of 20th October reachedNew Delhi, the reaction was of shock, surprise and a sense of betrayal. Pandit Nehru feltthat China had betrayed India and had forced an unwanted war on India instead ofpeaceful co-existence as espoused in Panchasheel. After the Namkachu debacle, IndianArmy HQ tried to find reinforcements for dispatch to the NEFA front. It was clear that thethreat from Pakistan precluded large-scale transfers of divisions from the western border.



30/57


Hence, battalions were pulled out from all over the rest of India to raise new divisions inNEFA.

Army HQ developed a strategic plan for NEFA. It focused on the two great ridges inNEFA one some distance behind the other. Se La, the key feature on the first ridge was the

vital ground backed up by another large garrison at Bomdilla on the second ridge, about60 miles away. These two strong points would be built up to the requisite strength bystocking it up for a siege lasting 15-20 days. This box or fortress defense strategy appealedto Lt. General Harbaksh Singh who was Kaul's replacement, due to the latter falling ill atthat time. It must be noted that the Thorat-Sen plan detailed earlier called forconcentrating at Bomdilla. Militarily, concentrating at Bomdilla would have made sense;however, this idea was rejected as it would require handing over more territory to theChinese. The government, in a political face-saving gesture, overlooked afundamental rule of war, that the exchange of territory is acceptable to form amore strategic position where victory can be achieved from potential defeat.

On 28th October, Kaul reassumed command of IV Corps from Harbaksh Singh.Immediately on assuming command Kaul visited Se La and Bomdilla. The HarbakshSingh- Palit plan of building up Se La and Bomdilla was progressing well. Five battalionsmanned Se La, under 62 Brigade. Sixty miles down the road, Bomdilla was held by 48Brigade with 3 battalions. The total strength in the area was around 12,000 men. In-between the two was Dirang Dzong, the administrative center. However, Kaul madesome fundamental changes to the Harbaksh-Palit plan that would prove to bethe final undoing of the Indian Army in NEFA. Kaul allowed the newly appointedGOC 4 Division Maj. General A. S. Pathania to set up his HQ at Dirang Dzong rather thanat Se La or Bomdilla. This resulted in only one brigade to defend Se La rather than the twoenvisaged in the Harbaksh-Palit plan. Se La, Bomdilla and Dirang Dzong could now nolonger hold out independently due to lack of support by road. A great deal depended on

keeping the 60-mile stretch between Se La and Bomdilla open.

On 16th November, the Chinese launched probing attacks on the northwest andnortheast approaches at Se La. 62 Brigade at Se La put up a stiff resistance, howeverPathania ordered them to fall back to Dirang Dzong. Hoshiar Singh, the commander of SeLa wanted to hold out at Se La, however under orders a battalion was pulled back from akey prepared position on the Se La perimeter. It was told to occupy a point just behindand below the Se La pass to protect the retreat route. The sight of troops falling backdemoralized the Se La defenders. Also, the Chinese who by then had encircled Se Lamoved into the vacated prepared positions and opened fire. As dawn broke, 62 Brigadewas in full retreat from Se La.

Then, General Kaul made the second critical mistake. Instead of specifying instructions toPathania on the course of action (since Lt. General Kaul was directing the theateroperations), he left this important decision at Pathania's discretion. Pathania opted for 65Brigade at Dirang Dzong to head for the Assam plains and not Bomdilla. Although theChinese had opened light arms fire on Dirang Dzong HQ, only smal

sanjay-o-vaach open hearts dead brains

Documents