secrecy system has become much less a means by which government protects national security than a means by which the government safeguards its reputation, dissem- bles its purpose, buries its mistakes, manipulates its citi- zens, maximises its power and corrupts itself." This is exactly what the government is doing now. There is no convincing reason in support of the gov- ernment's decision to not make photographic evidence of surgical strikes public, as most of the powerful armies in the world regularly do it to support their cases. This intentional manufacturing of confusion by the government helps it to trap the Opposition into a patriot versus "Pakistani" binary, but at the same time it raises seri- ous questions over the reputation of the Indian Army. Thus, by refusing to share proof, the government is not anyway safeguarding the Army or protecting national interest. Rather, the government's intentional politicisation of the issue is an affront to democratic values of the coun- try and inflicts serious damage on the credibility of the Army.
tion being asked. Public evaluation of its genuine achieve- ments and lapses is critical to improve itself and build gen- uine public trust. If information is suppressed or misre- ported, it will likely lead to misinterpretation and damage the public image of the armed forces. It is critical that there should be as much as possible transparency and accountability in the activity of the armed forces. That will reduce the danger of civil-military gap and will help build confidence, cooperation and capac- ity of a democratic society. Breaking from past practices, it is the political leader- ship's prerogative in deciding to come out openly about the surgical strikes of the Army. However, the leadership also is duty-bound to protect the Indian Army from being used in political one-upmanship. There are many of examples in India's neighbourhood of the military taking advantage of its strength (physical and institutional) and capturing power through a coup, or superseding civilian leaders or imposing leaders of its own choice. For democracy to survive and to protect its values, the objective of the Indian government must be to keep its armed forces politically neutral. Taking the cover of maintaining secrecy to protect national interest, the Indian government is not sharing evi- dences to substantiate its claim of the successes achieved through surgical strikes. Unfortunately, the government sees political gain in keeping the "surgical strike" debate going as it helps keep focus on its so-called muscular approach vis-à-vis Pakistan in the public domain. Even way back in 1973, quoting Justice Polak, Justice KK Mathew had observed in the Supreme Court: "The
Editor’s Note: Please post your comments on this article at www.indiaparentmagazine.org under this article.
67 indiaparentmagazine.org
Open House Special 2016
Made with FlippingBook Online document