Army day has concluded, Republic Day is around the corner. The nation’s heart will swell with pride when army contingents, in their splendid attire, march down Raj Path on Republic Day. There would be pin drop silence and tears would swell in the eyes of the nation, when the next of kin of an Ashoka Chakra awardee silently and humbly walks up to receive the honour from the President for the ultimate sacrifice of her loved one. That has yet to come, the present being vastly different. India, as a nation, only remembers its soldiers in times of trouble.

On other days, they are free for bashing, insulting and accusing. Currently, we Indians are at a crossroads. Internal protests seek to break the secular fabric of the nation, pitting religion versus religion. The Constitution is being challenged and questioned. Secularism and the Constitution are the very things which the soldier defends and dies for. The army chief is openly insulted by politicians on public platforms and social media. Every comment of his is twisted and insults flow. Protestors shout slogans denouncing the army as being responsible for the turmoil in Kashmir.

Advertisement

The army silently accepts these insults, does not respond, but is hurt. While protesting against government decisions is a birth right in a democracy, dragging the armed forces into it, despite them having no role in decision-making, is demeaning the secular credentials of an apolitical organization which remains silent in the face of criticism. The soldier is aware of what is happening and the insults flowing against his organisation. He watches the same news as the nation does and reads the same newspapers. Soldiers are human, deployed well away from their families, insecure with happenings at home while fighting the nefarious designs of inimical forces daily.

Their silence to criticism is due to military ethos, but it does not imply that the armed forces are unhurt by the unwarranted accusations. Twisting the words of its top leadership and insulting them for their comments implies insulting the organisation. Questioning the army on its actions implies hitting at the core belief of the organisation. All through this, the solider silently guards the nation at the risk to his life in temperatures as low as -50 Degrees Celsius, battling weather, terrain and an enemy bent on breaking the nation’s unity.

What would he be thinking when he stands guard? The chants of the protestors apart from targeting the secular fabric of the nation also accuse the army of being behind the turmoil in Kashmir. This is the same region where the soldier moves in extreme conditions bracing himself for contact with militants, countering Pakistan’s nefarious designs and facing the brunt of its ceasefire violations. What thoughts would pass through his mind when he steps out of his camp, not knowing if this would be his last day, only aware that he is likely to encounter terrorists who seek to destroy his nation?

Would he remain grateful to his countrymen or wonder whether they deserve the life he risks? Politicians who should be standing behind the soldier of the only apolitical force in the subcontinent, insult his hierarchy and in the bargain the soldier at the drop of a hat, accuse it of being political, when there is no such suggestion. Politicians question his success in operations, and in the process, accuse the army of falsifying high-risk missions. What would the soldier think of such national leaders when almost daily one of his kin is brought back home in a coffin?

In Siachen, where in icy temperatures and freezing winds the solider salutes the national flag and proudly watches it flutter, there are those who refuse to stand for the national anthem, considering it below their dignity. In the US, after insulting the national flag, three youth were brought to court in chains. In India, such anti-nationals are felicitated for political benefits. What would the soldier think of those who refuse to honour the flag, which may one day drape his remains? Soldiers face the brunt of stone throwers in Kashmir. When they respond they are accused of violating human rights and charged under law.

Indians consider human rights of all, including terrorists, and petition against their death penalty, while accusing soldiers at the drop of a hat. What would be running through his mind when he battles terrorists sent across the border or youth paid to throw stones at him aimed at causing casualties? In India, the death of a soldier is ignored, while news of politicians and film stars glorified. Even to get his dues from the state, the soldier’s family is compelled to pay bribes. A soldier’s life is not worth much, but quotes of politicians and film stars are too important to be ignored.

Is this a nation worth dying for? Political parties exploit success of soldiers’ actions and seek votes on their success. However, when it comes to paying them their rightful dues, they have a million excuses. Veterans who signed a blank cheque on their lives for the nation at an early age are protesting for their dues, which the government ignores. Are these the true leaders who will back the soldier when he loses his life battling enemies?

He would be thinking whether the Indian whose life he is securing is worth dying for, when they act against the very principles for which he stands. He would possibly be considering that if he is accused for his actions and charged legally when facing stone throwing mobs, should he retreat and let them gain the upper hand or should he respond and prove to them that the Indian soldier will stand his ground? If we truly respect our soldiers on days other than a select few, then the least we Indians can do is be citizens worth dying for and give the soldier the respect he deserves.

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