Lead The Change

Author: Major General Vijay Pande, VSM (Retd)
(Views are personal. Information is from open sources)

“It is not the size of the dog in the fight,
It is the size of the fight in the dog”
Mark Twain

By all accounts Goliath, the champion of the Philistines (circa 9th century BC) was an imposing giant. Some described him as almost ten feet tall, others put a more conservative figure of around seven feet on him. He was challenged by a diminutive David of the Israelites to face him in combat. Goliath was strong of build, proud and arrogant, his armour impregnable and believed his victor was yet to be born. David had no visible signs of strength to speak of, no armour to protect him and a just a slingshot with five stones as his weapons. However, David used his slingshot to good effect; the first stone flung with it struck Goliath in the forehead and brought him down. Within no time David descended upon Goliath and severed his head from his body. In a moment, the myth of Goliath’s invincibility was reduced to dust.
During World War II, when the power of Nazi Germany was at its peak, having captured most of Europe and knocking at the gates of Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, a lesser known group called ‘Partisans’ played a critical role in weakening the German army with continuous harassing operations in their rear areas. The partisans were active in the territories occupied by Nazi Germany during their march into Soviet Russia which included Yugoslavia, Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine among others, as also in occupied France. Who were these Partisans? They were groups of ordinary men and women who dared to pick up arms and operate behind the German lines, raiding, ambushing, cutting off lines of communication and generally giving a torrid time to the enemy. They had little or no formal training but were replete with courage and resolve. One of them was a gutsy French woman called Nicole, who proved to be the nemesis of many Nazi soldiers.
In 1948, a newly born Israel went to war immediately with its Arab neighbours who were outraged at the development. The Arab countries massed large number of warriors and outnumbered the fledgling Israeli Army. The Arab League forces were also supported by irregular groups and foreign mercenaries. In reply, Israel mobilised every citizen for action as it was literally an existential war and prevailed over its opponents.
Numbers and technological superiority are important in warfare no doubt but are not the only deciding factors. Otherwise the results for the USA in Vietnam as well as Afghanistan would have been different. Sun Tzu, arguably the greatest military thinker of all time, listed out five essentials for victory. These were, one, “he will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight”; two, “he will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces”; three, “he will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks”; four, “he will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared”, and five, “he will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign”.
Historically, there have been countless wars in which the armies of the opposing sides were not evenly matched in numbers. Genghis Khan, one of the greatest conquerors in history, never had a combined force of more than a hundred thousand soldiers and he pretty much brought the entire Eurasian continental region from the shores of the Sea of Japan to Central Europe under his heel. In October 1947, the Indian Army staved off hordes of raiders from Pakistan on the outskirts of Srinagar with just one Battalion initially, the famous 1 Sikh, commanded by Lt Col DR Rai. Of course, reinforcements flew in fast thereafter and the tide was turned.
The great military thinker Liddel Hart said, “in war the primary target is the mind of the enemy commander and not the bodies of his troops”. Wars are fought not only in the physical domain, which is the most visible, but also in the psychological as well as the moral domains which are not so easily discernible. The Chinese refer to second part as the ‘three wars strategy’ which includes public opinion, psychological and legal warfare.
The morality of war demands that the citizens as also the soldier must believe in the justness of the cause and the unavoidable necessity for which the nation must take recourse to war. This will be one of the prime motivations for the soldier. War is not a spectacle just to be viewed in the living rooms or dissected in the studios. Lives of men and the fate of a nation must not be reduced to a shouting spectacle on evening prime time. Everyone must believe that, having exhausted all options, there is no alternative to defend the righteous cause and then plunge into it with heart and soul.
The psychology of war will necessitate the exploitation of information and the means of disseminating it as the new “strategic high ground” in warfare. The shaping of perceptions using information as a weapon will be the new normal in non-kinetic warfare. Narratives and counter narratives will inundate the air waves and the mind space. The greater the availability of information and technology, the greater the challenges as well as the opportunities. Everyone must be alive to this unseen facet of war.
United we must stand.

“For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf,
And the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.”
Rudyard Kipling

Sepoy Gurtej Singh, a 23 year old from Mansa in Punjab went down fighting at Galwan Nala as only a Sikh soldier could, using his kirpan to despatch his opponents to the other world. For the family, their world came crashing down with his death. A grateful nation bade a tearful goodbye with full honours to the martyr. The state government promised financial assistance to the family. The media brought the story to our homes and then moved on to the next bit of breaking news. The village may possibly erect a memorial or a gate or name a road after him. The family will live to recount the saga of honour of their brave son/brother as the only salve to an otherwise unbearable grief.
One thing, however, is certain. In the days to come, the family of the martyr will be helped to pick up the pieces by none other than the Unit to which he belonged. The Commanding Officer will ensure that his family receives all the benefits that are due and help them tide over the trauma so that they can get on with their lives. The fallen soldier will not be forgotten by the Unit, ever. His name will be on the Roll of Honour along with his photograph in the Quarterguard of the Unit for generations to come and for all his comrades to see.
On the icy heights of Ladakh, in the mountains and forests of Kashmir and also in the scalding heat of the desert, the soldier stands guard, protecting his country against its enemies. He is fully aware that a fate similar to Gurtej Singh might befall him someday and is proud to face it. This is what after all he had sworn to do when he wore his uniform for the first time. It is not for nothing that the Gorkha soldier believes it is better to die than be a coward (kafar hunu bhanda marnu neeko), the soldier from JAK LI believes that sacrifice is the hallmark of the brave (balidanam veer lakshanam) and the tankman from Skinner’s Horse believes in the courage of the warrior and the help of his God (himmat e mardaan, madad e Khuda).
What are the soldier’s thoughts as he sees the crisis looming in front of him today and the happenings back home? Does he think about his family, yes often. Does he think about his country, oh yes, often. Does he think about the job at hand, well, all the time! After all, there is a lot to be done. The weapon must be cleaned, the magazines must not jam in the middle of a fight, rounds of machine guns must be belted, tank and artillery ammunition as well as the guns cleaned, the ropes must be checked, the personal equipment and boots must fit well and be repaired if need be. On top of it, defences must be continuously improved, there are the radio set batteries to be charged, the first aid kits to be refilled and of course emergency rations to be kept ready. Then there are the briefings, rehearsals and patrolling…. pray who has the time to think of death!!!
In the mofussil towns and villages of India there are thousands upon thousands of men who once served in the army. Most of them retired as Sepoys, Non Commissioned Officers and Junior Commissioned Officers. All of them proudly prefix their name with only one word that is universally respected, “Fauji”. The roadside eatery on the highway run by a retired soldier will invariably be called the “Fauji Dhaba”; the driver of the truck, if he happens to be one of them, will write in bold ‘Fauji” on the windscreen. They are the silent majority of veterans, dignified, least vocal, proud and respected in their community. They are the connection between the serving soldiers and the common man.
Among the veteran officers there are some who left the army early, others left midway while many superannuated after completing the full length of service. All of them have the same fire in the belly that was their hallmark in service. They contribute in their own way towards the society and are generally venerated by the citizens. All of them have perspectives, have better access to information and are knowledgeable as well as articulate. Some of them appear in the media and give their valuable views. To the common citizen, the veterans appearing in the media or postulating in gatherings as subject matter experts represent the military itself as he does not get to hear from the serving officers’ fraternity for obvious reasons. The word of the veterans therefore has immense significance for the citizens who are not so much aware of matters military and hence that word is taken for what it is. However, seeing some of them taking sides in openly politically partisan or communally charged debates is disconcerting to the public at large, to say the least and does not show the military establishment in good light. Frequent sniping to score points and vicious personal attacks on each other in full media glare must be giving a sense of dismay to those in service at the frontline. Some of them frequently trip over each other trying to prove how much more they know than the others, unwittingly leading to reporters giving out details of military activities which are best kept with the military and no one else. After all, “discretion should be the better part of valour”.
The men at the helm of affairs as well as those at the front have a job to do. Let them do it. Such unseemly distractions are the last thing they need. They need all the support the country can give them.
When the storm is looming on the horizon, the wise brace for it together and stand united. Let good sense prevail.

“Old soldiers never die,
Never die, never die,
Old soldiers never die,
They simply fade away”
(British army soldiers’ folklore song)

Author: Major General Vijay Pande, VSM (Retd)

“To every man upon this earth, death cometh sooner or later,
And how can a man die better, than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his gods”

The Roman warrior Horatius said these memorable lines in the sixth century BC as he valiantly stood on the only bridge on the Tiber River to defend Rome against the army of the King of Clusium. He was there with only two others, hopelessly outnumbered but determined to defend the Gate to Rome. Fast forward to Saragarhi in Sep 1867, where 21 Sikh soldiers held out till the end against hordes of Afghans; to Major Shaitan Singh with his company of 113 men at Rezang La in 1962, who etched it with their blood what fighting to the last man and last round means. I am also reminded of the gallant Arun Khetrapal who fell in battle in 1971 with his last words “my gun can still fire” as well as the redoubtable Commanding Officer in Sri Lanka who, caught in the middle of an unbreakable ambush and implored by his headquarters to pull back, simply stated “Gorkhas don’t withdraw” and decided to fight it out to the last breath. Such examples are many. Laying down one’s life in the battlefield after all is considered the supreme sacrifice for no other reason. I was brought to believe since childhood that it is the most superior form of death as it guarantees a soldier a place in heaven. The fallen soldiers in the Galwan valley exemplified this everlasting attribute in our soldiers. It is not important as to how many of the enemy they killed or wounded, what is important is that the brave CO and his men did not go down without a fight. Without doubt this unparalleled trait will continue to inspire more and more soldiers to look at death in the eye in the line of duty.
After all what is it that differentiates a soldier from his civilian counterparts. At the outset, let me state unequivocally that all citizens, irrespective of the field they are engaged in, do their bit for their country. Patriotism and a sense of duty should not be considered the exclusive preserve of the armed forces. The humble farmer toiling in the fields and getting a pittance for his produce, the truck driver who delivers commodities across the length and breadth of India driving in the most abysmal conditions, the entrepreneur who literally risks his all and leaps into uncharted waters, the doctors, nurses, policemen,… there are so many others engaged in the development of the nation and the well being of its citizens.
There is but a slight difference with the soldier. While a young man or woman taking up a job gets the ‘first thrill’ on receiving his appointment letter and his first salary, the soldier takes an oath in front of his Flag and his God that he will serve anywhere and everywhere required and will lay down his life if his duty towards the country requires him to do so. His ‘first thrill’ is to feel the cold steel of the rifle which will become his companion for the rest of his service; indeed, the personal weapon will become an extension of his body. He will also go on to handle the bigger weapons of war with the expertise that his training will give him.
The soldier is not a warmonger, neither is he a coward. Jingoism of the kind seen in the media is good where it is – in the media and nowhere else. It has no place in the life of the soldier. The soldier must train to fight and fight to win. Simple.
The US Army had a culture of “embedding” journalists with military formations during operations so that they could report more realistically. The last of the kind was Molly Moore from ‘The Washington Post’ who accompanied Lt Gen Walter Boomer and his Marine Corps in Kuwait during the first Gulf War in 1991 and later penned her thoughts in a book titled ‘A Woman at War’. Some of our esteemed personalities appearing on media could do well to get a shot of military awareness, otherwise constantly sermonising on matters military without ever having fired a shot in anger or having been anywhere near the mud and grime of the trench dents their credibility. One needs to “differentiate between a guerrilla and a gorilla”, as the good Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw once remarked!

“Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt”, said Sun Tzu almost 3000 years ago. Surprise and deception have always been a vital element in all operations. Does the predator tell its prey that it is coming for it before it hunts it down? Did we tell the enemy that we were coming for him before Uri and Balakot? If one does not prepare for the enemy’s next move, he will be surprised and maybe killed. That is the ugly truth of war. Therefore, I feel that the ongoing noise about the “treachery” shown by China is naivete at its best. I am sure that our military planners are well ahead of the enemy in their OODA Loop notwithstanding the dust being raised in the media.
Secondly there is a lot of indignation about how soldiers fought with sticks and stones “like cavemen”. The purists are outraged and will have none of it. After all wars are supposed to be clean, glamorous and glorious, all at the same time in their view. High tech weapons including fanciful equipment will win the day! My humble submission is that wars and their battles and engagements within have always been and will always be messy affairs. Who knows it better than the old blood and guts infantry man whose role is to close in with the enemy and destroy him in close quarter combat. All of us remember the lessons given to us in unarmed combat in our younger days. Vulnerable parts of the human body. Parts of the human body that can be used as weapons when no weapons are around, whatever the reason. The battle of Stalingrad, arguably one of the most vicious and long drawn battles of WW 2 was fought in the sewers and drains of Stalingrad in the final stages. Soldiers from both sides used pieces of debris, iron rods, crow bars, stones, bare hands, feet and teeth and whatever else they could lay their hands on, against each other. The most high tech army in the modern day world, the US army has engaged the Taliban in hand to hand combat on more than one occasion. This is what fighting is all about. The soldier must always be the hunter, thinking ten steps ahead of his prey, only then he will succeed on the ground. Meaningless rhetoric and tall talk does no good to anyone. The soldier and his squad leader knows it better than anyone else that there is only one motto ‘prepare and rehearse, prepare and rehearse, prepare and rehearse’.

“The last argument of kings”.
In his book with the same name, the author Joe Abercrombie referred to cannons as the last argument of kings. Cannons don’t lie. The round will fall where it is meant to. No half truths.
During the Moscow Conference of 1944, Stalin was known to have interrupted Churchill’s speech explaining why he defended Poland because of its Christian outlook, by asking, “how many divisions does the Pope have”.
My ramblings may appear out of context as they usually do to detractors. The point I wish to make is that as an element of the comprehensive national power of a nation, the military constitutes the sharp tip of the arrow, the blunt face of the hammer. The military must say it as it is. No mincing of words, for it is the lives of soldiers that are involved and indeed the survival of the nation is at stake. Political leanings or an attempt to appear more loyal to the king than the king himself must not colour a soldier’s professional outlook whether during service or later on. If political leanings or desire for the crumbs of power are more important, then the trappings of the military identity should be kept aside. Soldiers earn the respect of their countrymen for their courage, both physical and moral.
Speaking one’s mind out does not make one any less patriotic than the other. This simple truth should not be lost in the nationalistic hype. Otherwise we will be no different than the Third Reich of Goebbels and Himmler. Knowledge is no longer the preserve of the select few. The Brahmanical order collapsed long ago with the dawn of the information age. Everyone is equally aware and probably more. To consider the ordinary citizen as naive is the greatest folly. To paraphrase the ever ebullient Khushwant Singh, “With malice towards none”.

Author – Major General Vijay Pande, VSM (Retired)

(Views are personal)

In any military confrontation it is necessary to locate and identify the military hardware, troop deployments and activities of the enemy, using various means at our disposal. Interpretation of these gives us an assessment of the probable courses of action available to the opponent. The Duke of Wellington said, “the whole art of war consists of guessing what is on the other side of the hill”. However, what remains an enigma for all military planners is the intention of the enemy commanders. “What is playing on his mind” is the perpetual question to be answered. It is not an easy call to make. In this piece I will try to delve into some examples from recent history and try to get some pointers towards the “mind of the enemy commander”. There are no prizes for getting it right, the loser will end up eating crow!!

The Sino Soviet Border War 1969. Without going into the larger reasons for the war, the immediate ‘casus belli’ was the dispute over the island territories in the Ussuri river. The demarcated border ran along the eastern bank of the river which was not in line with the “thalweg principle” of demarcation of borders along the deepest part along river courses which is the principle navigable channel. One incident merits attention. The incident was on 2 March 1969 on the disputed Damansky Island on the Ussuri river called Zhenbao Island by the Chinese. This island was under the control of the Soviets. Patrolling by the Soviet border guards was a regular affair. On this fateful day, the Chinese entered the area in fairly large numbers (approximately 75 men). When challenged by a detachment of Soviet troops led by an officer present in the area, the Chinese objected and this led to a brawl among them. One thing led to another and the Chinese suddenly opened fire, killing all the Soviet soldiers present and taking the Soviet leadership by surprise. Prior to this incident also, altercations between Chinese and Soviet soldiers had been a regular affair in this area. On many occasions the altercations turned into brawls between soldiers. The conflict lasted seven months. All along this crisis, China played the victim and painted the Soviets as the aggressors. The understated larger aim of challenging the Soviets was to emerge as an equal Communist power and not one that played second fiddle to the Soviet Union. One positive fallout of the war for China was that USA started viewing it as a possible ally against the Soviet Union.

Are there any similarities with what is happening on our northern borders?

The Sino Vietnam War 1979. The war between China and Vietnam in 1979 also rings a bell. I will first briefly summarise the prevailing conditions at that time.

One, Vietnam had emerged unified and stronger after the exit of the Americans from the region. A powerful Vietnam had invaded Cambodia to limit Chinese influence in that country. It had also started expelling ethnic Chinese from Vietnam.

Two, the Soviet Union had given support to Vietnam and its unification as a logical consequence of the American withdrawal from Vietnam.

Three, China under Deng Xiao Ping had embarked on the ‘Four Modernisations’ programme including agriculture, industry, national defense, and science and technology only in 1978. The Chinese PLA was a peasant force and not much had changed in its organisation, equipment and training over the years.

Four, the intention of China was to teach Vietnam a lesson for its growing regional clout, defying China and proximity to USSR.

China launched a three pronged land offensive with some 200,000 troops with the military aims of capturing six regional capitals after which it would have declared victory and withdrawn. They were opposed by approximately 50,000 Vietnamese soldiers who were ably led and highly combat hardened. The Chinese campaign was anything but quick and decisive, laden as it was with outdated human wave tactics, inflexible organisations and inadequate as well as poorly planned logistics.

Predictably, the Chinese offensive slowed down and ultimately ground to a halt. They could capture three of the six defined military objectives but with heavy casualties, after which the Chinese declared that their military aims had been achieved and withdrew. Militarily what China achieved could hardly be termed as a success. Geostrategically also it failed to limit Vietnam’s influence in Cambodia. However, where it did succeed was in exposing the limits of the USSR’s capability in supporting Vietnam and intervening on its behalf.

Are There any Pointers

There are striking similarities in China’s behaviour and actions on the Ussuri river and Vietnam with the happenings on its Indian border. Today China has upped the ante against India with somewhat similar thoughts. It is not happy with India’s growing influence, it is not happy with India’s growing proximity to the US, it is not happy with India opposing the BRI and more importantly it believes it can still “teach India a lesson”. Maybe it is also testing the limits of US support to India. War ultimately is all about “imposing one’s will upon the enemy” to quote Clausewitz. Knowing the enemy and more importantly assessing his intentions are crucial at all levels. In the end national resolve, superior leadership, superior planning and tenacity as well as courage of the man behind the gun will decide the outcome.

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton