Friday, May 18, 2012

Recalling end of Eelam War IV

Note:


Tomorrow, on 19th May, it will be exactly three years since Eelam War IV between the Sri Lankan forces and the LTTE ended with the gruesome death of V. Prabhakaran and his most loyal commanders. Now we also know that both his sons--Charles Antony and Balkrishna--died violently. Human Right groups have come up with evidence that the younger son was shot in cold blood after being captured. Others have also talked about Prabhakaran himself being shot in the custody of the Sri Lankan Army, a claim not verified or confirmed by anyone. There are so many unanswered questions on the final days of the war.


I am reproducing below an excerpt from a column I wrote in May 2010, a year after the War was over. Two Video clips--interviews with Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse and Gen. Sarath Fonseka, the then Army Chief, later bitter opponent of the Rajapakse brothers--are also included in this post. As I write this, there are indications that Fonseka may be released from prison soon.


Much has changed since those charged up days. Sri Lanka's rulers are on the back foot, but defiant for their complete disregard for human rights. The relationship between India and Sr Lanka is tense. But nothing will change what happened in those three days in May 2009. Here's a re-look.




RECALLING PRABHAKARAN'S END


(http://www.rediff.com/news/column/nitin-gokhale-on-the-lttes-defeat/20100512.htm )


On May 19, 2009, Vigyanmoorthi Muralitharan, better known as Colonel Karuna, was flown in into the battle zone in northern Sri Lanka to identify LTTE leader Vellupillai Prabhakaran's body.
That day Sri Lanka needed Muralitharan to certify Prabhakaran's death since Colombo knew the world would react sceptically to the news. And sure enough, even after state television began beaming the visuals of a dead Prabhakaran, dressed in his favourite military fatigues, eyes wide open, there was disbelief and shock across the globe.
After all, Prabhakaran was unarguably the world's most elusive, most innovative and some would say, most ruthless terrorist. His large army of Tamil Tigers had taken on and beaten back the Indian and the Sri Lankan armies in the past. And like in the past, many thought Eelam War IV, as the latest conflict had come to be known, would also result in a stalemate. But there it was.
Prabhakaran was dead and gone, the LTTE smashed militarily. So how did he die? Was he taken alive and then killed, as some Tamil Web sites have suggested? Or was he killed in battle, in the last-ditch attempt to break through the tight cordon placed by the Sri Lankan army in the final hours of the war?
Going by what Sri Lanka's army chief then, General Sarath Fonseka told me in an interview, three days after Prabhakaran's body was discovered, the LTTE chief was indeed killed in a fierce gun-battle.
This is how General Fonseka, described the final hours to me in an interview: "On 18th (May) night, the topmost LTTE leadership divided itself into three different groups. They attacked our forward defence line along the Nandikkadal lagoon and did manage to break through. But they had reckoned without our second and third tier defences. These three groups were led by Jeyam, Pottu Amman and Soosai. Prabhakaran and his closest bodyguards thought they had managed to escape, but in reality all these LTTE fighters, around 250 of them, had got trapped between our first and the second defence lines. After fierce fighting that night, almost all the top leadership got killed in the area. We discovered Prabhakaran's body on the 19th morning."
We will have to take General Fonseka's word as final.
For, this war, like every other war, had no witnesses.
So what was so different in this war that attracted worldwide media attention?
"This time, we were playing for a win, not for a draw," General Foneska told me in his office.
Looking pleased as punch, General Fonseka had apologised for keeping us waiting.
"Your army chief was on the line, congratulating us for our military success," he told me. That was the opening I needed to break the ice. "Well, I know that General Deepak Kapoor (then India's army chief) has been taking a keen interest in your operations," I remember telling the general.
"You know him?" he asked.
Before I could answer, Brigadier Udaya Nanayyakara, then the Sri Lankan army spokesman who had accompanied us to the interview, told his chief: "Nitin has been reporting on the Indian armed forces very closely for a long time, Sir."
That did it. It was as if an invisible bond had instantly developed between us: Me, a long-time student of the armed forces and the general, at the peak of his military career.
All the irritation over Dhanpal, my cameraperson colleague, and me being subjected to a two-stage, thorough security check that lasted an hour -- 'Take off your belt', 'Remove the shoes', 'Click the camera', 'Switch off the mobiles'-- vanished instantly.
I wanted to ask him several questions, but before that, he shot a query at me.
"So how do you rate our operations?" "No one can dispute the military victory," I responded and proceeded to ask him the ONE question that had been at the back of my mind ever since I had landed in Colombo for the fifth time since January 2009: "What made the difference this time? How did the LTTE, which always seemed to turn adversity into an advantage in the past, fail to stop the Sri Lankan army this time?"
He gave me one of the pithiest comments I have ever heard: "This time, we were playing for a win, not for a draw."
I say to myself: this guy is a television interviewer's dream. What a byte!
And sure enough, throughout the half hour, on camera, General Fonseka was candid, blunt, and aggressive by turn. Pleased with himself and his troops, giving me one quotable quote after another, or byte as we call them in broadcast journalism. Each of the answer is a potential headline.
And sure enough, we carried many of his replies as standalone stories over the next few days.
Just a week before I met General Fonseka for this landmark interview, no one was sure how the events would pan out in Sri Lanka.
My mind goes back to May 15, 2009. That evening, a source had called from Sri Lanka saying "It's all over, you should be here NOW."
I was not too sure whether Sri Lanka would find any news space given the fact that the entire nation was glued to the story of Indian election results in less than 12 hours from then.
Yet, as a precaution, I told the bosses that the denouement in Sri Lanka appeared to be near and I may have to rush to Colombo at very short notice.
The next day, May 16, as I prepared to do my bit on election results day, another source, in fact a very high official, called in at 7 am and said, "It is all over, bar the shouting. Try and be here by this evening."
Since this official had been dead right with information in the past too, I decided to take a chance. The bosses were also game.
So, as India was glued to its television sets getting the latest election results, I rushed to the airport at an hour's notice to catch a flight to Bangalore and from there to Colombo. By 4.30 that evening, I was in the Sri Lankan capital.
Am I glad I did that? Oh yes! By taking that off chance and believing in my sources, I was right there when the biggest war story of the decade unfolded.
A decade ago, one was fortunate to be in Kargil, reporting on the India-Pakistan conflict.
But there is one major difference between 1999 and 2009. I had reported Kargil for print, for Outlook magazine, to be precise.
This time, I was reporting the war in Sri Lanka for NDTV, a completely different medium which requires an altogether different set of expertise and resources.
In less than 12 hours after landing in Colombo, the difficulties of broadcast journalism combined with the obstacles posed by an obdurate and cussed bureaucracy, so very typical of South Asian nations, became apparent.
My colleague Dhanpal, incidentally a Tamil, reached Colombo International Airport early next morning and got stuck in Customs. They didn't let him out, saying the papers for the television equipment that he was carrying were not in order.
So began a battle of another kind. One was not sure if Dhanpal had been stopped because he was a Tamil. Assuming the worst, I made two or three calls and asked him to wait. Fortunately, a couple of hours later, a fresh set of requisite documents reached the obdurate customs officer and he let Dhanpal go, albeit reluctantly.
An hour after his arrival, we straightaway plunged into work. There were pieces to camera to be done, stand ups to be uplinked and phone calls to be made to different sources.
And then there was the constant stream of demands from the office to be met. "Do a phone in at the top of the hour," "Give the details of the latest battle casualties," "Our competitors are saying the army has sighted Prabhakaran, what do you have?" -- the demands were unending.
In retrospect, it was a timely move to be in the Sri Lankan capital because from that Saturday evening onwards, events unfolded with lightening speed and one could keep pace with requirements of television news only because in Dhanpal I had an experienced and unflappable colleague.
As Eelam War IV neared its climax, there was virtually not a minute's respite since one was reporting for both for NDTV's English and Hindi channels. Each desk had a different requirement.
The challenge was two-fold: To relay the information by putting it in the context for Indian viewers and second not go wrong on facts since NDTV 24x7 is the most viewed Indian channel in Colombo.
Reporting from Colombo posed another challenge. The high level of security in the Sri Lankan capital meant that you couldn't shoot in the streets. All my pieces to camera and stand-ups had to be therefore done from either the hotel lawns or in the hotel lobby, robbing the coverage, the actual feel of the place.
On a previous trip, me and another colleague, Sukumar, had been escorted to a police station because we were shooting on the street! But May 19 changed all that overnight. Prabhakaran was dead and the LTTE, decimated.
Suddenly it was as if the entire nation was liberated! Jubilant crowds thronged the streets, bursting crackers, stuffing the armed forces personnel with sweets and garlanding them. For the television cameras too it was a liberating moment. No one stopped us now.
We walked between processions, on the streets awash with Sri Lankan flags, local singers singing paeans to the soldiers at impromptu street corner gatherings, doing our walkabouts, our pre-recorded interviews and pieces to camera amidst the celebrations absolutely unhindered!
It was an historic news event, but also a sad one.
Through the day, we managed to remain on top of the news but as night fell and the prime time bulletins were over, the reality hit us both.
All said and done, Prabhakaran was an extraordinary personality. The outfit that he created and led had no parallel in the history of terrorism.
As we sat sipping our chilled beers, Dhanpal recalled, how, as a college student in Chennai in the late 1970s, he was part of a group that had mobilised support for the Tamil cause in Sri Lanka and how Prabhakaran was even then a celebrity in the Tamil brotherhood.
Unlike Dhanpal, I had no such personal memory but as a student of insurgencies and conflicts, I only had grudging admiration for Prabhakaran's military genius and innovative mind. After all, he invented the suicide bomber; he perfected the cyanide capsule culture and applied innovative and daring tactics to combat large professional armies. But in the end, not knowing when to quit and compromise cost Prabhakaran his life. So, in different ways both of us, felt sad at the turn of events.
Over the next three days, we managed to get exclusive, one on one interviews with Sri Lanka's defence secretary and General Fonseka among others. These interactions helped me confirm some of the conclusions that I reached about why Eelam War IV was different than earlier military campaigns in Sri Lanka.
General Fonseka, a battle-hardened veteran of many past duels with the LTTE, had correctly assessed that the Tamil Tigers had expanded greatly in numbers, but had perhaps lost the agility and stealth that had made the outfit such a formidable adversary.
The army commander in fact explained to me in detail the fresh strategy that he adopted. Selecting commanders who had previous field experience and were ruthless enough to implement unconventional and brutal tactics, General Fonseka outwitted and outnumbered the LTTE.
He formed small, highly mobile, independent and lethal commando teams, who often infiltrated behind the enemy lines to isolate and then demolish LTTE defences. Of course, General Fonseka was lucky to have Gotabaya Rajapakse, a former course-mate in the army, as the defence secretary. Gotabaya is also the president's brother. So, Messrs Rajapakse and Fonseka had the total backing of President Mahinda Rajapakse, who set a clear military objective for the armed forces: Demolish the Tamil Tigers militarily, no matter what the cost.
As General Fonseka said during the interview, this is any general's dream: Total political backing, no limits on buying war materials and recruiting manpower.
Sri Lanka took in 80,000 new recruits in the armed forces in the last four years. It secured a steady supply of weapons and ammunition from countries like China and Pakistan after India refused to help Colombo under domestic political compulsions.
The Tigers, on the other hand, were still stuck in the old mindset, employing conventional tactics like trying to hold on to territory. They finally paid heavily for those outdated strategies.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

AK Antony tries to clear the air on Defence matters

Fellow journalist Mukesh Kaushik, a busybody on the defence beat took pains to send out the entire reply given by Defence Minister AK Antony in Rajya Sabha on Tuesday on the grants for the Ministry of Defence. 


This must be the longest Antony has spoken. Some passages in his speech were playing to the gallery, but a lot of information, some old, some known to a few and some new, emerged from the speech. For those of us who watch and report on security and strategic matters, it was important. I am sure for many others too who are interested in the defence sector this would prove to be useful. Here are the exceprts.




 MINISTER OF DEFENCE  A.K. ANTONY  REPLYING IN RAJYA SABHA (8 May 2012)



Mr. Vice Chairman, Sir, at the beginning, I would like to place on record our salute to the heroic memory of our soldiers and officers, who laid their lives for the protection of the sovereignty and integrity of our country. Before the start of this discussion today, nearly for one hour, the entire House paid glowing tributes to the memory of our greatest patriot, greatest poet, Rabindranath Tagore. Without any exaggeration, when I stand here, I feel the spirit of Tagore, yesterday and today, while we were discussing our Defence Budget. I don’t find any narrow political batting or any attempt to settle scores, or, pointing scores. Instead, all the hon. Members, either on that side or this side, nearly 24 Members, and, finally, the Leader of the Opposition, were speaking as true Indians, Indian nationalists. That was the spirit of Rabindranath Tagore. So, this discussion, yesterday and today, actually gives more strength, not only to me or my officers but also to the entire Armed Forces of our country. Yesterday’s and today’s discussion in this House is the greatest tribute, which this House and the nation have given to the Armed Forces of our country. 

 I thank all the hon. Members from the other side and this side for participating in this debate in a very very enlightened atmosphere and, at the same time, giving suggestions, healthy suggestions, that can improve the functioning of the Ministry of Defence and also improve the performance of our Armed Forces, and as a result we can strengthen our national security and our defence preparedness. I assure the hon. Members that I will take every suggestion from you, every criticism from you with a serious note. I will try my best and wherever corrections are needed, we will make corrections and with your support we will make every effort to make Indian military stronger so that we can face any challenges coming from any quarters in the coming years. Today, in the final stage of the debate, the hon. Leader of the Opposition also joined the debate. Actually, through his speech, he has taken this debate to a new height. I congratulate him for his wisdom in taking this debate above politics, above party lines and giving suggestions to strengthen the preparedness of our Armed Forces. As everybody knows, the primary duty of the Armed Forces is to defend our country in the event of an armed conflict. That is their primary duty. For that, they have to be vigilant in land borders, in air, in sea, in space and, in recent years, in cyber area also.



I know there are limitations. There are shortages of officers, state-of-the-art equipment, in certain areas of ammunition. I am not trying to justify anything. But please think for a moment. Is it a one-day affair? Did it happen this year or last year or in the last five years? Whether you like it or not, but it has been there from the independence onwards. Many Members were referring to the letter written by the Army Chief to the Prime Minister. I was going through the records during the last few days to know what happened in the past. What I understood is that there is nothing new in it. From the days of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru onwards, the first Prime Minister’s time onwards, Army Chief of that day used to write to the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister about the shortage of arms and ammunition and also the need to strengthen the Armed Forces. So, it has been there since then.

It is not a justification. I don’t find anything extraordinarily wrong in Army Chief writing to the Prime Minister or to the Defence Minister. The Service Chiefs used to write to the Prime Ministers and to the Defence Ministers to express their anxiety. They want the best equipment for their respective forces so that their forces remain the most modern and effective to face any challenge. We have to improve in every area. We have to strengthen our armed forces by giving them the most modern platform, ammunition, and more officers. And we have to look after their welfare. These are our duties. We must do that. There is no second opinion about that. At the same time, with all the limitations, even today, we are not inferior to anyone. The Indian military, even today, with all these limitations, is one of the best in the world. It is in great demand. We have defence cooperation with 47 countries, including all the major powers. All demand joint exercise with Indian armed forces. Why? They think that they can also learn many things from our armed forces. Even today, with all the limitations, we are one of the best militaries in the world. But we have to further strengthen it. Here I agree with the observations made by the Leader of the Opposition. Times are changing. 

Threat perceptions are changing. I am very careful in using words. I know the gravity of the situation. We are living in a very, very volatile and dangerous neighbourhood. Nobody can predict the emerging security situation around us. What will happen in
Afghanistan after one or two years? Nobody knows this. What will be the fallout of that in Pakistan and India and in our neighbourhood? Nobody knows it. What will be the political future of our neighbouring countries? Nobody knows it. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the growing proximity between China and Pakistan is also a cause of serious worry. Threat perception changes according to the emerging situation. Threat perception today is not similar to the threat perception ten or twenty years ago. Dynamic changes are taking place. But I assure the House that we are also changing our strategy. Most of the major parties in this House, one day or the other, were in the Government. They know how we are giving direction to the armed forces. Defence Ministers direct the armed forces. That is the guiding policy of the Government. Recently, we have given a new direction to the armed forces to prepare themselves to meet the challenges in the context of emerging new threat scenario. That preparation is going on. In this connection, we have to give them the most modern equipment. There are certain shortfalls. 



In artillery, we have a problem. Even after 26-27 years, we are not able to give a new gun to the Indian Army. It is because of various controversies. There also, we have not succeeded so far. We attempted twice or thrice but, we failed. Our negotiations with one company, Singapore Technology, were almost in the final stages. What can I do when we found that that company was engaged in corrupt practices and gave money to the Chairman of Ordnance Factories? We have to cancel that contract. It was in the final stages. Then, according to the Army’s assessment, they have selected one of the best guns in the world which suits Indian conditions. They selected it. It was almost in the final stage. Again, unfortunately, what can I do when we found that Rheinmetall were also caught by the CBI? That company is also blacklisted. It is a real problem. But, now, we are trying to find a solution. That is also at the final stage. There is some problem of deviations. When we failed in our attempt to get guns from Singapore Technology and Rheinmetall, there was a process to get LUH. That is at the final stage. Trial is over. But, when the trial was over and trial report came, Army raised a question of deviations. Then, we appointed a committee under DRDO Chairman, Mr. Saraswat, to go into these technicalities. I think that report is ready now. He is here. He says that it is ready. So, we are now taking that report to the DAC. That is our final attempt. Let us attempt to find a breakthrough. Period of 26-27 years is a long delay. 


In the area of Army Air Defence also, it was in the final stage. Again, some problem came up with IMI. I do not know why these people are doing that. Again and again, we are telling them not to engage in corrupt practices but even then, they try to influence by tempting people. That company is also blacklisted. Now, Army is trying to find out an alternative. These are some of the problems that we are facing. With all these problems, which we face, I had 2-3 rounds of discussions with the Army Chief. We have found solutions to most of the issues and now, we are moving forward. I hope that in the coming months and years, we will be able to provide new guns and ammunition to Army Air Defence. Out of 142 items of ammunition, 113 types of ammunition are produced by our own ordnance factories. 29 types are imported. Out of these 113, because of the blacklisting, ordnance factories are facing some problems. But, we are at the final stage of solving those problems also. I am sure, even though there are some problems, with the cooperation of our DRDO, PSUs, ordnance factories and private sector under Armed Forces, we will be able to find solutions to most of these problems. I assure the House that as early as possible, we will give state-of-art equipment and ammunition to our three Services.

 Sir, coming to Indian Air Force. The other day, some hon. Members mentioned about MiG-21 and MiG-27. It is a reality. Thirty-year or 40-year old aircraft are there in our inventory; nearly 40 per cent. But I can assure you that things are changing. In the coming years, things will change. We are now procuring more Sukhois, MRCAs, LCAs and Fifthgeneration aircraft from Russia. Then we are upgrading MiG series as well as mirage aircraft. Then AWACS, in security areas; we are upgrading our Air Force. For transportation, so many aircraft are coming. Air Force is also in the process of modernization in the last few years. 


The Navy Chief was telling me today that there was a meeting of Navy Commanders. He was telling me that in the coming years the Indian Navy was going to get five modern new warships every year. Things are going upwards. Even though it is very late, I would like to inform the House with happiness that in the early part of next year, 2013 long-awaited Vikramaditya will come to our shore. In the early half of next year, India's first indigenous strategic submarine would also join the Indian Navy. In-between the Navy has leased nuclear-powered INS Chakra from Russia. 

That is already with the Navy. The Navy is also in the process of modernization. We have to strengthen it. I will come to that later. I need the support of Parliament and also the Government. We have to have a second look at the Defence Budget in the context of new threat perception as well as defence preparedness. The hon. Members, cutting across party line, expressed their concern about developments in Pakistan and China. In that context, I would like to share with you some of the steps we are taking. Yesterday, my hon. colleague, Shri Balbir Punj, started his opening speech on Siachen. I do not know where the confusion is. But the fact of the matter is, a very responsible Member like him raised this subject and after that many of the hon. Members joined him. I would like to clarify that. In fact, in the last few days, across the country, some people are saying that India is hardening its position on Siachen. Here some of the friends are saying we are softening our position on Siachen. The fact of the matter is, we are neither hardening, nor are we softening. We are standing where we were. Our position is the same. We have a
policy. Our position is the same. I will tell you about the policy. There is no secret. Till today, 12 rounds of Indo- Pakistan talks have been held on Siachen. The 13th round is going to take place next month, in the 2nd week of June. 


Don’t expect dramatic decisions from that. It is a very complicated issue. Let us handle it with all sensitivity. And national issues are there. So, in the last round, our position was that while Pakistan stated that it reiterated its earlier stand of seeking is engagement and redeployment without agreeing to authentication of the present positions, the Indian side stated that authentication of the present positions and alienation both on the map and on the ground followed by demarcation are prerequisites for subsequent steps to be considered. That was the position which we took in the last round. We have not changed the position. Our position remains as it is. It is a national position. It is not a Government position. So, we are not softening and we are not hardening. We are taking a decision which we took after considered discussions and debate with the Government, with the Armed Forces and with experts of the country. That position remains.



This is what I would like to inform the House. Regarding China and Pakistan, our approach is two-fold. As a Government, we want to maintain friendly relations with all our neighbours. In fact, if we can have a peaceful time, then, India’s rise will be much quicker and easier. Left to ourselves, we want friendly and cordial relations with all our neighbours. That is why, with Pakistan and China, we are trying to have friendly relations, and, at times, dialogues are taking place. At the same time, on the one hand, while dialogues will continue, on the other hand, we will strengthen our capabilities. Just as while continuing the dialogues, they are strengthening their capabilities, we will also strengthen our capabilities. We are doing that. We are aware of the responsibility. 

If China can increase their capabilities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region, -- it is their territory; we have accepted that they have the right – if they can increase their military strength there, then, we can increase our military strength in our own land. In Arunachal Pradesh, in Sikkim, and in every Indian State, we can strengthen our capabilities. In the past, we did not perform our duty. That is our mistake. Now we have learnt our lessons. We have started taking decisions and implementing them. In fact, recognizing the need for enhancement of our capability, the CCS had, in 2009, approved the raising of two Infantry Divisions, one Paradip battalion, one air defence brigade and one pioneer company for the Eastern Command, one armoured regiment, one artillery brigade and one pioneering company for the Northern Command. That process is going on. This has happened after 27 years. The Indian Army is almost in the state of completing the formation of two divisions after 27 years.


Out of 61 roads, I said only 16 are completed. Other roads are in the process of completion. We speeded up the process. Whatever money is required, whatever equipment are needed, and if we want to increase the number of workers, we will do that. We will give topmost priority to the completion of strategic roads mainly, and also to roads in the Eastern sector. We have also prepared a plan for 14 Railway lines in the border areas. For that, we need financial support of the Planning Commission. The plans are ready. We are trying to complete this. We are in the process of finalising roads, Railway lines etc. 



In which Madhu Trehan grills me!


http://www.newslaundry.com/2012/05/can-you-take-it-nitin-gokhale/

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Embedded Reporting: the pros and cons of travelling with security forces


Note: I am posting this piece, written for a media seminar in 2010 only because last week several queries were posed to me on the issue at a talk on Military and the Media during Senior Armed Forces Officers' Conclave at the College of Air Warfare in Hyderabad. 
My basic point was the military and the media come from two different backgrounds; the upbringing and the outlook of soldiers and media practitioners differ substantially. Historically, the two have had a love-hate relationship which continues to this day. And yet, both need each other.
Read on.

Those newly invented curse to armies who eat all the rations of the fighting man and do no work at all
Field Marshal Joseph Garnet Wolsley in 1869 

The “curse” that the Field Marshal was talking about more than 140 years ago was the War Correspondents who reported on the military campaigns of Victorian Britain.

Among the first to live and march with combat troops, William Howard Russell reports for the The Times of London during the war in Crimea in the 1850s highlighting the shortcomings and bungling in the war were not liked by the authorities but the people were outraged leading to reform and correction in the military.

The Field Marshal’s ire was primarily directed at Russell but by the time he wrote his famous treatise The Soldier’s Pocketbook in 1869, several other “War Correspondents” had made their way to the battlefield, stayed with the troops, braved the bullets and bayonets and brought home the real picture of the battles.

Clearly, journalists have been billeted with troops for over 100 years before George Bush’s war against Saddam Hussein in 2003 brought the term ‘Embedded journalism’ into the popular lexicon. 

In the 22-day campaign that followed, a unique access to the battlefield was granted to embedded journalists for war news coverage…The United States (U.S.) Department of Defense (DoD) authorized the embedding of more than 500 journalists in their military fighting units.  The ‘embeds’ (as the journalists traveling with the army units were called) were defined by the Pentagon as: “A media representative [that lives, works, and travels with a military] unit on an extended basis -- perhaps weeks or even months... [in order to] facilitate maximum, in-depth [news] coverage of U.S. forces in combat and related operations.”  

This decision stirred up a lot of controversy relative to the type of news content that was being reported by embedded versus non-embedded journalists.  
As a result, the issue of embedded versus non-embedded war journalism has fueled much controversy and debate (http://knol.google.com/k/the-embedded-war-journalism-controversy).

There are those who believe that the American decision to embed journalists with frontline combat units stemmed from the US military’s two contrasting experiences—one bitter, the other sweet.
The first was in Vietnam when the antipathy between the military and the media reached its peak.

In a detailed study on the military-media relationship during that period, a US Army War College researcher came to a conclusion: “Prior to the Vietnam War, the American press had generally supported national war efforts and the national leadership with positive stories. The Vietnam war was the first time that reporters reported on American units that lacked discipline, used drugs on the battlefield, and had US soldiers questioning war aims while the war was ongoing.  These stories, though factual, were viewed by the military as ‘negative.’ Moreover, the uniformed leadership viewed these stories as a major reason they were losing the war at home while they were winning the battles in Vietnam.” (The CNN Effect: Strategic Enabler or Operational Risk? by Margaret H. Belknap, United States Army, 2001) 

By the time the US was ready for the Gulf War in 1991, it had learnt its lessons well. The military had judged the needs of the media and also worked out the ways to control the flow of information in its favour. 

As Belknap said, “Operation Desert Storm “was the most widely and most swiftly reported war in history.”

In addition to being the first “CNN War”, this war also marked a turning point in military-media relations and a turning point for Americans’ view of that relationship.

Colin Powell, by than an important figure in the US military hierarchy, had learned his lesson from the Vietnam mistakes and the subsequent Panama invasion episode. He ensured not only media access but that the “right” kind of spokesman stood before the camera lens before the American audience.

Powell recalled, “We auditioned spokespersons. … We picked Lieutenant General Tom Kelly, as our Pentagon briefer because Kelly not only was deeply knowledgeable, but came across like Norm in the sitcom Cheers, a regular guy whom people could relate to and trust.” 

Belknap says Powell also understood that live press conferences meant that the public would see both questioner and responder. Ever since the Vietnam War, the public viewed the media as fighting to get “the truth” from a military hiding behind a cloak of secrecy During the Gulf war, Americans saw both media and military on the TV screen.

Powell later wrote: “When the public got to watch journalists, even the best reporters some times came across as bad guys.” Perhaps the strongest evidence of the shift in American perceptions was a Satruday Night Live, a popular American TV programme.

Toward the end of the Gulf war the media was ridiculed on Saturday Night Live. Belknap’s study notes: “They were (reporters) portrayed as enemy Iraqis trying to wrestle Americans war plan secrets away from an Army spokesperson.”

THE SUB-CONTINENTAL EXPERIENCE 

The Americans have further refined the concept of embedded journalism in Afghanistan but in India, it is still a halfway house.

There is no official embedding as such but the Indian military takes reporters on official guided tours to various facilities and events, fully on government expense. So, most of the reports are episodic, event-based in nature.

There is another kind of arrangement that exists between the media and the Indian military. 
Reporters’ travel to border areas or insurgency hit areas where the Indian army is deployed in large numbers. The Army than ‘facilitates’ their visits, shows them around, briefs them about the tasks, talks about the difficulties and achievements and then reporters write about or broadcast what they witnessed and understood during the trip.

It is a ‘loose’ arrangement, but the only one that comes close to the ‘embed’ arrangement in a semi-war situation. I say semi-war since the Indian army is continuously involved in counter-insurgency in Kashmir and the north-east.

Old-timers in India however recall that in 1965 and 1971 wars with Pakistan, select reporters did travel with the Indian military. Indeed, an All India Radio journalist is famously in the frame of an iconic photograph of the Indian general accepting the surrender of 90,000 Pakistani POWs at the end of the 1971 war!

In the most recent war in Kargil over a decade ago, there was no formal embedding but most of us who reported that war, interacted closely with the troops and many a times depended on their support for sustenance in the war zone. Volumes have been written about the synergy between the media and the military in Kargil and its contribution in whipping up a patriotic fervour across the nation that time but all of that was happenstance not design.

Currently, there is an intense discussion on in the higher echelons of the Indian military on how to deal with the media at large and whether to have a policy that will allow embedded journalists in future conflicts.

But elsewhere in the sub-continent, notably in Sri Lanka, I personally experienced the reality of embedded journalism.

Eelam War IV, (2006-2009) will in fact is remembered for the flawless execution of information warfare techniques by the Sri Lankan state.

Embedding journalists was just part of the entire Information Warfare strategy.I found the Sri Lankan methods both effective and offensive. Effective, purely as a battle strategy.  Offensive, to my sensitivity as a journalist.

The idea was to create a firewall around the battle zone.The objective was two-fold: control and denial. Control the flow of information and deny access to unpalatable journalists.

Simultaneously, the Sri Lankan government created a one-stop shop for information from the battle zone.

The Media Centre for National Security (MCNS), which functioned from a small, non-descript building in the heart of Colombo’s high security zone but outside Defence HQs, became the most important address for visiting and local media during the war. You went here to register yourself for a trip up north, into the battle zone. You asked for and got war footage here and you got your latest information from this centre.

The weekly briefing by a cabinet minister, Keheliya Rambukwella, who’s sole task was to interact with the media, were held here; the army, navy and air force spokesperson, all senior serving officers, worked under a Director-General, a civilian trusted by the President and his brother, the defence secretary, functioned out of this building.

The DG, MCNS, Lakshman Hullugalle, a pleasant, accessible man, became the most well known face and voice from Sri Lanka during the war since all TV channels went to him for a phono-in and a byte whenever they needed an official update. And he obliged everyone. The MCNS worked 24x7, updated defence.lk, an information-rich website, almost every hour and all key personnel, including the DG, remained accessible round-the-clock.

By putting in place this system, Sri Lanka virtually eliminated the possibility of any other source giving news to the information-hungry media. Even the trips to the battle zone—I went on three of them—were beautifully orchestrated. We were always asked to report at the airport before dawn.

There, after a thorough security check, we would board a Russian-built AN-32, land at Anuradhapura, a historic town in central Sri Lanka, and then get transferred to two waiting Mi-17 Helicopters. Cameras would start rolling the instant we were on board the choppers. A piece to camera(PTC) or a standup to use an American term, on board a helicopter after all gives that sense of realism to war coverage!

So inevitably, most of us TV reporters would record at least two or three PTCs before we landed at either Kilinochchi or Paranthan, close to the battle. Another very subtle arrangement used to be in place at those locations. An assortment of armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and jeeps would be waiting for us to be taken to the brigade headquarters or a location closer to the actual fighting zone.

Now, a ride atop an APC is a television reporter’s delight. A piece to cam aboard an APC, which looks like a tank, but is not really a tank( but then how many people can discern or distinguish a tank from an APC) would do very well for your own as well as the channels image, thank you. The viewer will certainly be impressed!

So all of us TV reporters used to clamber atop an APC, do our PTCs and then go for a briefing, which from TV’s point of view, are boring anyway. A formation commander at a lectern, explaining tactics on a map is not great television, so we would wonder out in search of images that conveyed a war zone. Invariably we would find soldiers in various stages of battle readiness outside the briefing rooms: some would be resting, some others would be cleaning their weapons; APCs and jeeps full of soldiers in their fatigues would be whizzing past. So cameras would be busy recording those images.

The point is: the Sri Lankan military had worked out what TV crews need and provided the props accordingly. I am not saying any other military would not have done it. But most military planners in the world would have been less subtle.

The Media handling by the Sri Lankan state would in fact make for a fascinating study. Having realized that the LTTE in the past had made very good use of its access to international media in projecting its image as an outfit fighting for a separate homeland for Tamils, Sri Lanka decided to cut off the oxygen supply of media support to the LTTE cause and instead deluged journalists with timely information and restricted access.

The local media was tamed through twin methods of coercion and chauvinism. Those who refused to fall in line, were coerced, threatened and even killed (14 journalists lost their lives in Sri Lanka in the last four years) and all others were won over by a simple appeal: it is as much your war as ours, so please cooperate. Simultaneously, pro-LTTE blogs and websites like Tamilnet.com were made inaccessible inside Sri Lanka.

The result: a completely lop-sided coverage of Eelam War IV.

As a student of media, the Sri Lankan strategy has fascinated me. They have refined the lessons and practices adopted by the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan and evolved their own model that shuts out every other contrary view. But war is a dirty business and nations adopt tactics that suit them.

As a journalist, I was not happy being part of a one-sided coverage, but to be fair to the Sri Lankan state,  winning the information war was as essential as gaining a military victory. That a section of the Western, bleeding heart liberal, media is now targeting the Sri Lankan state for what it calls war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan army, is in a way, a left handed compliment to its strategy of creating a bubble around the war zone in which no one could enter without the permission of the Sri Lankan military.

So is embedded journalism or traveling with the military good or bad for journalists?
Many news media experts believe that embedded journalism provides a more accurate story of a war when compared to the traditional approachof news gathering via military briefings prepared for the press.  
In contrast with this perspective, however, many other broadcast media specialists believe that embedded journalists who travel with military units become too emotionally bonded to the troops after long periods of time and will therefore lose objectivity in their news reporting.  

I personally have a mixed feeling on this one.

Some times, as in Sri Lanka, there is no other way but to travel with the security forces and so you do it with great reluctance. In some other cases, like in Kargil or in counter-insurgency areas, it is better to travel on your own.

Whatever the method of interaction between the security forces and the media the relationship, at the end of the day, must remain adversarial.

Fortunately, given the cultural divide between the two, it will always be so.



Saturday, May 5, 2012

My Column in Outlook on India's N-E


Years ago, Mizoram CM Lalthanhawla, in the course of a convivial evening, got to describing how a Mumbai
five-star asked him for his passport before checking him in. Part angry, part amused, he had to patiently explain who he was and where he came from.

I was reminded of this conversation this week after witnessing a spate of write-ups and discussions emanating from metro-based media outlets about why and how India discriminates against its citizens from the Northeast. The coverage was triggered by two tragic deaths, one in Bangalore and the other in Gurgaon.

By themselves, these incidents need to be condemned in the strongest terms and the culprits punished. The question is: could this not have happened to any teenager studying away from home? Some years ago, a Delhi boy was ragged to death in Himachal Pradesh. Was he killed because he was a city-slicker in a semi-urban hostel set-up? Or was he just an easy target for bullies?

The fact is, across India, we are all labelled and discriminated against one way or the other based on our surnames. A Bong, a Mallu, a Tant (a typical army term for a Marathi), a Punju, a Bihari.... the pejoratives are many; their usage commonplace.

Even within the Northeast, suspicions about each other abound. Clan and ethnic loyalties often take precedence over regional identities. A larger community often discriminates against a smaller ethnic group. A surfeit of student groups and associations formed on tribal lines in most big cities bears testimony to this reality. All of them prefer to keep to themselves, trying to find protection in numbers.

Inter-ethnic tensions from back home are carried to far-off places too. So, for instance, Naga students will keep away from a Meitei group or a Bodo students association will remain aloof from their Assamese counterparts. The smaller the numbers, the greater the xenophobia. Even in a large city like Delhi, ethnic loyalties lead to ghettoisation.

But for every act of hostility, there is a Sudhir Phadke. Decades ago, the legendary Marathi singer and composer took a couple of boys from Arunachal Pradesh under his wing in Pune, educated them and—without fuss—assimilated them into Marathi culture, its music and language. There are several similar stories that I can cite.
A conservative estimate suggests that over 50,000 students leave the Northeast every year to study and eventually work all across India—even in smaller towns like Sangli and Hubli, to name just a couple. Scores happily settle down in bigger cities in search of a career and are unlikely to ever return home because there aren’t enough jobs in the still-underdeveloped region. They are as much part of the big city melting pot as a Mallu, or a Bong, or a Bihari.

As cities like Delhi struggle to shed their provincial character and turn ever more cosmopolitan, there will be a lot of churning that happens and newcomers—whether from the ‘deep south’ or from the ‘far east’—will face tough times.

That should, however, not deter the pioneering. And people from the eight states are nothing if not brave. All they need to watch out for is the danger of succumbing to the notion of victimhood. As I often say to my friends from the region, they have been repeatedly indoctrinated by their leaders to view themselves as victims of conspiracies hatched by the central government and people from the rest of India. The truth is, no one has either the time or the inclination to do so. But the old mindsets are changing both in Delhi and the Northeast. The neglect meted out in the past has given way to more focused attention to the region and its people. Even in mega cities, as more and more northeasterners work and mix with others, a gradual acceptance of their different looks and languages will happen. And as a Mary Kom or a Lou Majaw become icons for sports and music fans from even outside the Northeast, the region will gain larger focus than before.

A Lalthanhawla could laugh off an unintended insult at a five-star. The families of those who get maimed or killed because they look and dress different and speak a language not of the majority won’t as easily get over their trauma.

And yet, as the two-way flow of people, goods and services between other parts of the country and the Northeast grows, the rest of India will begin treating it not as an exotic entity, but an integral part of the idea that is India.

(The writer, NDTV’s security and strategic affairs editor, lived and worked in the Northeast between 1983-2006, including for Outlook. Follow him @nitingokhale.)

Thursday, May 3, 2012

ARMY CHIEF REVIEWS EXERCISE SHOOR VEER IN RAJASTHAN

ARMY PRESS NOTE ON THE DESERT EXERCISE


           General VK Singh, Chief Of Army Staff arrived in the deserts of
Rajasthan today to witness Exercise Shoor Veer.  He was received by
Lieutenant General Gyan Bhushan, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief (Army
Commander) South Western Command.  A large number of dignitaries of Army
and Air Force were also present along with national and regional media
persons.

           On arrival in the exercise area, Lieutenant General Ashok
Singh, General Officer Commanding, 1 Corps briefed the Army Chief on the
participation and training activities carried out since 01 March 2012 in
the exercise and the conduct of Exercise Shoor Veer.  Army Chief witnessed
mechanized predominant battle maneouvres in which T-90 tanks, Infantry
Combat Vehicles, Long Range Artillery Gun, Air Defence Weapon System,
Electronic Warfare System and Surveillance Equipment carried out battle
drills in synergy with Air Force in which fighter aircrafts such as
Sukhoi-30, Jaguars, MIGs along with attack helicopters MI25, MI17, Unmanned
Air Vehicles participated in the exercise.

Exercise 'Shoor Veer' is based on the integrated theatre battle concept
under South Western Army Command with the elite Strike Corps in the lead,
supported by Chetak Corps and all other relevant elements of South Western
Army.  The Army and IAF has tested new battle fighting concepts and
doctrines during the exercise with real time pictures of the battle zone
provided to a centralized command and control centre from fighter jets,
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and attack helicopters, waging war in
network centric environment and massed tank drills backed by long range
artillery guns.  More than 300 combat vehicles including main battle tank
T-90, T-72, long range 150mm artillery guns, multi barrel rockets and about
60000 troops has taken part in this massive major exercise in Rajasthan.  A
major highlight of the joint exercise was the integrated air-land war-fighting machinery and the synergy between the Indian Army and IAF, Hence, IAF aircraft including Sukhoi-30, MIG-29, MiG-21 'Bisons', Cheetah, Chetak, MI-25 attack helicopters, transport aircraft such as IL 76 and AN 32 also took part in the exercise.

           The transformational study of the Indian Army based on series
of transformational initiatives spanning concepts organizational structures
and absorption of new age technologies, particularly in the fields of
precision munitions, advance surveillance system, space and network
centricity was initiated by Army Chief General VK Singh,  and the same was
implemented on ground to fine tune our war fighting concepts.

           The Army Chief also witnessed major innovations carried out by
formations of Sapta Shakti Command (South Western Command) to enhance
combat potential and appreciated the efforts and dedication of the
formation. 

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Army's Exercise Shoor Veer in full flow



An Army Press note from the site of the Exercise along with some photographs


  
The Chief of Army Staff, General VK Singh reviewed the conduct of exercise 'Shoor Veer' today.  The Army Chief was received by Lieutenant General Gyan Bhushan, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief (Army Commander), Sapta Shakti(South western command) Command in the exercise area.  


The COAS was briefed on the training aspects, new concepts of warfare being tried and the conduct of the exercise by Lieutenant General Ashok Singh, General Officer Commanding 1 Corps, and Lt Gen Sanjeev Anand, General Officer Commanding, Chetak Corps.

 Army Chief witnessed the exercise that entails launch of theatre offensive by Sapta Shakti Command spearheaded by 1 Corps and Chetak Corps. 

 Exercise Shoor Veer is being conducted under the backdrop of study on transformation of India Army for which Army Chief General VK Singh is the main proponent of the doctrine.  



 The exercise displayed synergy of Army and Air Force in launching air land battle and the capability to orchestrate battle in network centric environment with integration of reconnaissance, surveillance and electronic warfare and communication assets to provide real time battle situational awareness to commanders.