Take Heed, Not Umbrage

Welcome once again to shoot-the-messenger syndrome! This magazine’s cover story on the possible saffronisation of the army evoked a rather strange response. "Why does the media insist on destroying the credibility of the country’s last secular bastion?" was the question invariably put to me by senior officers, both retired and serving. Whether the dangerous notion of "retributive terrorism" had infected the army, the argument went, was besides the point. The non-political and neutral character of the defence forces must never be challenged. "If a Purohit sort of situation occurs, we will sort it out internally. We have systems in place to detect and rectify anti-national aberrations," a retired Lt General told me. I tried to argue that the media had a duty to report such developments, however unpalatable they may be. Indeed, it would be professionally irresponsible on the part of TV channels and newspapers to cover up or suppress such news simply to avoid questioning the integrity of the army.

The headlines in newspapers may seem both shocking and sensational but they serve a useful purpose. A wake-up call has been delivered to the defence establishment to re-examine their systems since they clearly need urgent attention. Denial is the worst possible position to assume. How do you tighten up the systems if you reject the existence of the malaise? Instead of attacking the media, the army should be grateful for the timely exposure.