Publicizing the files will boost research, introduce Indians to their war history
On July 9, 1971, the US Secretary of State State Henry Kissinger arrives in Peking for a secret meeting with Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai. This was at the height of the Cold War against the Soviet Union, and the US saw an opportunity to ensnare Communist China. One of the highlights of Kissinger’s successful travels was a book Zhou gifted him. It was called ‘India’s China War’ by Neville. maxwell. Impressed, Kissinger told Zhou, “Reading that book I learned I could do business with you guys.” A few months later, when India and Pakistan went to war, President Richard Nixon and China had a sympathetic view of Kissinger on a Pakistani ally, influenced by Maxwell’s book which attributed India to the 1962 Sino-Sino War.
Incidentally, Maxwell was widely attracted by the Henderson Brooks Report, India’s internal report of its defeat in the war, which was leaked to him. The report, classified and unavailable to Indians, was used by Maxwell to shape a narrative in favor of China at the expense of India. In 2014, Maxwell put parts of the report online, even though it continues to be classified in India. In a ridiculous irony, a protected state secret became a highly public document.
For decades, India has been grappling with the situation of reconciling the past with molded perceptions. Politicians and bureaucrats have often used national security cards as an excuse to shut down statements that would have brought the political and military leaders associated with the events under greater scrutiny. The lack of disclosure meant insufficient access to key documents, war diaries, minutes and communication exchanges that hindered rigorous research and knowledge. In the absence of authentic sources to write war history, scholars have often relied on oral accounts and archives in the UK and US. in 1999, Kargil Review Committee Recommended declassification of war records to analyze past lessons and prevent future mistakes. However, bureaucratic bias prevented effective implementation. Two decades later, Defense Minister Rajnath Singh has approved the policy on collection, declassification and publication of war history. Ministry of Defence (MoD), marking a welcome start.
So how does the declassification of war records help? It mainly helps to develop different interpretations of history and encourages strong works of scholarship. Military strategists and civilian researchers benefit from independently analyzing political exchanges or military actions before or during a war, which, in turn, helps identify sources of causality, recognize intent, and predict consequences. Helps to review. It aims to encourage a fair debate that is shaped by a credible understanding of the past. Apart from policy makers and academicians, Indian citizens have a right to know the past.
Rajnath Singh’s announcement has been welcomed by scholars but deep structural and cultural flaws exist. Operational records should be checked for declassification by the relevant organizations and sent to the Historical Division of the Ministry of Defence. The MoD will publish an official account of operations within five years of the completion of the war. A committee constituted to oversee the publication will be headed by a joint secretary, members of the three services, the Ministry of External Affairs and home Ministry Officer. This may include ‘leading military historians if necessary’. The experts would have no role in the publication and the committee is unlikely to have a historical background, thus making the final result less reliable. “Who are the people who will decide the declassification process?” Arguing for the involvement of military historians in this process, asks Aneet Mukherjee, a former army officer and author.
One solution might be to redeploy the sensitive parts instead of taking out the interpreted versions. This practice followed in the West ensures compliance with matters of national security. Mukherjee believes that the original source code should be made available to determine the authenticity of the information. There is also a fundamental need to understand the value of conservation. Lt Gen Satish Nambiar, a member of the declassification committee, once wrote about the alleged ‘deliberate’ destruction of operational documents relating to the 1971 war during the review process due to lack of awareness of military history.
Several scholars have also complained about the difficulty in accessing material in the Historical Division of the Ministry of Defense. This tendency to obliterate information in the bureaucracy means less involvement of civilian military historians, unlike the US, which has a rich tradition in the field. It is not surprising that there is a lack of awareness about the post-independence wars involving India. Encouraging a culture of categorization in this ultra-digital age will lead to deeper scholarship and wider readership. The Way Forward: Hire independent subject matter experts to evaluate, revise sensitive parts and allow access to information sources. Otherwise, Maxwell will shape the history we shy away from. As an African proverb goes, “Until the lion learns to write its history, every story will glorify the hunter.”
Dasgupta is a former army officer and the author of watershed 1967: India’s forgotten victory over China
Against: Rakesh Sharma
For unclean war history to emerge, Indian record-keeping must also change
Indian Armed Forces are in constant war since independence and have fought many wars which have created rich history. In a welcome decision, the MoD has come up with a new policy that lays down a clear timeline for compilation, publication, collection and declassification of historical records with certain discretionary powers. It is therefore imperative to examine what will be available to researchers and historians as a result.
First, I would like to say that military history cannot simply be events listed chronologically. It is an adaptation of events that attempts to explain the why and how logically, making it intellectually persuasive and stimulating.
Why would it be important for present and future generations to study and analyze the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971? It will not be to copy or replicate the strategy and tactics of 1971. It will learn about the successes and failures of political and military leadership, and how and why the operations were prosecuted in a particular way. Invariably such texts would advance a greater understanding of military history, and while not providing a blueprint or roadmap for the future, it would prepare the agile mind to make informed decisions.
To be meaningful, military history would depend on a fair, unbiased and accurate recording of events, separating myth and fiction, with verification and correlations from multiple sources. Nevertheless, many military historians, studying similar records, will come up with decidedly different conclusions. There are three points that make the exam mandatory.
The first is the relevant research of military history. As the British statesman Sir Michael Howard observed, “The roots of victory and defeat often have to be traced away from the battlefield.” The lack of a genuinely relevant basis would lead to a superficial view of warfare with established lessons and conclusions without proper background. According to Subramaniam of Indian strategic thinkers, India’s civil-military relations are represented by ‘absent dialogue’. The directive issued by the government to the first overall force commander of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was ‘pleasantly vague’! Therefore it will be important to base history on political directions. Relevance will be problematic, as whatever is there, it will be with the government and not easily available. In practice, a historian will base his or her case on recorded and available information and make the missing information irrelevant.
The second is to study deeply, down to the smallest detail, the details of campaigns and battles. There is immense spirit in the units of the Indian Armed Forces respect (respect) and Name (Prestige). So there is an innate desire to protect it in all operations and battles and counter-terrorism operations. Unit respect should be paramount. There is also the matter of unit citations and individual awards. It compromises with realities, and becomes stingy with truth. In order to obtain a correlation, in addition to the sanitation history available in South Block, detailed correspondence, status reports, service digests, preliminary and final reports, memoirs, regimental histories, all become relevant. It may not be possible to obtain such records from units and field formations. Historians would selectively rely on declassified information that compliments an operation, and then attempt to reconstruct history from fables.
And the third is the breadth of wars and campaigns that the armed forces are involved in. In a major quirk, the history of the war India after independence There is a continuum near the present time. In this case is the Henderson Brooks Report (HBR) relating to the 1962 war. Defense Minister YB Chavan said in the Lok Sabha on 2 September 1963 that “by the nature of the material it would not be in public interest to lay the report on the Table of the House”. In response to a question in the Rajya Sabha on the release of HBR in 2008, Defense Minister AK Antony reiterated that “… the moratorium on … will continue to consider the security implications.”
Defense Minister Arun Jaitley said in Rajya Sabha in 2014 that the HBR “…is a top-secret document and … releasing this report in whole or in part … would not be in the national interest.” While portions of this report are in the open domain, it is clear that the historicity of the HBR has been entrenched in the continuation of difficult negotiations and border claims with China. For example, Rezang La in eastern Ladakh where Indian soldiers displayed great valor in the 1962 Indo-China war was again the frontline of close combat in September 2020.
In short, the relevance of the study of military history is essential for learning from failures and successes. But military history isn’t just storytelling, it needs to be clear, truthful, accurate, and with cross-reference verification. For that, a cultural change in the recording, maintenance and preparation of non-taxonomy in time is imperative. Proposed policy changes should provide guidelines for a fair and unbiased mechanism for recording. Without it writing history would be challenging, the results could be ambiguous! As the Dutch historian Peter Gail remarked, ‘History is an endless argument.’ And that could turn into a declassification exercise.
Sharma is a retired lieutenant general of the Indian Army.
.