Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sir to add on this one, i have another post of mine which might clear up certain doubts:^every posting requires a different skill-set - some postings / jobs are more demanding then others - they require more thinking, others are physically demanding - it depends on the officers strength and weakness in these areas to excel or fail - all humans are not alike - introvert may prefer the thinking hat, extrovert may prefer the leading hat and so on - it dosnt mean one is superior to the other - its just the way we are!
But before i proceed i must clear the i have no problem with an Engrs Officer becoming a COAS. This is just another chink in the Mush Vs Nawaz duel!
But, here are some reasons as why people talk about an Engrs Officer cant be a COAS (excluding me):
An officer from Supply would not have seen the battle front in any case. the closest he would been to the actually fight would from his Supply Depot, like, miles and miles away from the front line.
An Ordnance Officers would have the same kind of experiences.
Same might not exactly hold guud for an Engineers Officer as Engineers Corps as A SECONDARY ROLE as a fighting Arm. The emphasis is on SECONDARY ROLE, ok.
Now the Army is as versatile as it can be!!
15-20 separate departments, each very very different and unique from each other.
It's like a heart surgeon is different than a plastic surgeon. Now as the Army is inherently multi-facet it needs dedicated staff and men. It is nearly impossible for a dude from one of the arms to get adjusted in a different arm easily. Moreover, we also have dedicated trades within each arms, every army does.
infantry also have operators, technicians, map markers, etc etc. These people are inducted as such from the very start when they are enrolled in the military and stay as such. It would be a stupidity if i ask an telephone/wireless operator to do the job of a technician. furthermore, a technician from infantry might again not be fit to work with artillery or armored corps as they all have very very different equipment. This is the lower level.
Now let's come to the Officers.
The kind of 'job' the military is doing in Siachen is totally different from what is hapening in Swat. Again the stuff in Swat is different then what happened in Balochistan. Plains of Punjab are different then deserts, so on and so forth.
Now as Army is inhabited by humans and not robots, everyone cannopt be an expert on everything. It would be seldom possible that a Brigdier is given a command of a brigade in Kashmir if he has never served in Kashmir in his past service. Similarliy it would be seldom posible that an officer who has never been expertised in desert warfare would be asked to command something in the desert formations.
The reason is that army teaches you the basics of everything, snow, land, desert, jungle etc etc, but it is your emplacement/postings in your subsequent service which would make you an expert on any one of the types of warfare or employment.
You tell me, if you have to choose one guy to paint your house and you have two choices. 1) a guy who is qualified in painting only on papers and dont have much of the practical experience. 2) A guy who is a qualified painter on papers but also has some experience in painting as he just painted your neighbor's house a week back, and you know he did a very guud job. Who would you pick? The second one i suppose, instead of risking your money and house you would rather go with the second option.
Now there is a difference in getting a house painted and commanding an Army!! A classic example that i can give you is of Lieutenant General Nadeem Ahmad the head of Special Support Group for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) at Federal Government level. The only reason he was appointed for this job was his past experience of handling the Earthquake thing in '05; (then Maj-Gen Nadeem Ahmad was appointed Chief Military Coordinator for the Military Wing of the Federal Relief Commission (FRC)). It was his this experience that he was again entrusted with the same kinda job.
Now you tell me whom would you have pick?
Now it also look akwards that, the Army only relies on past experiences to appoint people to get the jobs done, may be yes and there is reason for it. Army cannot train every officer in every field, no army can, In the West you even have a completely separate Staff Officer Corps from to ease out the work, the indian army also has certain separate demarcations in their routine work (on which i'll be quite for the EYES ONLY reasons!).
i am not going to have a dude who have topped in is snow warfare course but have never served at siachen as my staff officer if iam a commander in siachen, instead i would prefer a dude who has spent like 6 years (3 tenures) in siachen on ground.
So, if a senior officer has no or less experience as regards to the 'actual' stuff that our army does (it includes our doctrine and strategy) by virtue of his employment in the past, it's nobody's fault, actually it was his fault as he didnt perform as per Army's requirement and thus the Army didnt post him at a specific area, which in turn would harm him in future. That;s how it works-a Supply officer would never be employed at a Post or OP, similarly an infantry dude would never know how deep the roots of supply and ordnance go (though he would be having all the basic knowledge), as he never had served in that environment.
Actyally army like any other organization 'picks up' people from the very start and 'invest' in them to make them capable to reach higher slots. A swordie in PMA, latter becomes a topper in courses, there on he performs very well at war zones, thereafter he is put to test by assigning him the task of higher responsibility which many cant do (Staff Officers at Brigade etc) and if he also performs guud there he is tested again in other domains (like command, instructional etc) and so the cycle continues. We cant 'invest' in just every officer, you have to pick certain gems and polish them, and if they fail to deliver at certain point (showed cowardice at a war zone, displayed a character failure etc etc) you dump them and pick up another. It is simple as that!Well, that would be my bad as i should have remember Ikram Sb, as at one time i used to read his managed Defence Journal Magazine very keenly which many times contained his bio-data, i guess am getting old now
But still, such kind of suggestion & criticism coming from a person of such stature is shocking as everyone on this planet knows that no organization in the world can have just the best & filter out the rest. Becoz once an org gets filled up of the best, then what ?? All can't become the head of organization, all can't become generals or brigadiers. Sword of Honor is won by one not by many. Organizations have a pyramid structure where one or just few reach the top. If you fill all with the best, they all won't go up, again people left out will become dishearted & their efficiency to do work will go down, then what kick them out too ?? Who is then gonna do the dirty jobs not liked by everyone ??
Folks,
Ikram sahib has earned his right to critique trends in the Army (which is different from criticizing the Army). He does so out of his passion for the Army having served in it.
To an old soldier who did his humble best for as long as he soldiered, as proudly as he could, it is heart warming to see the army of today learning so swiftly. It takes a very special breed of officers of all ranks and their men to learn to operate independently, to exercise initiative and grab opportunities that arise, and for which no prior orders/instructions have been given, to learn to operate under logistically independent conditions (even for limited periods of time), free from established lines of communication.
what a sea-change in philosophy from the 65 and 71 wars!
i am only objecting to the "heading" of the article which IMO is mis-leading.
Ikram Seghal is qualified to critique the army - no issue!