07-01-2008, 09:41 PM
From Pioneer, 1 July 2008
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Man with a swagger
Rahul Datta
It will not be wrong to say Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw ranked along with military leaders like Rommel, Montgomery and Patton who led brilliant campaigns and raised the morale of their men when faced with tremendous odds while at war
For all his iconic stature, Field Marshal Sam Hormusji Framji Jamshedji Manekshaw's critics would say he had created a halo of bravado around himself. The swagger, the reputation for blunt-speaking, the hail-fellow well-met cheerfulness, the cap worn at a jaunty angle atop a pink face with a trademark moustache, was all there for effect.
Granted for a moment, his critics are correct. But what's wrong about it all? Leaders even go out of their way to cultivate such attributes. In fact, that's what good public relations professionals are supposed to be doing for great leaders, military or civilian.
Having taken a full burst of machine gun fire in his stomach as a young captain during the Burma campaign in World War II, Sam, who later walked with a slight slouch due to the wounds, had every right to demand the best from his men. And they could not refuse their commander as he had faced death from close quarters and earned a Military Cross for this daring act.
But let not such matters come in the way of any cold assessment of the man. Sam Bahadur, as he was also known because of his connection with the Gorkha Regiment as its Colonel, and the way he espoused their cause, once said there was a thin line between promotion and dismissal or something to that effect.
Asked to go take East Pakistan -- what is now Bangladesh -- in April 1971, he had the courage to tell then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to her face at a Cabinet meeting, to which he had been invited, that he could not do it because he was poorly prepared for a war-like operation. He did not have the required number of tanks, and he did not have the men either.
What Manekshaw must have meant was that such matters like timing of war operations are best left to military brains in the operations room rather than to Cabinet meetings.
Sam chose his own timing. A war, which could have been a long drawn affair, was over in a swift fortnight in December 1971. It was a great triumph for the Indian Army when Gen AAK Niazi appended his signature to the surrender document along with his 90,000 Pakistani troops and handed his revolver to India's Eastern Army commander, the late Lt Gen JS Arora.
The story goes that when Richard Nixon, the then President of the US, whose Seventh Fleet was in menacingly close waters, asked his Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Westmoreland how long it would take for the Indian Army to take East Pakistan, his considered assessment was one-and-a-half months.
No one knows if Gen Westmoreland could look straight into his President's eyes after the Dhaka surrender. The Indian Army redeemed some of the izzat it had lost less than a decade in the India-China conflict.
For all his bluff and bluster manner, Sam Bahadur was also a serious military thinker. Policy decisions are best left to lawfully established civilian authority. This is a principle, which our Army has adhered to, and something which is the envy of many other countries.
However straightforward, or disagreeable their advice in matters professional, they have never become over-ambitious. Cases of people in the top echelons of the officer corps bending to please civilian authority have eroded pride and propriety, or izzat. But Generals like Manekshaw, who would speak their mind rather than compromise on matters military, cannot be accused of such pettiness.
There were soldiers of great competence in the Army hierarchy during Manekshaw's time. But Sam had special qualifications that gave him an edge and ensured his rise to the top at Sena Bhavan.
Men like Manekshaw are very special iconic personalities who shape history with charismatic leadership in their chosen profession. Sam Bahadur has done the profession of arms in India proud by his leadership.
His services to the nation will be remembered for a long time to come and inspire youth to join the profession of arms at a time of officer shortage in the three services. Money is not all. There is still some izzat left and the way of life that drew Manekshaw to the Army can again be given another chance.
In fact, it will not be wrong to say Sam Bahadur ranks along with military leaders like Rommel, Montgomery and Patton who led brilliant campaigns and raised the morale of their men when faced with tremendous odds.
Montgomery had to make special efforts to inspire his Eighth Army when they were overawed by the charisma of Rommel, the 'desert fox', in Africa. Driving around the battlefront in an open jeep while bombs rained all around him and machine gun fire raked the armoured carriers, Rommel's well-executed tank battles and fast thrusts into enemy territory had left the British clueless in World War II.
Montgomery rallied his men around after facing several reverses and used to come out of his mobile cabin without helmet and stand amidst artillery barrage by the Africa Korps. This act, no doubt, meant to charge his men, required sheer guts and the British soldiers went on to fight back and rest is history.
Patton's dash through Europe when the Germans were giving hell to the Allied Forces, besiders the brandishing of his service revolver and firing at the Luftwaffe fighter planes, are part of military history and folklore. All these three military leaders and our Sam Bahadur had that something extra, be it charisma, bravery or strength of character, to turn things around and get the job done when the country demanded them to do so.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting article. He makes statements and does not articulate the thoguhts that lead to the statements. And interesting that he compares FM Manekshaw to flamboyant Western commanders. And has wasted the space in that. He might have his reasons.
I think FM Manekshaw was an entity in his own right and beyond comparison. His task was much harder thant that od those examples considering that India in the early 70s was just emerging from the disastrous 60's.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Man with a swagger
Rahul Datta
It will not be wrong to say Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw ranked along with military leaders like Rommel, Montgomery and Patton who led brilliant campaigns and raised the morale of their men when faced with tremendous odds while at war
For all his iconic stature, Field Marshal Sam Hormusji Framji Jamshedji Manekshaw's critics would say he had created a halo of bravado around himself. The swagger, the reputation for blunt-speaking, the hail-fellow well-met cheerfulness, the cap worn at a jaunty angle atop a pink face with a trademark moustache, was all there for effect.
Granted for a moment, his critics are correct. But what's wrong about it all? Leaders even go out of their way to cultivate such attributes. In fact, that's what good public relations professionals are supposed to be doing for great leaders, military or civilian.
Having taken a full burst of machine gun fire in his stomach as a young captain during the Burma campaign in World War II, Sam, who later walked with a slight slouch due to the wounds, had every right to demand the best from his men. And they could not refuse their commander as he had faced death from close quarters and earned a Military Cross for this daring act.
But let not such matters come in the way of any cold assessment of the man. Sam Bahadur, as he was also known because of his connection with the Gorkha Regiment as its Colonel, and the way he espoused their cause, once said there was a thin line between promotion and dismissal or something to that effect.
Asked to go take East Pakistan -- what is now Bangladesh -- in April 1971, he had the courage to tell then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to her face at a Cabinet meeting, to which he had been invited, that he could not do it because he was poorly prepared for a war-like operation. He did not have the required number of tanks, and he did not have the men either.
What Manekshaw must have meant was that such matters like timing of war operations are best left to military brains in the operations room rather than to Cabinet meetings.
Sam chose his own timing. A war, which could have been a long drawn affair, was over in a swift fortnight in December 1971. It was a great triumph for the Indian Army when Gen AAK Niazi appended his signature to the surrender document along with his 90,000 Pakistani troops and handed his revolver to India's Eastern Army commander, the late Lt Gen JS Arora.
The story goes that when Richard Nixon, the then President of the US, whose Seventh Fleet was in menacingly close waters, asked his Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Westmoreland how long it would take for the Indian Army to take East Pakistan, his considered assessment was one-and-a-half months.
No one knows if Gen Westmoreland could look straight into his President's eyes after the Dhaka surrender. The Indian Army redeemed some of the izzat it had lost less than a decade in the India-China conflict.
For all his bluff and bluster manner, Sam Bahadur was also a serious military thinker. Policy decisions are best left to lawfully established civilian authority. This is a principle, which our Army has adhered to, and something which is the envy of many other countries.
However straightforward, or disagreeable their advice in matters professional, they have never become over-ambitious. Cases of people in the top echelons of the officer corps bending to please civilian authority have eroded pride and propriety, or izzat. But Generals like Manekshaw, who would speak their mind rather than compromise on matters military, cannot be accused of such pettiness.
There were soldiers of great competence in the Army hierarchy during Manekshaw's time. But Sam had special qualifications that gave him an edge and ensured his rise to the top at Sena Bhavan.
Men like Manekshaw are very special iconic personalities who shape history with charismatic leadership in their chosen profession. Sam Bahadur has done the profession of arms in India proud by his leadership.
His services to the nation will be remembered for a long time to come and inspire youth to join the profession of arms at a time of officer shortage in the three services. Money is not all. There is still some izzat left and the way of life that drew Manekshaw to the Army can again be given another chance.
In fact, it will not be wrong to say Sam Bahadur ranks along with military leaders like Rommel, Montgomery and Patton who led brilliant campaigns and raised the morale of their men when faced with tremendous odds.
Montgomery had to make special efforts to inspire his Eighth Army when they were overawed by the charisma of Rommel, the 'desert fox', in Africa. Driving around the battlefront in an open jeep while bombs rained all around him and machine gun fire raked the armoured carriers, Rommel's well-executed tank battles and fast thrusts into enemy territory had left the British clueless in World War II.
Montgomery rallied his men around after facing several reverses and used to come out of his mobile cabin without helmet and stand amidst artillery barrage by the Africa Korps. This act, no doubt, meant to charge his men, required sheer guts and the British soldiers went on to fight back and rest is history.
Patton's dash through Europe when the Germans were giving hell to the Allied Forces, besiders the brandishing of his service revolver and firing at the Luftwaffe fighter planes, are part of military history and folklore. All these three military leaders and our Sam Bahadur had that something extra, be it charisma, bravery or strength of character, to turn things around and get the job done when the country demanded them to do so.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting article. He makes statements and does not articulate the thoguhts that lead to the statements. And interesting that he compares FM Manekshaw to flamboyant Western commanders. And has wasted the space in that. He might have his reasons.
I think FM Manekshaw was an entity in his own right and beyond comparison. His task was much harder thant that od those examples considering that India in the early 70s was just emerging from the disastrous 60's.