There is a tendency in some quarters to regard the restoration of the honour of Brig. Devinder Singh, who commanded the 70 Brigade in the Batalik sector — the scene of some of the fiercest fighting in the Kargil conflict in 1999 — and fought alongside his troops (unusual for officers of his high rank), by the Armed Forces Tribunal as righting the wrong in an individual case. This will be a shortsighted reading of events. Brig. Singh’s career had been sought to be destroyed by his corps commander through prejudicial reporting to headquarters, and the tribunal has set the balance right. It has taken 10 years! Although he has retired, it is to be hoped that the officer will be given the promotion he well deserved retrospectively. Government recognition is also warranted for Brig. Singh’s conspicuous bravery in the trenches even after being wounded. Soldiers such as him enhance the institution of our armed forces and the nation. But it is pertinent to ask why it should take nearly a decade for the Army to make such a correction. When cases in civil courts drag on, and it is well said that justice delayed is justice denied, there are plausible reasons, however heartless that may sound — the backlog is immense due to procedure-related slowness and a crippling manpower shortage exists at all levels of the judiciary. The justice process inside our armed forces simply cannot offer that line of explanation.
In the new century, one of whose defining attributes is the conscious attempt at democratisation by states, governments, and individual citizens across the world, the justice system within the defence services must innovate and find ways of speedy redress. If proud institutions resist change, they fall out of step with the times, and are reduced to becoming active agents of the suppression of institutional justice. Our armed forces have an enviable record, and they cannot afford to go that way. The case of the wronged brigadier also calls attention to another aspect: the system of reporting to the next level of command, especially when the fog of war has the potential to obfuscate, is in need of an in-built verification mechanism. If this had been in place, it would have been difficult for the corps commander in question to successfully end the career of an extremely capable and outstandingly brave subordinate officer. Many abuses that have come to light in recent years would have been stymied as a part of the process itself. It is necessary to stress the revamping of the justice system in the forces and establishing appropriate verification procedures because there are cases other than that of Brig. Singh that are waiting to come out in the open. The last thing the Army needs is to panic and seek to apply closure without justice. That would be too much demoralising.
Some have held that the Kargil war’s official history needs revision. In spite of the famous victory, the Kargil story is one of a wider systemic malfunction. For months before the fighting erupted, Pakistani publications were reporting well-organised efforts to collect street donations for the war. A well-known international weekly had also brought this to light. But our military brass dismissed early reports from officers on the front suggesting large-scale intrusion well inside Indian territory by Pakistan Army regulars and Pakistani irregulars. This was a black spot that nearly made it impossible for our brave jawans to retake those icy heights from the enemy. A senior officer, Brig. Surinder Singh, was among the first to report enemy dispositions. He was disbelieved and punished. The Army must get its act right, be just to those who serve it, and be better prepared professionally.