Ray Sir, you have not answered my question.
A unit wants to fight till death. That unit is ordered to retreat. The unit refuses. Is that or is that not mutiny? That is collective insubordination and tantamount to court martial.
Just because someone refuses to take commands, if that has to be blindly labeled as mutiny, then there are many brave, including Brigadier Hoshiar Singh, who are almost mutineers.
The army statement makes complete sense to me. This cannot be termed mutiny.
I did not understand what you wanted to know when you asked me to see Para 3.
Now I know.
Let me take you through the paces of withdrawal so that I hope I can explain in detail so that you understand it in its perspective.
There are two things that can happen when a position become untenable due to overwhelming enemy action:
(a) Withdraw in a systematic way as per the Ops of War Withdrawal technique. Or,
(b) Have a Rout – means, taking off like scared rabbits in a disorganised way.
When a sub unit, unit or formation withdraws, a part of the force (let's call it A) holds the enemy at bay, while the other part (let's call it B) withdraws to the next suitable area for defence.
When they (B) are established, the part that was in contact with the enemy (A) withdraws and goes beyond to the rear of where B is and takes up position.
This 'leapfrogging' to the rear happens till they all come to the position decided by the higher commander where the Force will hold the enemy from any further advance.
Now, this is a much organised activity and not chaotic.
In a rout, there is no command and control and there is no unit cohesive. It is everyone for himself. The attacker aims to achieve a rout on the defender since that would make the attacker's task easier.
Therefore, if Brig Hosiyar Singh did not withdraw, he only endangered the others who were withdrawing as per plan. In war, one has to conform to the higher commander's plan rather than indulging in heroics. Now, if the higher commander is incompetent, it is just bad luck. No one should endanger the others who are adhering to orders and obeying the dictates of a plan.
The unit as a whole cannot decide to flout an order. If an order is being flouted, it is the head of the formation/ unit/ sub unit who is flouting since the troops will obey any order given by the head of that organisation. It is all fine for dramatic effect to state that the unit refused to withdraw.
Please note, the army does not 'retreat' (which is chaos) and instead 'withdraws (which is an organised manoeuvre).
It sounds very patriotic to claim 'the unit refused to retreat', but that is not how things happen. It happens in films and fiction. Hence, the unit did not 'mutiny'. It merely obeyed the CO's order. The CO was thus guilty of 'gross insubordination' and should have been charged so.
I hope I have been able to explain the issue.
Moreover, a leader has to command respect, not demand it. When they don't live up to their standards, and bring their wives into a training exercise, and then beat up somebody, and on top of that refuse medical aid, and also beat up the CO, it is quite clear who is to be blamed. These majors have simply lost their right to hierarchical superiority, and lost respect in the eyes of their men. So many men got agitated - why? It is pretty obvious that they realized it wasn't the fault of the soldier that he walked onto the major's showering wife. What was she doing there - against protocol? When officers behave like this, they end up getting beaten by sticks.
There is a nice movie called K-19, the Widowmaker. There, the Captain of the Soviet Submarine, (Harrison Ford), tells his men, "Without me, you are nothing; without you, I am nothing!" Makes complete sense to me. Every officer should endeavour to earn the respect of their men, failing which, they should simply step down.
It is not known as to why the wives were at the practice camp.
During a practice camp, even spectators and VIPs at the OP end, cannot smoke or drink. That is how serious it is.
However, after the practice camp, if there is a 'picnic spot' nearby, it could be that it was decided to go there and have a picnic. Possible. Maybe it is here that the things went out of control.
Men or Officers cannot go 'out of control'. The reason is simple. It is what differentiates a disciplined and organised body from a Mob.
Also, it is high time we got rid of this 'batman' system. Enough of this hierarchical bottom-kissing. Everyone in the Soviet Army was a comrade first, ranked combatant next. 'Tovarish Kapitan,' 'Tovarish Komandiir,' etc., were common ways to address others. Yes, they did have a hierarchy, but everytime one addressed the other, they were reminded that everyone was 'Tovarish' first, and anything else, second.
In hindsight, I don't see too many reasons to blame Stalin for purging thousands of his Tsarist officers. Evil? Yes! Necessary? Yes again! This is my opinion, but not only mine, but also, that of Vladimir Putin. I am glad Stalin got rid of at least some of the Imperial vanity.
By using the word Tovarich, it does not in any way make the Russian Army egalitarian. It is all cosmetic.
Are you aware how they treat their soldiers? Hardly very comrade like!
Another week brings two more horrible stories about senseless brutality in the Russian army. This time one of the victims is 19-year old Radik Habirov from Kazan, who was brought in to a local hospital weighing only 65 pounds and is now in a coma. This is the worst case of documented abuse in the Russian Army since the widely reported case of Pvt. Sychev six months ago. Last week in Moscow more details emerged from closed hearings about the extent of Pvt. Sychev's mutilation. Even Army doctors accustomed to seeing scars and broken bones from abuse have been shocked at how severely Pvt. Sychev was tortured by his comrades.
http://www.russiablog.org/2006/07/russian_army_needs_a_reform.php
Most of us are good leaders.
But then there are deviates too!
BTW, sahayaks are not just picked up and ordered to become one. People are asked who would like to be a sahayak and then and then only, is he sent.
There are cases where a chap is ready to be a sahayak to A but not to B.
And likewise, everyone does not want to be an ADC to a General or to the Governor or even the President either.
Also, the
jawans are not all so
bhola bhala chaps as is made out in the media hype that is ingrained in the public mind.
It is fashionable to feel that the those who are in the position of authority (be it in the Forces or in the Govt or even civil) are all scoundrel and those who are the worker ants are made of sugar and spice and all that is nice. This is the image that has been fashioned by the politicians after votes, where the lower echelons are hopelessly being deprived and ill treated and discrimiantd by those who are better off in position than them!
One hears of 'poor jawans dying' in war. Please check the ratio of those who died in wars and it will be realised that officers are way ahead in 'dying for the Motherland' (sounds patriotic, right) if the ratio is taken. But then who mentions them and even if they do, it is 'poor junior officers dying'.
Again check the ratio, have you not heard of COs dying and they surely are not junior officers.
Even Brigadiers have been killed!
We all serve and serve with dedication.
