Providentially, the Chinese declared a unilateral ceasefire. From then on Sam rose to be a legend and gave India its first decisive military win in 1971. Most extraordinary about his Sputnik-like rise is that with him as chief, even the prime minister, defence minister and bureaucrats felt insecure. Rumours of coup d'etats and martial law would crop up periodically.
That Sam is not made of ordinary stuff becomes apparent from Soldiering With Dignity, sadly the only book on the man and his ways, by Lt Gen Depinder Singh. The gaps in the story are filled by a film on Manekshaw made by the Parsi Association of India. Both fall short in measuring up to his life and standards. Both were released last month at Dehradun where the Field Marshal—still sprightly at 89—took the salute at a Passing Out Parade, 75 years after his own that gave him a commission in the British Indian Army. Except for the more pronounced stoop, Manekshaw was, in spirit and form, the Sam that he is, exhorting the young officer to fight to win, nothing less, otherwise the gharwali would never accept him back.
Had Sam not gone off to join the army, he might have become a gynaecologist. Luckily he did become a soldier and went on to win the Military Cross in Burma, later joining the 8 Gurkha Rifles. But he never commanded a battalion. A favourite with the Gurkhas, it was during his visit to Nepal in 1972 that King Mahendra conferred on him the title of Honorary General of his Army which ruffled some feathers in the foreign ministry at Delhi. Since then both countries have made each other's army chiefs generals of their armies. For the Gurkhas, he is Sam Bahadur, a name given to him on the spur of the moment by Harka Bahadur, a young soldier from his battalion.
Sam is no thinking general with great strategic vision. Rather, he is a down-to-earth soldiers' soldier like the officers of his time, meticulous in detail and human to a fault. His greatest asset: he was a lucky commander. His showmanship, style and ability to communicate, relax and laugh made him stand out. "Sweetie", "Sweetheart", "Sweetiepie", "Lovely", etc was the way he addressed his officers and their wives. He could communicate with Harka Bahadur as easily as he could with Indira Gandhi. He is unconventional to the core.
Depinder Singh's narrative is essentially a collection of Sam anecdotes which have matured over time and even undergone a change of flavour. These cover mainly the four-year period during which Depinder was his military assistant. The book contains no startling revelations or fresh insights into the 1971 war. While Lt Gen Jacob in his Surrender at Dhaka has been critical of Manekshaw's management of the war, Depinder has tried to defend his chief.
Manekshaw's sterling achievement was warding off the pressures from his prime minister Indira Gandhi to go to war following the crackdown by the Pakistan army in East Pakistan. "War, yes. But not now," he said. During a cabinet meeting, Manekshaw managed to convince Mrs Gandhi that more time was required to ensure victory. "I guarantee the capture of East Pakistan in two weeks," he said on at least two occasions. Jacob and others have claimed that Manekshaw gave limited military objectives to the Eastern Army. The capture of Dacca was not among them.
As in service, after retirement too, Manekshaw was surrounded by controversy. Two media stories sullied his image. One was about London being his favourite city and the other that "Jinnah had asked me to join the Pakistan army in 1947. If I had, you would have had a defeated India." This was said in jest, Sam style, but the Indian leadership got its knickers in a twist over it. Never one to fade away, Manekshaw stormed the corporate world. At one time, he was on the board of 14 companies and was the chairman of six. He was director with Escorts when Swraj Paul tried to take it over.
The government responded by changing the entire board, a Mr Naik replacing him. "This is the first time in history when a Naik (corporal) has replaced a Field Marshal," he quipped. Depinder Singh's book is a treasure trove of such anecdotes. But those who know Sam know he is much more than that.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT