In a no-holds-barred interview, sacked army officer Brigadier Surinder Singh talks about how he was cornered by General V.P. Malik and others and made a scapegoat for telling the truth about what happened at Kargil in 1999 and sticking to his guns. Toral Varia Deshpande met him at his home in Chandigarh.
Pakistan’s Gen Aziz has validated India’s stand about the Kargil war being fought by Pak army regulars. As the brigade commander of 121 Infantry Brigade who consistently gave inputs of the intrusion build-up, are you vindicated?
Of course! Pakistan used the mujahideen bluff in 1948, 1971 and then in Kargil. Now their own general is saying they were regulars. If you see the official records, you will see that all the units we came across—NLI, 24 Sindh, Baloch—they were all regular Pakistan army units. You see, when I briefed General Ved Prakash Malik at the end of August 1998, I gave him very specific information regarding Pakistan army movement that (now reading from confidential internal army communication) one extra infantry battalion has come in addition to one battalion which was already there as routine posture and 24 Sindh, which later on showed up in the intrusions as well, was moved closer and one battalion was moved on priority from Sialkot to somewhere in Skardu. Then two artillery brigades have come, smart weapons have come—everything was given in specifics. All these are hardcore army movements.
"I believe my seniors deliberately looked the other way even as I reported Pakistani army incursions." In a recent interview to The Sunday Guardian, General V.P. Malik said both the IB and RAW misled the army. Do you agree? Especially because you had forwarded specific information consistently through the relevant channels?
Does the brigade commander manufacture this sort of information? This information comes to us through the intelligence agencies—RAW and IB—which send it through army HQ, or the corps HQ or the division HQ. What I see is just what I see with the naked eye. I saw people with black dresses, I saw people digging—that is my information. And it is not manufactured by me! But the other resources are with the division HQ. So, to say those intelligence agencies fooled us...why, then, are we sitting up there—the brigade commander, GOC, corps commander and the chief?
Did General Malik and those above you in the chain of command deliberately downplay the situation?
I believe that they deliberately decided to look away. I remember a briefing where General Malik, and others were present. I was reporting about the intrusions and movements of the Pakistani troops. The first thing goc Major General Budhwar said was, “Look we are constructing a zoo.” Imagine! The enemy was inching closer and he was busy constructing a zoo with the full support and knowledge of the corps commander and army commander. They were more interested in how the birds are being trapped and how the defence stores are being used and how the troops are being used for trapping birds.
So there was no discussion on the troops build-up or a strategy to counter the enemy?
Not as seriously as there should have been. The war started on May 3, 1999. On May 5, the director general military operations had come to see me and I had briefed him in detail too. But they were all in the Delhi-Lahore bus yatra mood. They were all in the political mood. They had left the soldierly vision. There were a bunch of seniors who had resigned themselves to the fact that the bus yatra was happening and that there would be a thaw on the LoC and that nothing untoward would happen.
"I had told them not to move units in Batalik, Mushkoh. They did. It was like we vacated areas for the enemy." Why do you think they were trying to downplay the issue?
Initially, everything was handled haphazardly. For instance, they asked for attack helicopters from the air force when the actual war started. The air force refused to provide them immediately and asked the army to first inform the government and get a sanction. All this was happening while the chief was in Poland. Now, if nothing was happening, then why would they ask for attack helicopters from the air force? Why did they want to downplay the information? Was it just so General Malik’s plan of holidaying in Poland doesn’t go for a toss?
As the brigade commander who was facing the enemy up close and personal, yours was a dual battle: with the enemy across the border and with your seniors for your men.
Oh absolutely. I was the only one who kept saying there would be a war. They were so shortsighted they didn’t realise how close the enemy had come in. For instance, a 9 Mahar unit was posted in Batalik and a unit of the Maratha regiment was holding our Mushkoh area. I told them to not remove these units but the GOC said, “No, they will be removed.” The moment we moved out of Batalik, the enemy walked in. Ditto with Mushkoh. The first intrusion was in February, then in March. After that came intrusions in Batalik, Tololing, Tiger Hill and then in Mushkoh. It was like we almost vacated the areas for the enemy!
Even though the war was won, do you believe you were cornered and made a scapegoat by the top commanders?
There is an entire hierarchy in place. I am not a one-man army. Above me, there is a divisional commander, corps commander, an army commander and then the chief. They just picked me because I was the only one who kept saying a war will take place. I was not in sync with their mood.
General Malik did not have the moral courage to own up to the mistakes. He was a chief without the moral courage to admit that I was right in my assessment. Instead, I was made the man to blame. First, they removed me to give the impression to the government and the nation that the brigade commander was responsible and he must be removed. They kept transferring me from one place to another. They didn’t let me meet my family. They mentally harassed me. It is clearly the lack of moral courage of General Malik that trickled down the chain.
"Gen V.P. Malik didn’t have the courage to admit the mistakes. Instead, I was made the man to blame." Who supported you through this?
My men. In my ACR, which was interestingly written after my removal, I have been appreciated for the professional manner in which I fought the war and recaptured positions. That could not have been possible without the support of my men. Every single officer was fighting the enemy like he was a whole battalion himself hammering down the enemy. Otherwise, things were very bad until the troops started coming in.
A Pakistani colonel has claimed in his book that Pervez Musharraf had spent a night 11 km inside Indian territory. Do you think that could have happened?
Impossible. It’s a publicity stunt. There are logical and logistical reasons behind this. But more importantly, this whole operation was based on stealth and surprise. Now the surprise was to be broken sometime in May or June, because Zojila Pass opened in June and Musharraf wanted to consolidate everything before then. Would he be a fool to kill the surprise in December by bringing a helicopter inside and sleeping in front of me???
Do you feel let down by General V.P. Malik?
Like I said, he did not even have the courage to admit that I was the only one who was right in my assessment of the war. General Malik came only after the war had been already underway for over 20 days. And now he talks about swift wars! What is he talking about? How could he stay away for that long a time? And then he makes a statement like “We’ll fight with whatever we have!” It’s very demoralising conduct to say the least.
Threat perceptions: the ene is active in the sec along the LC. The areas where incursions/intrusions are possible are:
Serious professional differences have developed between self and GOC, 3 Inf Div, in matters of op details.
Possible infl along the LC at the areas pointed out in my briefing to you have been ignored. These points have become...
Apropos Brig Surinder Singh’s interview (‘The units we fought were all Pak army regulars’), Outlook had in 1999 itself widely reported his statements that he had written to the COAS several times about the situation in his sector. I had said it then, and I am saying it now: I find this difficult to believe. Once, possibly. More than once, impossible. As the good brigadier himself says, “Above me, there is a divisional commander, corps commander, an army commander and then the chief.” He would have been summarily removed from his command for bypassing his divisional, corps and army commanders. His statements that he warned the COAS directly therefore sound remarkably self-serving.
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.
The truth was Indian political establishment knew the impending war and the then BJP govt wanted this to happen as they were itching for a war with Pakistan.Hence they wanted Indian troops to moved out of these areas and facilitate the occupation of Pakistan.''
Nasser Ahmed Kukri
The practice of vacating Forward Posts both by Pak and Indian Armies during extreme hostile winter season was in voyage since 1971 on wards .Even during Congress and non Congress period of Chander Shekhar, Devgoda , Inder Gujaral and Bajpai .
But since you have to defend Paki Army so now you have cooked up an extremely stupid argument .
Dear the expose is by the Pak ex ISI General an Organisation which you revere . But we know your Paki Bhakati can conjure any Alif Lila Kisse Khanies ! I thought you are an Indian .But alas ---.
Brig Surinder Singh's various statements that he had written to the COAS on several occasions about the situation in his sector were widely reported in Outlook after the Kargil war.
I stated then and I repeat, that I find this hard to believe. Once possibly. More than once impossible.
As the good Brigadier himself says
Above me, there is a divisional commander, corps commander, an army commander and then the chief.
Above me, there is a divisional commander, corps commander, an army commander and then the chief.
He would have been summarily removed from his command for bypassing his Divisional, Corps and Army Commanders. The COAS may not have acted on Brig Surinder's inputs, but he would definitely have reacted strongly.
Brig Surinder Singh is probably right when he says he was made a scapegoat. His averments that he had repeatedly warned the COAS directly sound remarkably self serving.
The truth was Indian political establishment knew the impending war and the then BJP govt wanted this to happen as they were itching for a war with Pakistan.Hence they wanted Indian troops to moved out of these areas and facilitate the occupation of Pakistan.
Brigadiar Surindar Singh was only a pawn in this game.
I am inclined to believe brigadier Singh. The lapses of the command at the top happened because we do not understand the true nature of the state of Pakistan. Even today! I am certain Brigadier Singh's bosses got swayed by the Lahore bus trip. This is a typical historical flaw in the Indian psyche. If Prithvi raj Chauhan had not set Mohammed Gori free after first battle of Tarain, second battle of Tarain would not have taken place. Indian sub continent would be a different place today. Fact is that only India or only Pakistan can eventually survive as a concept. There is no space for both. It is upto us if we let our guard down and let Pakistan walk over us or the reverse. As I write this there is a meet being organised by elements close to pakistan establishment in this city on "kashmir". My information is that it is at the express orders of Ms. Khar, the darling of Pakistan army. Of course everything is totally deniable , as everything Pakistani always is. Remember Hafiz sayed runs a welfare organisation ! Muzahid's were fighting at kargil! Gulam nabi Fai was a freedom fighter till he was outed by FBI as an ISI agent.They are not going to stop trying ever. Let us not get fooled and always listen to men who are in the field.
Brigadier Surinder Singh is far more plausible and credible than Mr V P Malik.
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