CPI(M) leader, politburo member and Prakash Karat’s wife Brinda Karat today criticized Indian Army chief General Bipin Rawat using carefully chosen words that lacked any logic.
Her husband had attempted to insult the General claiming that he was towing the Modi government’s line. It backfired because an army is actually praised if it follows the government line. Karat was rightly criticized for the lack of logic in his anti-Rawat comment.
Karat’s editorial had followed the insulting article published by The Wire in which social scientist Partha Chatterjee compared General Rawat to General Dyer – the ‘Butcher of Amritsar’ who killed 1000 unarmed men, women and children in Jallianwala Bagh.
While Chatterjee’s comparison was full of flaws, there is nothing new in the Leftist brigade’s disdain for the Indian Army and its chief. One reason could be the fact that the Indian Army is seen as the most patriotic institution in the country which, in spite of being the third largest in the world, has been upholding democracy throughout its existence. History is proof that extreme communism means anarchy; a core fundamental truth of the ideology which is directly against order – a necessity for a successful democracy.
Anyway, this is what Brinda Karat said:
“That comment was made in a specific context. And he has apologized and I think the matter should end there. But it is a matter of concern generally because the present army chief’s statement result in controversy because the statement itself is quite objectionable.
And I believe the Army chief is undermining the status of his post by making such controversial statements. I think there is a need for some self-restraint as far as the chief of our army is concerned.”
— TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) June 12, 2017
Everything that Brinda Karat said is flawed; they are flawed because they are issued in situations where someone from a party speaks without logic or facts and other party members are forced to defend it.
Firstly, it is quite surprising that the Leftists now want the matter to end because an apology has been issued. Don’t they go after the heads of those who insult any of their communist masters or question a particular faith even if an apology has been issued?
Secondly, Brinda Karat is drawing attention to the army chief’s statement – something which formed the basis of Partha Chatterjee’s comparison. Far from being “controversial”, the statement is what any army chief worth his salt would issue to his soldiers and a country where democracy is under threat from a Communist-Islamist gang, their supporters and pro-Pakistan people.
Thirdly, “self-restraint” is something that the Indian Army has been practicing till date otherwise they would have done something really audacious which could have actually created a mess of the political situation in Kashmir.