Welfare of disabled soldiers, war widows

IT is heartening to note that the Kargil operation has touched the sensibility of the Indian citizens, not witnessed to this extent in free India. It is perhaps for the first time that the services and the ex-servicemen have felt that the nation is at their back. They are also touched by the sharing of their grief and appreciation of the hardship that the services go through while performing their duty. The nation has also reacted by offering generous contributions for their welfare.

The other day, there was a news-item about some self-appointed agents collecting money, ostensibly for the Kargil wounded, and misappropriating the same. I don’t know under which section of the IPC the Government will be dealing with them but the only punishment they deserve is to be hanged from the nearest pole.

At this junction we need to recall the various funds that had been collected, during such situation in the past, including gold collection by the Government of India during 1962. The utilisation of those funds had not been transparent to the donors and the public. Hence it leaves a scope for doubt. Today the funds are being collected by various agencies — Prime Minister’s relief fund, Army central welfare fund by State Governments, NGOs, various public sector undertakings — electronic and print media. This is a highly laudable action and we are indebted to the donors from all walks of life. But these efforts suffer from the following:

(a) Duplication of help rendered cannot be ruled out.

(b) Extending of the relief to affected persons by politicians may be motivated by personal interests, particularly in view of the forthcoming elections.

(c) Misappropriation is highly probable.

It is, therefore, necessary not only to streamline the collection of funds but also to ensure proper utilisation. A nodal agency should be created which should not only include the donor agency’s representatives but also ex-servicemen.

The Punjab Government continues to ignore over 229 cases of war widows/dependants/parents of 1962, 1965, 1971 war heroes and those who laid down their lives while performing their duties in aid of civilian authorities. Let us not forget that though the dead heroes were “one” to the “world” but they were the “world” of these unfortunate widows. Their “world” stands shattered. Yes, may be in one way we have matched their sacrifices. If you pile up the files dealing with their cases and the number of times politicians have been and are making tall promises to rehabilitate them, perhaps the pile can reach the heights of Kargil. A soldier dies for a cause, whether in Kargil or facing an irate mob in a town. He carries out the command of his superiors at the peril of his life. Let us first Salute those forgotten heroes and then ask ourselves a question: Why is the quantum of the awards varying? Was their heroism of an inferior variety?

The intensity of the conflict at Kargil has given us time to ponder over the problems of widows and the disabled ex-servicemen. At present, varying amounts are being given as lumpsum grants to the widows. These may not be of help to them in the long run. Those who are aware of the social structure of our recruiting areas would appreciate that these grants may be misused by the dead soldier’s family — or the widow’s family — whosoever can have his way. Only a small percentage of widows may be able to utilise these funds to their best advantage. The creations of a corpus fund on a long-term basis in the names of the present beneficiaries etc may be a better alternative, in addition to allotment of plots in HUDA/PUDA areas.

Even Government rules governing pensions for widows, such as cessation of pension on “widow remarriage”, need a fresh look. What right does the government have to deprive the orphaned children of soldiers, from their relief inheritance just because their mother has decided to remarry? A soldier becomes disabled, while fighting a war and is granted disability pension based on the percentage of disability caused. What justification does the government have to not grant service pension to him, because, his length of service does not merit the same? Does it imply that only the dead and those living and serving the state for 20 years deserve pension and those who have become disabled while performing their duty do not deserve it? We are aware that we have Asia’s best paraplegic care centre at Pune, but that is not enough. We need more such homes to meet the requirement in full.

These few problems are only the tip of the iceberg. There are many more.

The need of the hour, therefore, is the appointment of a commission consisting of members of the judiciary, NGOs’ representatives and ex-servicemen from various rank structures, to look into the whole issue of rehabilitation of the dependants of martyrs and disabled soldiers. Such a commission should complete its proceedings within months only and its recommendations should be binding on the government, until and unless these can be struck down by a process in the High Court on grounds of unreasonableness.

Col HARSHARAN SINGH SANDHU (retd)
Chandigarh

* * * *

Dating in parks

I am currently studying in London. I moved here only in 1998 and hope to be back by this September. Obviously, my stay here has given me a first hand experience in living here and seeing the western culture and that too as a student.

I have been a regular reader of The Tribune for many years now and I still continue to do so courtesy of the on-line edition. What pains me more than anything else is that fact that you still carry narrow-minded headlines like “Dating in parks embarrasses onlookers” with reference to the article published on the City page. Here we are standing on the threshold of the new millennium and I can’t help but believe that we are taking steps backwards. I am 23 and have had experience of both cultures now and I do firmly believe in my traditional upbringing and am also of the view that what we are taught in India holds us in good stead no matter where in the world we are. What I would like to know is that how “dating” in a park is an “embarrassment” to, out of all the people, the “onlookers”? Why must this two-faced society take such a negative view of a relationship? Is it okay if the youngsters were dating indoors?

Surely if such a headline was to be reported by the paper, it would grab the first page — the so called “onlookers’ would turn beet red.

It has, sadly, always been the society’s view to take anything in this respect in a perversely negative manner. I can give you the reference on one of the city’s colleges — GGDSD College in Sector 32 where I did my B.A. with the new principal taking over in 1995, many changes were promised — supposedly all for the better — and one of the first things to be done was to partition the canteen thus making a separate area for the boys and the girls. No doubt many of us have been educated in the city’s colleges and some many many years before me. I would like to ask them that was this a prevalent feature at that time too? This is just one of the glaring instances of the attitude towards youngsters. Instances of being harassed by the police whether in park, on a two-wheeler or stupidly even outside the discotheques. I wonder why one doesn’t hear about all these stories in progressive countries or cultures? I agree that not all of what happens in the West is good but surely even for a conservative city like Chandigarh to make an issue out of such a harmless meeting of two individuals in public area such as a park should not be reported with such a negative attitude and I think that it is from headlines like these that the public and the so called “onlookers” have pangs of “as-yet-dormant/dead” moralities. All they have to do is to look within themselves and nothing would “embarrass” them ever.

In the end, all I can say is that the harder you lobby against “dating” the more the people will be willing to try it — just as the taste of the forbidden fruit. I hope that the attitude of this double-faced society changes — for once for the better.

GURTEG SANDHU
London