By Brig. (Retd) S. N. Sachadeva
Recently the government of India declared that the “Report on the Operations Review Committee on the 1962 War with China” will not be published. The report had been prepared by Lt. Gen. Henderson Brooks and Brigadier P. S. Bhagat in the immediate aftermath of the conflict. It has been 50- years since the Sino-Indian war, a war which was an unmitigated disaster and one that continues to be a perennial nightmare for India. Considering the unpalatable fact that nearly 2,000 Indian officers and soldiers laid down their lives, citizens of this country have every right to know the truth about the conflict. This would be deemed the norm in any sane democracy.
The government has taken recourse to an order by the Central Information Commission on veteran journalist Kuldip Nayar’s application seeking a copy of the report. The CIC has made references to S.8 (1) (a) of the RTI which states –“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the state, relation with foreign state or lead to incitement of an offence.” Publication of the report was denied on the grounds that it would be detrimental to “national interest.”
This response flies in the face of similar reports of inquiries conducted in democratic countries. The Franks Committee was set up in England to inquire into the Falklands War in 1982. It recorded oral testimonies by the then serving prime minister Magaret Thatcher and also her predecessors. The report was published in 1983.
The United States conducted many inquiry committees for the Korean and Vietnam wars, all of whose reports were published and suggestions acted upon. The congressional reports investigating the 9/11 attacks are now available in the public domain.
Israel set up the Kahan Commission to investigate human rights violations during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, especially the massacre of women and children in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. The Kahan commission held the then defence minister Ariel Sharon responsible for the offences committed during the war. Ariel Sharon had to resign as defence minister. If this has been the conduct of other democratic polities, why is India being stubbornly different?
Why is this report being hushed up? We do lack certitude on this issue, however, there are a few clues that can possibly shed some light. Between 1962 and 1965, R. D. Pradhan was the private secretary of Y. B. Chavan who took over as defence minister from the acerbic V. K. Krishna Menon who fell from grace after the fiasco. His memoirs “Debacle to Revival” based on the years when Y. B. Chavan was defence minister may provide some clues.
Pradhan says “For Chavan the main challenge in the first years (of his office as defence minister) was to establish relationship of trust between himself and the prime minister. He succeeded in doing so by his deft-handling of the Henderson Brooks Report.” It appears that the main intention was to shield prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru from the rampant criticism that had already claimed prominent victims like Krishna Menon.
Neville Maxwell, the author of India’s China war who had the privilege to access a copy of the Henderson report from which he abundantly quoted in his book, suggested that the report was a very stinging one. One of the key questions alluding to the conflict remains: “Who started the war?”
This has been a very disturbing question. According to Chinese historians who wrote the history of the 1962 conflict, on October 6,1962 the Chinese defence minister Lin Biao reported that the Indians continue to “advance” and often open fire on Chinese outposts like the Thagla ridge. Chairman Mao believed that Nehru was the aggressor and that the Indian aggression had to be countered in a decisive manner.
The contentious issue of “forward posts” (like the “Dhola” post set up by India) remain an unsolved mystery. If the contents of the report are made public, the actual role played by senior officers like Lt.Gen. B. M. Kaul who was commander of the 4 Corps (a formation purportedly created to “throw the Chinese out”), Maj. Gen. Niranjan Prasad who headed the all important 4 Infantry Division and the then Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) Maj. Gen. D. K. Palit, will also be revealed.
Defence minister A. K. Antony has cited a plethora of issues, ranging from the contested McMahon line (border between India and China) to the Indian army’s operational capability in the Northeast, justifying the suppression of the report. These are painfully shoddy excuses, not befitting an “open” minister like Antony. It is difficult to fathom that the Indian army has not changed its operational strategy even after 50- years. Every Indian has the right to know the truth about the 1962 war. Publication of this report will be a decisive first step. Only then will the mist surrounding this event dissolve into clarity. INAV