Chandigarh: India’s military brass has, in recent years, gone out of its way to incorporate Chhatrapati Shivaji — the 17th century Maratha military leader and ruler — into its traditions and folklore, amid opposition from many senior service veterans.
The Army declared on X that the statue, inaugurated on Boxing Day by Lieutenant General Hitesh Bhalla, General Officer Commanding of the Leh-based 14 Corps, celebrated the unwavering spirit of the Indian ruler, who was a ‘towering symbol of valour, vision and unwavering justice’.
As further justification for the statue’s installation, it went on to add that Gen Bhalla was also colonel of the Maratha Light Infantry (MLI) regiment that had been deployed in Ladakh as part of the Rashtriya Rifles, and that Shivaji’s sculpture had been funded by voluntary contributions from regimental serving and retired personnel.
The Colonel of the Regiment (CoR) is a senior officer of brigadier rank and above, who represents his, or her, regiment’s overall interests. In one of many British Army traditions, all of which Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP government has undertaken to expunge, the CoR is the regiment’s ‘father-figure’, or ‘a kind of agony aunt’, to try and resolve its many tribulations and to provide it general direction.
Shivaji’s statue in Ladakh, however, has not only provoked outrage amongst local Ladakhis, but more significantly amid many IA veterans, a handful of whom have publicly railed against such a move, initiated for obvious political reasons by the Army’s top brass at the behest of the BJP government. Many more senior army veterans were visibly upset over this move, but declined to be identified, fearful of inviting official displeasure and possible penalties.
While local Ladakhi leaders questioned the relevance of placing Shivaji’s statue in Ladakh, which he neither visited, nor fought in or was in any remote way associated with, some IA veterans were blunt in their criticism.
“There are the statutes [or laws] of war, but of late our armed forces are studying the ‘statues of war’,” retired Major General Birender Singh Dhanoa declared on X. “A simple question for you guys in 14 Corps,” he stated, “are all fixed class units (ethnically recruited, like in the MLI) erecting statues across their Corps Zone(s) that are in keeping with their ancestral satraps (like Shivaji)?” The former two-star armoured corps officer also questioned the IA and the concerned CoR for publicizing the statue’s installation on social media, with the obvious inference that such unwarranted publicity was uncalled for and avoidable.
Retired Colonel Sanjay Pande, for his part, advocated putting up a statue of Zorawar Singh, a general in service with Jammu’s Dogra ruler Gulab Singh, as part of Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s Sikh empire and one who was responsible for extending its territories to include Ladakh, Baltistan, Skardu and parts of Tibet, by defeating the Chinese. He also attempted to conquer Western Tibet, but was killed in battle in 1841, and for his numerous Himalayan conquests this Dogra general has been dubbed by some local historians as the ‘Napoleon of India’. “Zorawar Singh fought wars 180 years back (in Ladakh and the wider Himalayas) in weather as found today,” Col Pande declared on X. “He deserves to be there,” added the former Dogra Regiment officer.
Other veterans said that with Army headquarters in New Delhi sanctioning Shivaji’s statue in Ladakh to commemorate the MLI’s deployment there, other army units too could press their case for similarly celebrating their respective ‘ancestral’ notables at locations they had served in. “This could well lead to a ludicrous situation of a host of statues around the country celebrating army units,” said a former MoD official, declining to be named.
Correspondingly, however, there were some army veterans who supported the move to place Shivaji’s statue on Pangong Tso, claiming it would boost troop morale. Retired Brigadier Hardeep Sohi stated that since the chances of hand-to-hand combat in infantry units were higher, they needed ‘inspiration’ which Shivaji’s statue duly provided.
Meanwhile, in a move in keeping with the Shivaji statue inauguration, Army Chief Gen Dwivedi accompanied Defence Minister Rajnath Singh in offering prayers at the Mahakaleshwar Jyotirlinga temple at Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh on Monday, dressed in saffron clothing.
And though the event was criticized by many Opposition leaders and commentators, BJP leaders vigorously defended it. “Nobody should have a problem with the Raksha Mantri or the army chief, or anybody celebrating their own faith,” former BJP MP and minister Rajeev Chandrashekhar told Times Now television on Tuesday. “Anyone who has a problem, should look for a hole and bury themselves in it,” he added.
Earlier, in late 2023, Indian Navy (IN) veterans were similarly critical of Prime Minister Modi’s declaration that the epaulettes of all naval officers would henceforth bear the imprint of Shivaji’s maritime legacy, in a bid to further ‘de-colonize’ the country’s military. The only difference was that all these officers opted to remain anonymous at the time and even now, fearful of ‘repercussions’ from the government.
“It is not for the Prime Minister to make pronouncements like revamping naval epaulettes, which is exclusively the responsibility of the IN’s Controller of Personnel Services,” said a retired two-star naval officer. “It is also obvious,” he regretfully added, “that the IN’s top brass were complicit in this undertaking, and in all likelihood connived and even encouraged it to earn government approval.”
The Prime Minister’s proclamation in his Navy Day address at Sindhudurg on 4 December 2023 was part of a wider agenda of ‘deracinating’ the navy, by ditching all association dating back to its founding as the Royal Indian Navy or RIN in 1932. This entailed infusing Shivaji’s 17th century octagonal stamp in place of the ubiquitous Nelson’s ring on uniform epaulettes inherited from the Royal Navy.
“Inspired by the ideals of Shivaji, today’s India is moving forward and abandoning the mentality of slavery,” Prime Minister Modi had declared. “I am happy to announce that the epaulettes donned by the naval officers will now highlight the heritage and legacy of Shivaji and they will be similar to the naval ensign,” he added.
Nearly a year earlier Shivaji’s octagonal stamp, symbolizing India’s hoary maritime heritage had replaced the Cross of St George on the IN’s ensign or flag as part of ‘the military’s de-colonization’ launched by the BJP-led administration. The Prime Minister had also announced that the force would additionally discard ‘vestiges of the colonial era’ by ‘Indianising’ ranks for all its personnel below officer rank (PBOR).
Official sources said over 65,000 naval PBOR who would imminently be re-designated included Master Chief Petty Officer’s 1st class, Master Chief Petty Officer’s 2nd class, Chief Petty Officer’s, Petty Officer’s, Leading Seamen, Seamen 1st class and Seamen 2nd class. Their new ranks were to be made public later, but thereafter this move, hastily advocated by the Prime Minister, has been scrapped, as there were far too many complexities involved in the change.
“Such internal service matters are best left to the armed forces themselves to announce, as declarations by politicians concerning them give rise, justifiably to charges of politicizing the military,” said a retired one-star IN officer. Yet another veteran, also declining to be named, said the matters of epaulettes and re-naming naval PBOR was too ‘small’ an issue to be so grandiosely publicized by the Prime Minister. “It was best left to the IN itself to make public,” he stated.
In the meantime, in light of major changes in service custom and ritual, there is a mounting conspiracy of silence amongst innumerable veteran officers in speaking to the media. And the handful who do actually consent to comment critically on such matters, albeit reluctantly, invariably request anonymity in anticipation of a ‘backlash’ from either their respective service, the MoD or the overall national security establishment, or all three.
These reactions typically prompt a ‘solicitous’ call from either a still serving service colleague, a ‘concerned’ MoD official, or at times even a common intermediary, all conveying undisguised disapproval of the concerned veteran’s harsh or at least questioning observations. In almost all instances this was warning enough to spook the veteran from ever interacting with the media again, as they were apprehensive lest their pensions were ‘adversely impacted’.
