Unfortunately my complaint is that - I would request his indulgence to take note of that- the farsighted mind is so much absorbed in itself that it does not take notice of other minds.- (Interruptions).

My point is this. Yesterday he made a very interesting speech which should catch very fine sentiments of patriotism. He says, “What is the function of a Minister; really speaking, the Chief of Staff can function; the President can give some signals from the Rashtrapati Bhavan and the Army and Air Force can go on. “. I am not arguing in a legalistic manner or in a constitutional manner. Really speaking, I understood what his implication was: are we making any efforts in the political orientation of the Army; are we giving the necessary patriotic motivation to the Armed Forces? This is what I have understood him to have meant. He was not criticising a Defence Minister or he was not criticising the Cabinet system as such. His suggestion was : are we doing anything to give the necessary political motivation for the Army? In that context, he mentioned one very popular name, Jumbo Majumdar. It is very respected name in the Air Force. I can tell the hon. Member that it is a very respected name. I was just discussing this with an Air Force officer this morning; he said that he was a very respected man; he was a very good pilot, etc. He was a good pilot, but there were many other good pilots too; probably they did not meet Dr. Lohia.

I like that man. I want to tell the hon. Member from my own personal experience that, when he was functioning as a worker, as a volunteer at the district level. I know some of those boys who worked with me then and who are now officers in the Air Force. What I am trying to say is that the hon. Member’s categorical statement, the blanket statement that the Army of today is the same that was there eighteen years before, is fundamentally wrong.

My only point was this. Maybe, it is the same; from the social angle, things have not changed. If that is the suggestion, I may accept it. But that is also a reflection not on the Army itself. Army again is a reflection of the country as a whole. Really speaking, the most important point, which Mr. Indrajeet Gupta made yesterday was this: a new bond has been created between the Army and the country today. What does it mean ? It means that the Armed Forces of this country have become the real representatives of the people. If there are certain deficiencies in the social life of this country, probably they are reflected in the Army, but the Army is not to be blamed for that. I can certainly assure the hon. Members that, in order to provide the necessary national orientation, the patriotic orientation- I cannot say political orientation because if I say political orientation and if I try to orient, I might try to do Congress orientation which is a bad thing today....

That is why I say national orientation, a patriotic orientaion which is more essential...

I would like to assure this hon. House that the Army Headquarters, supported by the Government, have undertaken an intensive programme of providing this motivation and orientation. In what way those people who fought in the last war are less patriotic than the so-called other patriots of this country? They are equally, patriotic. People do not easily go and give up their lives for the country, in a way in which they did.