From: VIJAY OBEROI oberoivijay@hotmail.com
Subject: SOME SUGGESTIONS
Date: Thursday, 21 May, 2009, 7:55 PM
Dear All,
As you know, I am not a member of the IESM, but since I am concerned with veteran issues, I am appending my take on the post-election controversy, which has ruled the e-mail circuit since the election results were announced.
Now that tempers seem to have cooled down amongst the veterans, the need is for some introspection by all the organizations, big and small, which are looking after the interests of the veterans. This includes the Core Group of the IESM.
One has seen in the past that everyone wants to take credit for anything achieved and this was quite discernable in the various e-mails that were on the web from time to time. These also contributed to discord at times.The fact of the matter is that it is the contribution of every organization and some individuals too which resulted in the veterans getting some issues resolved. When one organization wants to take credit, it creates bad blood unnecessarily and hence should be avoided.
When something adverse happens, all organizations initially react in a manner which can best be described as ‘digging ones heels’, rationalization and trying to justify one’s actions. This phase is in reality counter-productive. Instead, what the members want is reassurances that the decision makers do realize that they got carried away by promises made and the presence of more or less committed persons who pushed the agenda of their favourite party and that they would be more pragmatic and less impulsive in future. Humility and not brashness is needed at this stage, if veteran organizations want to win back and retain their flocks and even get fresh aspirants. This is applicable to all veteran organizations and not just the IESM. After all, they all supported one or the other political parties, for their own reasons.
This is also the time to think rationally, with the head and not the heart, of how to make the best of a bad bargain and re-think on the future course of action. The following points come to my mind, but I am sure more knowledgeable persons would be able to refine and redefine them:
· Ø Should the agitational approach continue or should there be a pause, if not an abandonment of this approach altogether?
· Ø Is the organization ready to make ‘peace’ (I am not sure whether that is the correct word) with other veteran organizations and chalk out a coordinated, if not joint programme which can help the veterans collectively? It automatically means all concerned to give way partly (of both their egos and programmes) for the common good.
· Ø It is quite obvious that one of the earlier actions to be taken is to co-opt more than just the Core Group in the deliberations, as the Group can never be as objective as desirable. If a General Body Meeting can be organized, it may be a good option, but unless a few generally acceptable options are first decided and circulated, such a meeting may well be counter-productive, with a large number just articulating emotions! There may also be a logistics problem. There are two options to overcome the problem, as under:
· - Firstly, a brain-storming session should be held by say about 50 selected members, who should debate all issues dispassionately and come up with a working plan for further implementation.
· - Secondly, if Option I is not feasible, then another possible solution is to nominate a small cell which can tour major locations in each state to discuss and find out views of a large cross-section of members and even others if feasible.
· - Irrespective of the option adopted, the outcome should then be disseminated and members be asked to vote on the issues recommended, thus obviating members from outstations being called for a General Body Meeting.
· Ø My view is that time is NOT at a premium. The newly established cabinet and government will need time to settle down to their jobs and deal with more weighty issues. For them, the issue of OROP or other issues agitating the veterans are, I feel, of lesser importance. In the interim, issues considered important by the veterans should be listed out and sent to them so that they are flagged till the concerned veteran organization is ready to commence a more comprehensive dialogue.
The above suggestions are not only for the IESM, but all veteran organizations. Simultaneously, efforts should be re-initiated, separately, to reach understandings amongst all veteran organizations, as all are undoubtedly working for the benefit of the veteran community, in their own way. It may be utopian, at least at this stage, to think that the different organizations will merge and become one entity. However, coordination and cooperation are eminently feasible. What is needed is appreciation of others viewpoints and an accommodative approach.
I have deliberately refrained from commenting on the following issues, as they are highly sensitive and can be read wrongly, when one is trying to mend matters and reach a consensus:
· Ø The agitational or the lobbying approach.
· Ø Rationalization of the bigger question whether veterans and active service personnel should go their separate ways or adopt the theory of the umbilical chord, stressed by many, including me.
· Ø The major question of being politically aligned or being apolitical; many views have already been expressed. In addition, what constitutes being ‘political’ and the parameters of being ‘apolitical’.
.
Warm regards.
· Vijay Oberoi
(Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi, Former VCOAS)
