General Zamiruddin Shah is a tried and valiant soldier and this book is a soldier’s story of a life spent in the Indian Army and later in administering one of our public universities.

I got to know Gen. Shah many years earlier when he was the Defence Attache in my embassy in Saudi Arabia in mid – 1990s. He enticed me to play golf in the desert and watch the sunrise over a very clear sky; it was an incredible sight. He was a good colleague and earned the respect of members of the Indian community and of his Saudi contacts.

In the Foreword to the book, Naseeuddin Shah sahib has described the title as ‘intriguing.’ It reminds me of an admonishment of my teacher in school: ‘refrain from using adjectives because they qualify the noun.’

I agree with the author’s observation that the miniscule number of Muslims in the armed forces is due to a reluctance to compete. This is reflective of a wider failing that, happily, is now being shed and more and more youngsters are taking the plunge to compete for entry into our civil and security services and the armed forces.

Perhaps for reasons of abundant prudence, Gen. Shah has not shed much light on his work as a Defence Attache and given an assessment of the armed forces of the countries concerned. Some of them are now in the news for their strident military posture towards neighbours.

The book makes some relevant observations on insurgency operations in the North-East: (a) Use of ‘pellet guns is abhorrent and only adds fuel to the fire with the aggrieved joining insurgent ranks’; (b) there can be no military solution to insurgency. Restoration of normalcy is a slow process and involves winning hearts and minds;’ (c) ‘an insurgent deserves no sympathy but empathy is essential. This implies that an insurgent remains a human being and should be treated as such. This helps to counter human rights abuses.’

On the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), he suggests greater transparency, but not abolition. This is a soldier’s view; many in civil society would not agree with it and would point the finger at specific instances where excesses have gone unpunished.

The chapter relating to the Indian Army’s work in post-Godra Gujarat will be read with much interest. Some details have been given by the author in his various TV interviews. The following observations are noteworthy:

• the initial reaction of the civil administration was ‘tardy’;
• ‘a curfew had been ordered but not enforced’
• there was no attempt to convene peace committees;
• the attitude of the police was partisan;
• 18 companies of BSF, and 44 of Para Military Forces (PMF) were underutilized and ‘ineffective’, and so were 63 companies of State Reserve Police who were partisan;
• ‘the higher police hierarchy was totally politicized and divided along political lines’; and
• women participated in the riots as ‘provocateurs.’

The Army’s role lasted for two months and a change in the police leadership of the state was undertaken only in the first week of May.

The book is silent about the role of the political leadership. If civil and police administration fails to respond to a massive failure of law and order, where does responsibility rest in a democratic and parliamentary system? Why was Article 355 of the Constitution, which makes it a ‘duty of the Union to protect’ a state against ‘internal disturbance’, not invoked even when the Centre had the benefit of Raksha Mantri’s on-the-spot assessment?

The reporting of happenings in national and international media was extensive and civil society and NHRC reactions were sharp. In an interview to a Malayalam weekly in March 2005, former President K.R. Narayanan revealed his remonstration with the government, observed that ‘the military were sent but not given the power to shoot’ and that ‘there was a conspiracy involving the state and central government behind the Gujarat riots.’

General Shah has described in details his travails on being the Vice Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University. He names the adversaries and friends with whom he kept in touch and hint at those who opposed him. He details the steps taken to ‘clean the Augean stables’, enforce discipline in the campus and the research initiatives in some disciplines. He asserts that in university ranking the AMU ‘emerged from oblivion to become the best university in the country.’

Some of the author’s generalizations about the faculty could be contested. Bad eggs would be there in all institutions but how can a university be rated ‘best’ without the contribution of teachers and researchers? The challenge always is to take them along.

The section of the book on alumni response to various initiatives is heart warming and is a tribute to our author’s efforts.

Our universities today are microcosms of life beyond their portals and have imbibed many of the tensions in society. The impression that they can be put in a straight jacket of disciplinary procedures tends to ignore the problems arising from excessive numbers, inadequate resources, and misplaced expectations of ideological correctness. Space for debate and dissent is critical for creativity.

The collection of photographs shed light on the many-sided personality of the author. The combination of the cameleer and equitation leaves a powerful impression.

I felicitate Gen. Shah on his effort.