AFVOA Newletters of Year 2004

Page 91 of 153 69. Apart from noting that MiGs have actually been crashing even longer than Fernandes suggests, note too that he refers to this “problem” that the “nation” must solve. In precisely that spirit, the Gadgil family formed the Abhijit Air Safety Foundation in 2002, that has been asking questions about his death and the safety of these aircraft. “The idea was to get authorities to act to stop the loss of young lives in the ancient aircraft of our Air Force in general, and MiG-21 in particular”, says another note they wrote. It’s what you’d expect of any family bereaved as they were: they have innumerable questions; they want answers; they want to be sure this never happens again, to any other pilot. 70. In the words of Fernandes himself, they want to “solve” this “problem.” 71. As an aside, something has changed for the better since AASF was founded. Whether through its efforts or otherwise, the number of MiG crashes decreased markedly in 2003. Yet the questions remain, fueled also by how they have been received. In the IAF’s only response to the Gadgils’ several letters -- the ONLY response to date -- one Air Marshal Ashok Goel, Inspector General at the Air HQ, wrote to them in March 2003: We have taken effort [sic] to explain to you the reasons leading to the accident. The [aircraft] was fully serviceable at the time of crash. We … are quite convinced that the accident was due to disorientation during a dark night take off. [Abhijit’s] records do indicate that he was weak in certain aspects of flying … with experience he managed to cope. 72. A venomous attack on the Air Force or its hierarchy does not, in my opinion, offer any solace. At worst, you may demoralise the Service. Such an act would not be in the best interest of the Nation … It would be most unfortunate if your intentions are to disrespect the IAF. … So far we have turned a blind eye to your tirade in public. 73. Are you as outraged as I was that this Goel would actually write in this vein to the family of one of the IAF’s dead pilots? That he issues cloaked warnings about “demoralising the Service”, “disrespecting the IAF” and, worst, harming “the best interest of the Nation”? Is Goel actually saying that the Gadgils’ patriotic responsibility is to stop asking their questions? 74. So ask some final questions yourself: if Abhijit Gadgil was really “weak in certain aspects”, why was he asked to fly that night? Why was he allowed to fly at all? 75. Or is there a simpler explanation: that Air Marshal Goel decided to use this excuse after the fact? That it is easier to fault a now dead pilot than admit to, and correct, problems with a fleet of fighters? Is this another line of questions that leads to cynicism? 76. There’s a larger lesson here. Our armed forces are intimately part of what we call patriotism: witness the Air Marshal’s reference to the national interest, or Jaswant Singh’s reference to Saurabh Kalia’s sacrifice for the motherland. 77. Yet scratch just a bit, and this supposed patriotism bites back. 78. Kalia and his men are almost pointedly overlooked for military awards, but true patriots must not question that dissonant note from the Kargil victory trumpets, nor the oddities surrounding their deaths. NOKs can’t get post-mortem reports, let’s remember. Pilots die in a stream of MiG crashes, but asking why, not the deaths themselves, demoralises the service. And that -- all together now -- harms the interests of the nation. Not even the pilots’ families -- those NOKs again -- can know.