Wednesday, February 10, 2010
IAS Promotions
1. As many as 54 IAS officers belonging to the 1990 batch were cleared for empanelment to the rank of Joint Secretary ( Equivalent to MajGen ) in Government of India (GOI). A total of 89 of them were considered. However, 35 IAS officers of the said batch could not make it to the final list.
2. The success rate is 60.67%.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Rot in the armed forces
TIMES OF INDIA
I WONDER : I JUST WANT TO DRAW READER'S ATTENTION TO THE LAST LINE OF THIS WRITEUP. THAT IS WHERE THE 6TH CPC HAS HIT------ " THE PRIDE"--------------
"The safety, honour and welfare of your country comes first, always and every time. The honour, welfare and comfort of the men you command come next. Your own ease, comfort and safety come last, always and every time."
When you now look at these 37 words, etched on the walls of the famous Chetwode Hall at Dehradun's Indian Military Academy - the cradle of officers heading for the Indian army - they have a distinct ring of irony. The stirring credo of military selflessness today stands inverted. Far from breeding a band of fearless and honourable soldiers, the Indian Army seems to be spawning a crooked cocktail of "ketchup" colonels, "booze" brigadiers and land-scamming generals - all of whom seem to have made their own ease and comfort, not to speak of fat bank balances, their primary motto.
It's not that corruption - or "moral turpitude" as it's delicately referred to by the brass - was unknown in the army. It was small, though, even petty. Oldtimers say it was largely in the service arm of the army, the ASC (Army Service Corps), which they recall was referred to as "Atta Sugar Chor" . The disease has now hit the top guys: colonels, brigadiers and even generals. In fact, the army chief might not have been implicated in the latest Sukna land scam, but he has certainly come under a cloud for trying to protect his top aide, Lt Gen Avadhesh Prakash, who seems neck deep in it. Clearly, the army's moral fibre is fraying and has weakened like never before.
But it's the rot at the top that is a big worry. At least 10 generals - of two- and three-star rank, which means major-generals and lieutenant-generals - have come under the scanner for corruption and financial misappropriation in a series of meat, ration, fuel and liquor scandals over the last few years. And it's not just lucre that's corrupting the top brass - a major-general was court-martialled in 2007-2008 for sexually harassing a woman officer under his command at Leh.
Corruption seems to have seeped through the army in the last decade or so, corroding the backbone of the force. Its combat sabre-arm , like infantry, armoured corps and artillery, has been infected and, unless arrested, the very character of the Indian army could get deeply scarred. The by now infamous Sukna land scam case, in which four generals have been indicted, is just the latest manifestation of the malaise afflicting the force, which for long was seen as the last surviving bastion of discipline and probity in the country.
Says former army chief Gen V P Malik: "The entire Sukna episode shows the weakness in the leadership's moral fibre. There is no doubt that we need to strengthen the ethos and ethics of the armed forces. Senior officers need to stand up to pressure, whether it's from politicians, power-brokers , contractors or even the society at large. They need to ensure that young officers and jawans look up to them since in the armed forces, which are different from other government services, you actually order them to go to their deaths."
While the Indian Army may not be anywhere close to becoming a rotting institution - upright veterans swear it's still much cleaner than many civilian institutions - but there are obviously enough disturbing signs for worry. Why are so many senior officers getting caught with their hands in the till? Does it indicate that corruption is rampant in the army? Or does it show that the crooks in uniform haven't yet learnt the art of covering their tracks, as has been mastered by their civilian counterparts?
TOI-Crest put this question to several honest soldiers - both serving and retired. The general opinion was that it's impossible to insulate the armed forces from the "general social degradation" and "corrosion of the moral fibre" as it is the larger society from which the military rank and file is drawn. Probed further, an interesting analysis emerged. While relative poverty in India guarantees a steady supply of manpower at the level of jawans, the army is finding it extremely difficult to attract enough bright youngsters - especially, those with the requisite OLQs (officer-like qualities). The Indian Army, where life is tough, where you get shifted around every two-three years from one remote posting to another, and where the salaries are relatively modest , is just not an attractive option for most of the brighter lot. Often, those who fail to secure a class-I government job turn to the olive-green uniform. "It's the last resort," said an officer. A young third-generation officer says he was surprised at some of the reasons his batch mates at IMA gave for joining the army. "Once it was a passion and adventure, now it's just any other job,'' he says. "I was shocked when one of my course-mates said he had joined the army to get subsidised booze, big houses in cantonments and good medical facilities. Many of the top IMA graduates, in fact, opt for ASC or other service arms to lead easier lives, and (to be) where there's opportunity to make the extra buck." In short, the army is often left with no option but to take in second-rate people with third-rate morals. Some officers claim the army's "extensive and committed training processes" , at both the physical and psychological levels, as well as "strong institutional mechanisms" are still able to mould these young recruits into "motivated, disciplined, law-abiding officers and men." Says a brigadier: "There is poor quality of intake. But if we induct 10 donkeys, at least seven are transformed into horses." Whether this is an accurate conversion rate or just a fond hope is anybody's guess. This, however, is at the induction level. How are so many soldiers of easy virtue managing to reach the top, as action against 10 lieutenants and major-generals in the recent past would indicate? Why are the wrong officers not being weeded out? "There is too much of a 'Yes, Sir' culture. If you question a senior, you are unlikely to make it to the next rank in the pyramidal army structure," says a serving Lt General. The general added that the army was no longer insulated from the civilian way of life, as it once was, and that was often bringing wrong values into the armed forces. "That, coupled with prolonged deployment in internal security duties, is steadily chipping away at the army's fundamental values," he says. Not all is lost, though. The military wood is seasoned and the axe of corruption will find it difficult to chop through it. On top of that, punitive action is stringent and swift. The army alone conducts almost 1,000 court-martials on an average every year, a major chunk of them being summary ones wherein the unit or battalion commander or commandant acts as the investigator, prosecutor and judge, all rolled into one.
The colonial practice of summary court-martials is prone to a lot of abuse, but the army insists it is needed to maintain discipline in the ranks. But punishing errant jawans is one thing, acting against senior officers altogether different. Many senior officers are known to brazenly abuse their perks and privileges, and line their pockets. Some officers have gone to the extent of faking killings to improve their standing in the hotly-contested race to bag gallantry medals, unit citations or commendation cards among battalions.
In 2003-2004 , for instance, there were the notorious "ketchup killings" and "Siachen killings" episodes. While tomato sauce was used to fake photographs of "slain militants" in Assam's Cachar district in the first case, the latter saw video-tapes being made of the fictitious killings of "enemy soldiers" on the world's highest battlefield at Siachen. And to the Army's credit, all these cases were dealt with swiftly and harshly.
"Three major-generals , a brigadier and a colonel named in the Tehelka expose of 2001, for instance, were punished. Conversely, politicians and bureaucrats involved in the scandal simply got away,'' says a senior officer. Most soldiers still spring to the army's defence. Lt Gen R K Gaur (retd) says, "When Kargil happened in 1999, the belief that young officers and soldiers lack the dedication was thoroughly disproved. Despite the worst kind of odds, they went up the hills in the line of fire to evict Pakistanis from their positions."
The refusal to see no wrong in the army could be interpreted either as denial of a spreading disease or an innate sense of pride among soldiers who insist corruption cases are "an aberration" and that the army still remains one of the cleanest institutions in the country. There is deep hope hidden in this optimism, and it is that as long as there is pride in an institution, it cannot go under.
When you now look at these 37 words, etched on the walls of the famous Chetwode Hall at Dehradun's Indian Military Academy - the cradle of officers heading for the Indian army - they have a distinct ring of irony. The stirring credo of military selflessness today stands inverted. Far from breeding a band of fearless and honourable soldiers, the Indian Army seems to be spawning a crooked cocktail of "ketchup" colonels, "booze" brigadiers and land-scamming generals - all of whom seem to have made their own ease and comfort, not to speak of fat bank balances, their primary motto.
It's not that corruption - or "moral turpitude" as it's delicately referred to by the brass - was unknown in the army. It was small, though, even petty. Oldtimers say it was largely in the service arm of the army, the ASC (Army Service Corps), which they recall was referred to as "Atta Sugar Chor" . The disease has now hit the top guys: colonels, brigadiers and even generals. In fact, the army chief might not have been implicated in the latest Sukna land scam, but he has certainly come under a cloud for trying to protect his top aide, Lt Gen Avadhesh Prakash, who seems neck deep in it. Clearly, the army's moral fibre is fraying and has weakened like never before.
But it's the rot at the top that is a big worry. At least 10 generals - of two- and three-star rank, which means major-generals and lieutenant-generals - have come under the scanner for corruption and financial misappropriation in a series of meat, ration, fuel and liquor scandals over the last few years. And it's not just lucre that's corrupting the top brass - a major-general was court-martialled in 2007-2008 for sexually harassing a woman officer under his command at Leh.
Corruption seems to have seeped through the army in the last decade or so, corroding the backbone of the force. Its combat sabre-arm , like infantry, armoured corps and artillery, has been infected and, unless arrested, the very character of the Indian army could get deeply scarred. The by now infamous Sukna land scam case, in which four generals have been indicted, is just the latest manifestation of the malaise afflicting the force, which for long was seen as the last surviving bastion of discipline and probity in the country.
Says former army chief Gen V P Malik: "The entire Sukna episode shows the weakness in the leadership's moral fibre. There is no doubt that we need to strengthen the ethos and ethics of the armed forces. Senior officers need to stand up to pressure, whether it's from politicians, power-brokers , contractors or even the society at large. They need to ensure that young officers and jawans look up to them since in the armed forces, which are different from other government services, you actually order them to go to their deaths."
While the Indian Army may not be anywhere close to becoming a rotting institution - upright veterans swear it's still much cleaner than many civilian institutions - but there are obviously enough disturbing signs for worry. Why are so many senior officers getting caught with their hands in the till? Does it indicate that corruption is rampant in the army? Or does it show that the crooks in uniform haven't yet learnt the art of covering their tracks, as has been mastered by their civilian counterparts?
TOI-Crest put this question to several honest soldiers - both serving and retired. The general opinion was that it's impossible to insulate the armed forces from the "general social degradation" and "corrosion of the moral fibre" as it is the larger society from which the military rank and file is drawn. Probed further, an interesting analysis emerged. While relative poverty in India guarantees a steady supply of manpower at the level of jawans, the army is finding it extremely difficult to attract enough bright youngsters - especially, those with the requisite OLQs (officer-like qualities). The Indian Army, where life is tough, where you get shifted around every two-three years from one remote posting to another, and where the salaries are relatively modest , is just not an attractive option for most of the brighter lot. Often, those who fail to secure a class-I government job turn to the olive-green uniform. "It's the last resort," said an officer. A young third-generation officer says he was surprised at some of the reasons his batch mates at IMA gave for joining the army. "Once it was a passion and adventure, now it's just any other job,'' he says. "I was shocked when one of my course-mates said he had joined the army to get subsidised booze, big houses in cantonments and good medical facilities. Many of the top IMA graduates, in fact, opt for ASC or other service arms to lead easier lives, and (to be) where there's opportunity to make the extra buck." In short, the army is often left with no option but to take in second-rate people with third-rate morals. Some officers claim the army's "extensive and committed training processes" , at both the physical and psychological levels, as well as "strong institutional mechanisms" are still able to mould these young recruits into "motivated, disciplined, law-abiding officers and men." Says a brigadier: "There is poor quality of intake. But if we induct 10 donkeys, at least seven are transformed into horses." Whether this is an accurate conversion rate or just a fond hope is anybody's guess. This, however, is at the induction level. How are so many soldiers of easy virtue managing to reach the top, as action against 10 lieutenants and major-generals in the recent past would indicate? Why are the wrong officers not being weeded out? "There is too much of a 'Yes, Sir' culture. If you question a senior, you are unlikely to make it to the next rank in the pyramidal army structure," says a serving Lt General. The general added that the army was no longer insulated from the civilian way of life, as it once was, and that was often bringing wrong values into the armed forces. "That, coupled with prolonged deployment in internal security duties, is steadily chipping away at the army's fundamental values," he says. Not all is lost, though. The military wood is seasoned and the axe of corruption will find it difficult to chop through it. On top of that, punitive action is stringent and swift. The army alone conducts almost 1,000 court-martials on an average every year, a major chunk of them being summary ones wherein the unit or battalion commander or commandant acts as the investigator, prosecutor and judge, all rolled into one.
The colonial practice of summary court-martials is prone to a lot of abuse, but the army insists it is needed to maintain discipline in the ranks. But punishing errant jawans is one thing, acting against senior officers altogether different. Many senior officers are known to brazenly abuse their perks and privileges, and line their pockets. Some officers have gone to the extent of faking killings to improve their standing in the hotly-contested race to bag gallantry medals, unit citations or commendation cards among battalions.
In 2003-2004 , for instance, there were the notorious "ketchup killings" and "Siachen killings" episodes. While tomato sauce was used to fake photographs of "slain militants" in Assam's Cachar district in the first case, the latter saw video-tapes being made of the fictitious killings of "enemy soldiers" on the world's highest battlefield at Siachen. And to the Army's credit, all these cases were dealt with swiftly and harshly.
"Three major-generals , a brigadier and a colonel named in the Tehelka expose of 2001, for instance, were punished. Conversely, politicians and bureaucrats involved in the scandal simply got away,'' says a senior officer. Most soldiers still spring to the army's defence. Lt Gen R K Gaur (retd) says, "When Kargil happened in 1999, the belief that young officers and soldiers lack the dedication was thoroughly disproved. Despite the worst kind of odds, they went up the hills in the line of fire to evict Pakistanis from their positions."
The refusal to see no wrong in the army could be interpreted either as denial of a spreading disease or an innate sense of pride among soldiers who insist corruption cases are "an aberration" and that the army still remains one of the cleanest institutions in the country. There is deep hope hidden in this optimism, and it is that as long as there is pride in an institution, it cannot go under.
Ordnance Factory Group 'A' 6th cpc Pay Scale
Pay scales in respect of Ordnance Factory Employees after
6th Pay Commission
| S.No. | Name of the Post | Pre-revised scales of Pay | Revised scales of Pay | Grade Pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | GROUP ‘A’ | - | - | - |
| 1 | CHAIRMAN | 26000 (FIXED) | 80000 (FIXED) | - |
| 2 | ADDL.DGOF & MEMBER | 24050-650-26000 | 75500-80000 | - |
| 3 | SR.GM/SR. DDG/SR.PD/DHS | 22400-525-24500 | 37400-67000 | 12000 |
| 4 | GM/AGM/DDG/CMO/Sr.Spl/Addl.DHS | 18400-500-22400 | 37400-67000 | 10000 |
| 5 | DIR/Jt.GM/PMO(NFSG)/Spl. MO-I/DDHS (NFSG) | 14300-400-18300 | 37400-67000 | 8700 |
| 6 | DGM/DDHS/Jt.DIR/PMO/Spl. MO-II (Sr.Scale) | 12000-375-16500 | 15600-39100 | 7600 |
| 7 | DY.DIRECTOR/WM/SO/SMO/ADHS/ PRINICIPAL-I/Spl.MO Gr.II(Jr.Scale) | 10000-325-15200 | 15600-39100 | 6600 |
| 8 | AD/AWN/AMO (New Group A Entry) | 8000-275-13500 | 15600-39100 | 5400 |
| 9 | AD/AWM | 8000-275-13500 | 9300-34800 | 5400 |
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Give military autonomy
DAILY PIONEER
I WONDER : YOU MAY ALSO LIKE TO READ MY COMMENTS HERE :
Ashok K Mehta
Hijacked by the media, considerable high drama has surrounded the Sukna land case involving senior Generals of the Indian Army. The turnaround by Chief of Army Staff Gen Deepak Kapoor in ordering disciplinary proceedings against his Military Secretary, Lt Gen Avadhesh Prakash, who had originally been served a show cause notice under the rubric of administrative action, has also attracted some attention. The last minute switch in Gen Kapoor’s decision was prompted by an advisory issued by Defence Minister AK Antony. Both these events reflect strains in civil-military relations and the progressive diminution of the office of the COAS.
Further illustrating the malaise are three recent professional comments by Gen Kapoor on limited war under nuclear overhang; two-front war doctrine; and integration of armies in Nepal. These valid observations were curiously not supported by the Government. Mr Antony should have been more forthright in defending his and the country’s COAS and not let the flak fly at him from abroad. After all, the first two comments relate to accepted Government policy and should have been upheld.
In 2001, after the terrorist attack on Parliament House, at the traditional Army Day Press briefing the then COAS, Gen Padmanabhan, in response to a question about a nuclear first strike by Pakistan, replied that India’s response will be such that Pakistan will cease to exist. The furore created in Pakistan forced National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra to ask Defence Minister George Fernandes to issue a clarification. But before his did so, he had the grace to consult Gen Padmanabhan. Generals will speak like Generals and not diplomats, thank god. And the advisory from some strategic experts that Service Chiefs preface their remarks with ‘these are my personal views’ is simply baloney. Armed Forces Chiefs voice the feelings of their service, the military and Government policy. They do not speak in their personal capacity.
Returning to the widely-trodden Sukna land, Gen Kapoor, guided by his legal department, opted to follow the administrative action route which gives him many options, including termination of services. The Sukna case has raised a media storm for three months now. Gen Kapoor issued a show cause notice to Lt Gen Prakash three weeks ago. So why on earth did Mr Antony — whose Ministry has been shadowing the case — wait till after the show cause had been given and the reply received? To issue an advisory suddenly shows how out of sync he is with what he ought to be doing to protect the image of the Army and the high office of the COAS. Through his unwise interference in the case, he has diminished the COAS.
Now Lt Gen Prakash has been placed under the Army Act’s Section 123 which subjects him to this law for three years even after he retired last Sunday. There will be a hearing of charges followed by a summary of evidence. Depending on the findings and outcome, disciplinary action could follow. Lt Gen Prakash could appeal to the newly-constituted Army Tribunal and so the Sukna saga will now be long, protracted and hopfully leak-proof.
In 2000, the Ministry of Defence ordered the posting of Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh as Vice-Chief of Naval Staff. Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, citing the Naval Act which authorises the Chief of Naval Staff to select his own staff, wrote back to the Ministry stating that the orders given were in contravention of the Navy Act and were, therefore, ‘unimplementable’. He held his ground and became the first Service Chief in the history of the armed forces to be dismissed by the President by invoking the ‘pleasure principle’. With 60 days left for retirement, Gen Kapoor followed the ‘discretion is the better part of valour’ dictum.
There is no instance of legitimate military dissent in India. The fault has to be shared by Government’s failure in exercising political control, including higher political direction, and the military hierarchy for cowing down, even when compliance was out of order. The only COAS to have put in his papers because of political interference by Defence Minister V Krishna Menon in the professional domain was Gen KS Thimayya. Unfortunately, he withdrew his resignation; otherwise, the history of civil -military relations would have been different.
In 1992, COAS Gen SF Rodrigues let down his office by first giving a controversial interview to this newspaper in which he said “governance is very much the business of the Army” and called two foreign countries “bandicoots”. He later accepted a dressing down in Parliament by Defence Minister Sharad Pawar. Instead of resigning, Gen Rodrigues continued as a lame duck Chief and, surprisingly, the Government which had served the admonition, 15 years later appointed him Governor of Punjab.
Lt Gen SK Sinha, who had served in Army Headquarters in every rank, authored the Fourth Pay Commission and knew every bureaucratic trick of the trade, was superseded as COAS as the Government thought he would be a difficult customer. Gen Sinha resigned. The Government notification for part of the Fifth Pay Commission award was signed by Defence Secretary Ajit Kumar even as COAS Gen Ved Malik had put his objections in writing. The same drama was witnessed last year when the three Service Chiefs collectively refused to accept the piecemeal award of the Sixth Pay Commission, insisting the anomalies be addressed first. One newspaper editor called it “unprecedented military dissent” but conveniently omitted the word ‘legitimate’.
Britain's Chief of General Staff, Gen Richard Dannat went public about poor pay and acute shortages of helicopters for his soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, a deficiency endorsed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He was so outspoken that the Government denied him the appointment of the Chief of Defence Staff and instead gave the incumbent CDS an unprecedented second term. Service Chiefs must speak out and speak up without hankering for post-retirement jobs such as Governor of Goa or Ambassador to Burkina Faso.
The media revolution, nuclear weaponisation in the sub-continent and think-tank proliferation call for political control that ensures a robust working relationship btween the civil and the military for effective use of military power. The services must regain their professional autonomy and certainly respect by the Government, altering the internal civil-military power balance through genuine integration and without fear that a CDS — when appointed — will spring a coup. Addressing the problem of corruption in the armed forces calls for a ‘trialogue’ between Government, civil society and the military. Aberrations are fraught with the risk of becoming a habit.
Further illustrating the malaise are three recent professional comments by Gen Kapoor on limited war under nuclear overhang; two-front war doctrine; and integration of armies in Nepal. These valid observations were curiously not supported by the Government. Mr Antony should have been more forthright in defending his and the country’s COAS and not let the flak fly at him from abroad. After all, the first two comments relate to accepted Government policy and should have been upheld.
In 2001, after the terrorist attack on Parliament House, at the traditional Army Day Press briefing the then COAS, Gen Padmanabhan, in response to a question about a nuclear first strike by Pakistan, replied that India’s response will be such that Pakistan will cease to exist. The furore created in Pakistan forced National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra to ask Defence Minister George Fernandes to issue a clarification. But before his did so, he had the grace to consult Gen Padmanabhan. Generals will speak like Generals and not diplomats, thank god. And the advisory from some strategic experts that Service Chiefs preface their remarks with ‘these are my personal views’ is simply baloney. Armed Forces Chiefs voice the feelings of their service, the military and Government policy. They do not speak in their personal capacity.
Returning to the widely-trodden Sukna land, Gen Kapoor, guided by his legal department, opted to follow the administrative action route which gives him many options, including termination of services. The Sukna case has raised a media storm for three months now. Gen Kapoor issued a show cause notice to Lt Gen Prakash three weeks ago. So why on earth did Mr Antony — whose Ministry has been shadowing the case — wait till after the show cause had been given and the reply received? To issue an advisory suddenly shows how out of sync he is with what he ought to be doing to protect the image of the Army and the high office of the COAS. Through his unwise interference in the case, he has diminished the COAS.
Now Lt Gen Prakash has been placed under the Army Act’s Section 123 which subjects him to this law for three years even after he retired last Sunday. There will be a hearing of charges followed by a summary of evidence. Depending on the findings and outcome, disciplinary action could follow. Lt Gen Prakash could appeal to the newly-constituted Army Tribunal and so the Sukna saga will now be long, protracted and hopfully leak-proof.
In 2000, the Ministry of Defence ordered the posting of Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh as Vice-Chief of Naval Staff. Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, citing the Naval Act which authorises the Chief of Naval Staff to select his own staff, wrote back to the Ministry stating that the orders given were in contravention of the Navy Act and were, therefore, ‘unimplementable’. He held his ground and became the first Service Chief in the history of the armed forces to be dismissed by the President by invoking the ‘pleasure principle’. With 60 days left for retirement, Gen Kapoor followed the ‘discretion is the better part of valour’ dictum.
There is no instance of legitimate military dissent in India. The fault has to be shared by Government’s failure in exercising political control, including higher political direction, and the military hierarchy for cowing down, even when compliance was out of order. The only COAS to have put in his papers because of political interference by Defence Minister V Krishna Menon in the professional domain was Gen KS Thimayya. Unfortunately, he withdrew his resignation; otherwise, the history of civil -military relations would have been different.
In 1992, COAS Gen SF Rodrigues let down his office by first giving a controversial interview to this newspaper in which he said “governance is very much the business of the Army” and called two foreign countries “bandicoots”. He later accepted a dressing down in Parliament by Defence Minister Sharad Pawar. Instead of resigning, Gen Rodrigues continued as a lame duck Chief and, surprisingly, the Government which had served the admonition, 15 years later appointed him Governor of Punjab.
Lt Gen SK Sinha, who had served in Army Headquarters in every rank, authored the Fourth Pay Commission and knew every bureaucratic trick of the trade, was superseded as COAS as the Government thought he would be a difficult customer. Gen Sinha resigned. The Government notification for part of the Fifth Pay Commission award was signed by Defence Secretary Ajit Kumar even as COAS Gen Ved Malik had put his objections in writing. The same drama was witnessed last year when the three Service Chiefs collectively refused to accept the piecemeal award of the Sixth Pay Commission, insisting the anomalies be addressed first. One newspaper editor called it “unprecedented military dissent” but conveniently omitted the word ‘legitimate’.
Britain's Chief of General Staff, Gen Richard Dannat went public about poor pay and acute shortages of helicopters for his soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, a deficiency endorsed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He was so outspoken that the Government denied him the appointment of the Chief of Defence Staff and instead gave the incumbent CDS an unprecedented second term. Service Chiefs must speak out and speak up without hankering for post-retirement jobs such as Governor of Goa or Ambassador to Burkina Faso.
The media revolution, nuclear weaponisation in the sub-continent and think-tank proliferation call for political control that ensures a robust working relationship btween the civil and the military for effective use of military power. The services must regain their professional autonomy and certainly respect by the Government, altering the internal civil-military power balance through genuine integration and without fear that a CDS — when appointed — will spring a coup. Addressing the problem of corruption in the armed forces calls for a ‘trialogue’ between Government, civil society and the military. Aberrations are fraught with the risk of becoming a habit.
Woman officer of Indian Army placed under arrest
THAINDIAN NEWS
Chandigarh, Feb 2 (IANS) A woman officer of the Indian Army, facing a general court martial in Punjab’s Zirakpur town on charges of accepting a bribe, has been placed under arrest by an army court, officials here said Tuesday.
Major Dimple Singla, an officer in the Judge Advocate General’s branch of the army, was arrested Monday.
“Major Dimple Singla was booked under three charges. She was absconding and was not attending the trials of GCM. It is our duty to complete the GCM in a time-bound manner, therefore she was arrested yesterday,” Indian Army spokesperson Pardip Das Gupta told IANS.
“Earlier, GCM proceedings were adjourned on Dec 28 last year as Singla was admitted in a hospital with complaints of bad health. However, she left the hospital the next day (Dec 29), without being discharged and did not inform anybody. Due to this, her arrest warrants were issued the same day.”
Following this, officials also raided her house but did not find her.
Singla, meanwhile, appealed before the Chandigarh bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal and said that she would appear before the GCM provided she was not arrested. The tribunal denied her plea and directed her to appear before the GCM Feb 1.
Her trial had started in 2007 and she was charged with accepting a bribe for favouring various accused during court martial proceedings. She is also charged with indiscipline and laxity in her professional work.
The Generals and their labyrinth
THE HINDU
I WONDER : WITH THE BASIC FABRIC OF INDIAN ARMED FORCES BEING DAMAGED REPEATEDLY BY QUESTIONING THEIR LOYALTY, INTEGRITY, SINCERITY AND USING ARGUMENTS LIKE "MAY COUP OR INCREASED MILITARIZATION" FOR DENYING BENEFITS (LIKE LATERAL SHIFT ) AND RIGHTFUL PLACE IN THE SOCIETY ( LOWERING BY SUCCESSIVE CPCs AND DOWNWARD SLIDE IN PRESIDENT's ORDER OF PRECEDENCE), TRYING TO PLACE THEM UNDER BABUs ON THE NAME OF CIVILIAN CONTROL, RECOMMENDING LOWERING OF SELECTION CRITERIA TO INCREASE THEIR NUMBERS QUANTITATIVELY INSTEAD QUALITATIVELY. VETERANS AND DISABLED SOLDIERS MADE TO FIGHT COURT CASES EVEN FOR THEIR JUSTIFIED RIGHTS. AREN'T WE HEADING FOR MORE PROBLEMS IN FUTURE......ITS TIME WE ADDRESS THE CORE ISSUES.....I PERSONALLY FEEL A SOLDIER HIGH ON SELF ESTEEM WILL ALWAYS BE MORE MOTIVATED, LOYAL , SELF DISCIPLINED AND HONEST..........LETS GIVE IT A DEEP THOUGHT...........
The image of the Indian Army has been badly dented with a section of its top brass implicated in what has come to be known as the Sukhna land scam. The damage could have been mitigated had there been a clear signal from the Army that it was prepared to deal seriously with the alleged misconduct. Regrettably, the controversy was allowed to malinger and was exacerbated by perceptions that the Army Chief, General Deepak Kapoor, was reluctant to act firmly against his aide and Military Secretary, Lt. General Avadhesh Prakash. Despite an Army Court of Inquiry (CoI) reportedly citing prima facie evidence to the effect that Lt. General Prakash was the key figure in the Sukhna land case, General Kapoor was in favour of milder administrative action rather than a court martial. The change of heart, which came a couple of days before Lt-General Prakash’s retirement on January 31, owes wholly to the very proper intervention of Defence Minister A.K. Antony, a politician respected across the political spectrum for his probity in public life. It was Mr. Antony’s ‘advice’ that the case should be dealt with sternly that persuaded the Army Chief to court martial Lt. General Prakash. Earlier, as recommended by the CoI, General Kapoor approved a court martial for Lt. General P.K. Rath and administrative action against two others; the sticking point was over his aide and Military Secretary.
The four generals are entitled to a fair process, which only a military court can provide under the procedure established by law. But it is important to send a signal that any scent of corruption in the armed forces will be dealt with firmly and without prevarication, even when it involves the top brass. The case itself relates to the issue of a no-objection certificate (NOC) to a realtor, who falsely claimed to be an affiliate of Mayo College, for setting up a school on private land adjacent to the Sukhna military station in Darjeeling district. Among the issues that need to be determined are whether rules and procedures were bent in granting the NOC and if there were security implications in doing so, given the area’s proximity to the border. The Indian Army, which was regarded as an incorruptible institution in the first few decades following Independence, has been affected by a string of corruption scandals in recent times. The only way to check the downslide is to have a policy of zero tolerance of corruption, something that Mr. Antony has stressed more than once. Apart from the moral and economic implications, corruption in the armed forces has a quite obvious bearing on security. It is a risk India can ill afford to take
Army looking for foreign carbines
TIMES OF INDIA
NAGPUR: It’s not that induction of just advanced weaponry is getting delayed in the armed forces. Same is the case with a simple carbine. It is a gun with a holed barrel commonly seen with a VIPs security guard. The Indian Army wants to replace its old 9mm carbine of World War II vintage with a 5.56 one.
After an earlier plan to make this with foreign collaboration fizzled out, the army has begun scouting for the weapon in open market. A request for information (RFI) was lately posted on Indian Army website inviting details on this type of gun from the vendors. Carbine is smaller than rifles and used for close quarter combat. The army in its RFI has left it upon the vendor to specify the weight, length, rate of fire and so on.
While it wants the interested parties to inform whether their carbine has features like laser spot designator, or flash eliminator. Earlier it was planned to make 5.56 carbines in collaboration with Singapore Technologies Kinetic (STK), at local ordnance factories. However, as is becoming the norm, a commission scandal led to the deal with STK being held up. The former chairman of Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) Sudipto Ghosh was arrested in this case. Interestingly, a 5.56 carbine is already being made by two different government agencies in the country. But for some reasons, army is interested in importing it. The one being made by Indian ordnance factory is called ‘Amogh’.
The other one is being developed by the Pune-based Armaments Research and Development Establishment (ARDE), a unit of Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO). The 9 mm carbine currently used by the army and other forces is being made at the ordnance factory in Kanpur. Enquiries at the army spokesperson’s office in New Delhi about the RFI elicited no response. Other sources in the army said a 5.56 carbine is needed so as to achieve standardization of ammunition. Now the army uses rifles and light machine guns of 5.56 calibre so it has to keep 9 mm ammunition just for carbines. “If a5.56 mm carbine is inducted, similar ammunition can be used in different weapons,” said a source in the army.
After an earlier plan to make this with foreign collaboration fizzled out, the army has begun scouting for the weapon in open market. A request for information (RFI) was lately posted on Indian Army website inviting details on this type of gun from the vendors. Carbine is smaller than rifles and used for close quarter combat. The army in its RFI has left it upon the vendor to specify the weight, length, rate of fire and so on.
While it wants the interested parties to inform whether their carbine has features like laser spot designator, or flash eliminator. Earlier it was planned to make 5.56 carbines in collaboration with Singapore Technologies Kinetic (STK), at local ordnance factories. However, as is becoming the norm, a commission scandal led to the deal with STK being held up. The former chairman of Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) Sudipto Ghosh was arrested in this case. Interestingly, a 5.56 carbine is already being made by two different government agencies in the country. But for some reasons, army is interested in importing it. The one being made by Indian ordnance factory is called ‘Amogh’.
The other one is being developed by the Pune-based Armaments Research and Development Establishment (ARDE), a unit of Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO). The 9 mm carbine currently used by the army and other forces is being made at the ordnance factory in Kanpur. Enquiries at the army spokesperson’s office in New Delhi about the RFI elicited no response. Other sources in the army said a 5.56 carbine is needed so as to achieve standardization of ammunition. Now the army uses rifles and light machine guns of 5.56 calibre so it has to keep 9 mm ammunition just for carbines. “If a5.56 mm carbine is inducted, similar ammunition can be used in different weapons,” said a source in the army.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
