WHY I WILL NOT VOTE FOR BJP

I am a common Indian who has never been a member of any organization like RSS but has always felt that country deserves better governance then provided by the Congress. So when Janata Party came into power, my hopes soared for a little while only to be dashed by couple of egotist oldies. Then came BJP led NDA. By and large they provided far better governance then the Congress but faltered on two crucial issues, first they ignored rural areas and second they compromised very easily. Just think of surrender at Kandhar, unilateral closure of strategic options by limiting conflict to LoC at Kargil and so-called PARAKARAM (mobilization against Pakistan in 2001).

I thought last nine years in opposition would have given enough time to BJP to mull over their flaws and get over them. But now I realize that these flaws are not superficial, rather these are flaws of character and hence remain forever. Let me illustrate with two examples. First one concerns RSS. Congress and their supporters in media have been hurling an `accusation’ at Ann Hazare that he is ‘`supported’ by RSS. Now Anna Hazare has reacted to this `accusation’ as if his ethical standards have been challenged and he has gone to great lengths to distance himself from RSS by (a) claiming that he has no links with RSS and (b) by heaping unfair criticism on Gujarat CM. Now apparently Mr Anna Hazare is being disingenuous because he has never asked RSS to not support his movement for Lokpal. Rather he and his team went to BJP HQ to seek support of party for Lokpal Bill knowing fully well that BJP leaders are also members of RSS. Second how can Anna Hazare pander to Congress and their friends in media by accepting that RSS untouchable when it is a legally formed social organization. But that is for Mr Anna Hazare to decide. My issue is with BJP. All of their leaders claim links with RSS, then why are they not rising to its defence when it is being painted as some kind of leper by Congress and this is being more-or-less endorsed by Anna Hazare. Second is about Modi. We all know that he arouses extreme emotions, but he is CM of a BJP Government. He has won two consecutive elections but when he is called a Dictator by a panelist on TV show, the BJP MP present keeps quiet. Apparently for reason!

These two examples show that Kandhar, Kargil and Parakaram were not aberrations, rather they were pointers o fatal character flaw in current BJP leadership, which puts personal interests ahead of loyalty and committment. RSS who created BJP can be left to wolves, Modi can be allowed to be hounded but the photogenic `Deer’s’ and `Does’ who appear regularly on TV and are good debaters (talkers) in the Parliament can pursue their agenda of power at all costs. But will the people accept. I do not think Deer and Doe ever became acceptable Kings and Queen. Why? Because in time of danger they abandon their kith and kins.

Death of Probity and Ethics

On 19/04/11 the CBI raided Office of Cantonment Executive Officer of Secunderabad Cantonment Board (SCB) and some builders. It found prime-facie cases of collusion between the two for illegal constructions within Cantonment limits and registered FIRs.

The whole episode was extensively reported in local media on 20/04/11. Next day, that is, on 21/04/11 local media including local editions of Indian Express and Deccan Chronicle reported that as per their sources nearly 80 per cent of buildings are illegal in the Cantonment, wherein the Engineer Department of SCB and local politicos have colluded over last few years to perpetuate this gigantic scam. Earlier Airport Authority of India’s clearance for multi-storey construction was mandatory and that acted as a check on depredations of corrupt SCB officials and greedy builders. This check was lifted after the Hyderabad Airport was moved from Begumpet (located in Cantonment) to new Samshabad Airport and the scam picked up momentum.
Modus-operandi was very simple.
• Step 1. Cantonment Executive Officer and elected members of SCB collude to get permission for building from SCB. Objections by the Military Members (if any) are bulldozed).
• Step 2. Permission given for construction of building strictly within rules.
• Step 3. Builder commits violations in terms of excess covered area and addition of extra floor.
• Step 4. SCB issues notice on paper.
• Step 5. Notice is not followed through.
• Step 6. No follow-up report is ever presented to SCB. Even if the President SCB (who is a military officer) asks for progress, he is either given wrong information or plain-simple ignored.
• Objections of local military units/ officials on security and hygiene ground ignored.

It will be seen that on 22/04/11 the local media carries no (NO) report of this scam. Why? Because they have been fed a preposterous lie, that is, since 80 per cent of buildings can be taken as illegal, nothing much can be done now. Logic is twofold. (a) You cannot demolish such a huge number of buildings where innocent people have invested their life’s earnings and (b) violations on such a large scale prove that rules are inherently out-dated. Then why do we want to destroy Adarash in Mumbai?

This unethical argument seems to have been bought by the media. Because we have heard and accepted this argument ad-infinitum in past too. Trains are stopped and buses burnt with no adverse consequences for the rioters because they are supposedly fighting a wrong. Illegal colonies are regularised with disastrous consequences for urban infrastructure because where will the poor go! Inaction or acquiescence in such cases lets the selfish politico and bureaucrat get away with poor governance and corruption. Net result is that we are becoming a country of gated communities where the well-off live in hostile co-existence with neighbouring slums and commuting between cities has become movement from one bypass to other bypass.

While in civil side we have this ability to ghettoise. What will happen to military if cantonments are allowed to become playground of corrupt officials and builders. Advent of these corrupt has already led to neutralisation of military in all Cantonment Boards. To start with the life in a cantonment revolved around military. The civil segment was in support of and supported by the military. Now the situation has changed. Needs of ever increasing civil segment are driving growth of urban ghettos deep inside Cantonments. These ever expanding sprawls are clashing with and inhibiting genuine military needs. Firing Ranges are closed because civil buildings have come up around them. Training Areas have become segmented by roads criss-crossing to connect adjoining urban sprawls. Internal roads of Cantonment meant for military traffic are monopolised by heavy through-traffic causing delay and accidents to military movements.

Cantonments are being destroyed as a military sinecure we know. Thus today Indian Army is travelling longer distances and stays out for longer period from home station to avail limited training areas. With the Army men away for months to far-off training areas and cantonments becoming a bastion of anti-social elements, the families left behind in Cantonments are exposed to all kind of depredations. This sense of insecurity destroys the morale of troops.

It is a well-known fact that today Indian military in general and Army in particular is facing a huige problem of encroachments and illegal activities inside Cantonments. More and more of its time and manpower is getting diverted towards guarding it precious assets. Such an Army cannot train well and an untrained army is nothing but an armed mob which will never be able to fight a resolute and well trained enemy. Our own history tells us this. British established their empire in India with Indian Troops. The only difference between the Armies of native princes and the British Indian Army was quality of training and discipline. Hence it is necessary that the violators of Secunderabad are not allowed to get away with this scam.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VETERAN AND SERVING SOLDIER: ALTURISTIC OR OPPORTUNISTIC

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VETERAN AND SERVING SOLDIER: ALTURISTIC OR OPPORTUNISTIC
In closed world of service messes and clubs, it is common to hear gin- guffawing oldies talk of unbreakable bond which is supposed to exist between the serving and veterans. This refrain reaches crescendo during the regimental reunions, where the veterans congregate from far and wide for a three to five day, all-expense paid, sojourn and go back after lecturing the serving on their duty to look after the veteran.
Nearly all of the veterans of this variety have moved far away from their root to settle in colonies and AWHO complexes which have mushroomed all around major cantonments. These ghettos (yes, all are walled and gated) are the sinecure from where these pensioners to sally forth into nearest military area for a game of golf or round of drinks at Club, both maintained through a net of subsidies from ventures run by various military establishments.
These so-called veterans, are today one of the well-off segment of citizenry. Their old age related issues are reasonably well looked after. Children have moved on and are making a life of their own. This state of bliss leaves a whole lot of time in the hands of the veteran, which is utilised in inside the cantonment, visiting offices, golfing and so on. To indulge in his degenerative pass-time the veterans demands unrestricted right to enter the military areas at will with no consideration for genuine military needs of security and training or respect for office work. If some military officer shows a disinclination to allow the military area as a playground to these worthy-veterans, a chain reaction sets-in. The sequence of even runs as follows:-
• Remind the serving that one day they will also become veteran and need all the subsidised goodies and privileges now being enjoyed by the present set of veterans. If this lure does not work;
• Hit the serving at emotional plane by accusing him of attempting to break the `unbreakable bond’. In other word being `unfaithful’. If this also does not work;
• Work the network by contacting some high and mighty, who may be asked to put the serving in their place. If that also fails;
• Threaten to approach the media and other such agencies and expose the serving for being unlawful and undemocratic. If that also does not work;
• Use the contacts in civil world to approach the local politicians to pressurise the serving.
Seeing such selfish conduct of so-called veterans who demand all sorts of privileges in name of their past sacrifices (mostly imaginary) some of you may wonder as to how can these oldies brought-up in old-army value system can behave in such selfish manner. My answer is that actually there are no old-army values for these parasites and they have a track record of selfish behaviour.
• First they ditched their near and dear ones early in life by delinking from the `family’ early in life and later sealed the divorce by settling far away from their native place.
• Second every `reunion’ is a reminder of their selfishness. They never contribute anything positive. Sole aim of their coming to the bash is to have a holiday.
• Third, their loyalty to the military station they are latching-on is solely based on the facilities and subsidies they can get.
Do not be taken-in by glib talk of these self-serving. Real veterans are those who are giving back to society through self-less social work.

SPot the Difference

This blog is paraphrasing of MS Barkha Dutt's article on MAoist violence the need for the Government to respond strongly to it. The question that needs to be asked is how do these so-called liberals react differently to different types of terrorists and insurgent.

Have we already forgotten the tiny, tear-streaked face of a little children crying over numerous dead soldiers who are routinely shipped home in coffins from Kashmir? In the way that only tragedy can accelerate adulthood, these are the children, barely in their teens, who stare resolutely into the camera eye and announce that when they grow up they also want to be a soldier. This could be the happy dream of many a child, except their declarations are rooted in precocious, guttural anger. Their fathers have died on many a desolate hill or highway attempting to stem the tide of hatred fueled by religious fervor attempting to engulf, first Kashmir, and then entire India. These deaths should have bridged the false polarisations that the Great Debate has engineered in India. Except that, as history repeats itself in a chilling loop — and another bullet-ripped body is recovered from the killing fields of Kashmir — we have lapsed into a familiar, banal and fake 'For and Against' debate.
The impression of a severe, worrying ideological divide is, of course, courtesy the inchoate discourse within the political establishment. It's no secret that the Delhi elite has stymied all attempts to agree on a full battle-plan against Terrorist violence. The government has never used air support during operations against the terrorists in Kashmir. The politicians of many hues and paperwalas routinely describe terrorists and separatists as misguided youth.
But other than the generalised philosophical formulation of a 'two-pronged approach' — development and security retaliation — we have no sense of what he actually thinks on an issue that is more grave than any external terror threat. The National Contrarian Members Club led by the free loaders from Kremlin-on-along with the free loaders from Kremlin-on-Yamuna provide free, monthly entertainment by declaring themselves as self-styled keepers of national conscience and are able to taunt the memory of our dead soldiers and declare themselves to be the real voices of the Nation’s core values. Some of them have gone to the extent of writing editorials suggesting that the time has come for Kashmir to be given its Azadi.
both the principle opposition and current CM in J&K — who is now grappling with a complex set of moral choices in dealing with the stone-pelter crisis — have openly disagreed with any tough, unsentimental approach to separatist violence. In other words, as the troops go into battle, the generals appear to be squabbling. To borrow an astute phrase from the ever-succinct former R&AW chief Vikram Sood, "There is a lot of politics in the insurgency. But no State can afford to have this much politics in its counter-insurgency.” Adding to the din is the noise of TV debates that amplify existing differences to create the illusion of a country that can't reach a consensus, even as the crisis deepens with every passing month.
The irony is that most Indians agree on much more than they disagree on. We may not be students of strategic affairs or be well versed in the complexities of crisis management, but the areas of agreement seem remarkably simple and commonsense.
First off, extra-constitutional violence — even in the name of the marginalised and the minority — will have to be countered with the legitimate and legal retaliation of the State. There can be no ifs and buts when it comes to condemning such violence. And I reckon that most of us are deeply exasperated by those who seek to glorify the gun as a mode of Robin Hood-esque revolution against India. When we watch our soldiers and policemen get swallowed by the dragon-mouth of this sponsored terrorism we feel helpless and ashamed. This time, as we watch the daily crisis unfold, I think most of us cannot bear to confront the anticipation of loss in the eyes of the children, as they wait to discover whether their fathers will make it home alive or not. Whether or not the government should negotiate with the separatists is a tactical question and has no easy answers. But it's a question that any government has to answer from a position of strength — not weakness.
That said, there is absolutely no space for extra-constitutional violence by the State either. The State is morally bound — unlike the Terrorists — to uphold the values of democratic accountability. Fake encounter is muder – plain and simple. If it goes unpunished, does it not diminish the moral high ground the State occupies in the crisis like the one we are witnessing today? Every time the State lapses — either in human rights violations or in accounting for them — we alienate more people and give new life to the ever-spinning cycle of violence. So, morality aside, even tactically, it's poor strategising.
Most Indians also agree on the development debate in the terrorist heartland. None of us is comfortable with the idea of brute majority steamrolling the local communities.
The ultimate irony is that many a time we have found our voice of reason in many a widows, gentle, soft-spoken women whose husbands were killed by terrorists. It is they who speak, in a Zen-like moment of grace, of the need for the Indian State to find the "will”. The path is actually clear and visible. It just needs political courage to walk down it, before any more people die.
Yogi is paraphrasing Barkha Dutt who is Group Editor, English News, NDTV. The views expressed by the author are personal.

Pro-rata System of Promotion: Is it Mandalisation of the Army

Recently there have been two articles on the issue of pro-rata system of promotions in the Army. First by Ajai Shukla in his article ‘Soldier Heal Thyself’ in Business Standard and second by another armoured corps officer http://goodnewz.in/Blog2/?p=101

Let us look at the points they make and see as to where would they eventually lead. Their opposition to pro-rata promotion policy of the Army can be summed up as, `professional militaries have employed the criterion of merit alone to select their senior command. For over half a century, so did the Indian Army; but recently, in a burst of patrimonial fervour, quotas were instituted to ensure that each combat arm got its share of the senior ranks. Initiated by artillery and infantry chiefs to safeguard the interests of their officers, the quotas are now favouring less talented officers of other arms’.

Pro-rata system of promotions has hurt the armoured corps officers the most because earlier system allowed them far better chances of promotion to the ranks of Brigadier and above then officers of the Infantry and Artillery. Consequently they oppose it on grounds of merit. They rest their argument that the Armoured Corps officers are more `Meritorious’ on three claims. First, that initial intake in the armoured corps has always been better. Second, the Armoured Corps groomed it’s officers better. Third, the armoured corps officers operate on a larger canvass. Hence aremore knowledgeable and more competent.

In this paper we shall look at these arguments dispassionately and logically.

Point No. 1: Better Officers were commissioned in the Armoured Corps. The armoured corps officers make a justified claim that in earlier times, and to a large extent even today, only three types are commissioned into the armoured corps. First are the cadets from `super block', that is those who are graded first 10 or 20 in the merit list drawn at IMA. Irrespective of the fact that such a merit list is entirely based on the subjective assessment of young officers, for the time being let us say that it was entirely fair. Second are those with `parental claim', apparently they have no intrinsic claim to `merit' except accident of `birth'. Third belong to the category of influential families who could pull strings.

Apparently second and third category can not be called meritorious by any stretch of imagination. However coalescing of these three categories would create a closely-knit group where back-scratching would be the norm. Discipline of such a group will not be based purely on hierarchy but ability of the concerned officer to influence the chain of command with his links and cross-links between majority of officers. Two obvious conclusions emerge. First, the members of such a group will take care of each-other and inflated assessment would be the norm. Second, certain amount of laxity and dilution of discipline would be accepted in the name of regimental traditions, which is sought to be justified as `grooming’.

Such a system is total anti-thesis of Meritocracy and Moltke, the creator of professional officer corps of Germany would be turning in his grave for being misquoted by supporters of the theory that armoured corps= merit.

Point No. 2: Advisor is better than Owner. Better professional exposure due to the role of armour in operations. Normally, a squadron of armour supports the operations of an infantry brigade, and a regiment that of a division. The ‘area of influence’ and ‘area of interest’ of an armour commander is therefore vast as compared to his counterpart in Infantry…Such exposures give them a degree of self assurance, insight and opportunities for learning that are not available to their counterparts in the Infantry. For instance, when the squadron commander attends his CO’s orders, he gets a fair insight into the way the GOC intends to fight the divisional battle...` The argument is carried further to make a preposterous claim that advisor is better than owner, `a squadron commander is therefore an inherent part of the planning process at the Brigade HQs, and his CO is an advisor to the GOC'.

Advisor is the one, who gives advice or an opinion or; counsel. He advises on the matters of his specialization. In army Infantry commanders have benefit of advice from specialists from a junior level onwards. For example a Combat Patrol Leader of Infantry (Combat Patrols are invariably led by Infantry Officers) may have an Engineer or any other specialists as advisor depending on the task. Similar situation prevails at Rifle Company level. The Company Commander will invariably have an artillery officer as advisor and others may be included based on task. A Commanding Officer of infantry battalion would definitely have an Artillery Battery Commander and a Medical Officer as advisors. He may have more depending on task. An Infantry Brigade Commander has many advisors, like officer commanding engineer company, signals company, workshop company and artillery unit commander. Squadron Commander from Armoured Corps may also be there if brigade has tasks in plains or deserts. Armoured Corps has negligible employment in mountains or riverine terrain. These advisors exist to provide special to corps technical advise to the infantry commander who is not expected to be all that conversant with technical details of specialist corps. Such advisors exist at Division, Corps and Command level too. These advisors have no command authority over the battalion or brigade and their specialized elements are in support of the Infantry.

The point to ponder is why these worthies are termed `advisors’ and not commander Answer is simple and straight. Infantry is the basic arm of any army, including the most modern ones. While employment of all other arms and services including armoured corps is limited to certain types of tasks, terrain and climatic conditions, no such restrictions apply to Infantry. By virtue of its ability to perform all types of tasks in all types of terrain, in all weather conditions and at all times Infantry is equated with the Queen on a chess board. Hence the basic premise that command of all combat formations such as Infantry Brigade, Infantry Division and Corps ought to vest with Infantry Officers.

Secondly, if for the sake of argument we were to accept the argument advanced by the armoured corps officers that because their squadron and unit commanders are advisors to certain infantry brigades or divisions, they are better placed to understand operations at higher level then same argument ought to apply to engineer, signals EME and ASC officers and should apply with greater force to officers of Intelligence Corps and Judge Advocate Branch because they are advisors at even higher level. It should also apply to IAS and IFS officers who are advisors to the Minister of Defense (RM). After all the RM is senior to COAS and hence his advisors have greater `area of influence’ and hence fitter to take over command of army Corps and Theater Commands.

Fact of the matter is professional competence of military profession cannot be defined with such casualness. In reality these worthies are advisors with regard to their own specialisation and have NO (NO) capability or mandate to define the deployment of battalions or brigades. On the other hand the company commanders by virtue of being basic building block have a larger say in deployment and role in subsequent shaping the battle.

Point No. 3. Size of Area of Influence. A divisional battle will never be decided by actions or otherwise of unit of supporting arm. It will be decided by the actions of the Arm possessing Core Competency. In case of an Infantry Formation it will be Infantry and in case of mechanized formation it will be armoured corps and mechanized infantry.

Hence the conclusions are obvious. Infantry Formations ought to be commanded by Infantry Officers and Mechanised Fromations by officers from mechanized fraternity.

Limits of Theoretical Knowledge. The fact is that an army officer is required to operate at a particular level while in a certain service bracket. Just because one of them has wider general knowledge about affairs at another level does not make him better always. That is why entrance examination for DSSC is pitched at Battalion level, irrespective of the knowledge some officer may have about operational plans of a corps. Third part is about specialization of each arm. The very edifice of the Army is built of many `corps' who exist due to their specialization, that is, Armoured Corps has specialization in mechanised warfare. Infantry by its very nature is more flexible and more usable and hence more prevalent. Hence the infantry are not only more suited but more deserving for heading combined arms organisations.

However to be fair to all and in respect to their specialization the concept of pro-rata has been instituted, which is fair and square from every angle.

Maintaining Army Ethos in the Permissive Times

The newspapers and news channels are now-a-days full of eyeball grabbing headlines which will be forgotten tomorrow. But for a man who has any affection for the armed forces, recent times have been quite traumatic.

First the so-called Sukhna Land Scam which shall be remembered not for what happens to the four accused but for the explanations and defence offered by a large number of veterans who retired as generals. All of them proffered the defence of the accused on three main grounds.
• That there has been no pecuniary advantage to the accused or loss to the state.
• That no land has changed hands.
• That rest of the society is also corrupt, and
• That the government must not question the decisions of `High ranking military officers’ because it demoralises them (corruption in their ranks apparently does not)

Now let us analyse the happenings of a typical day in light of these comments. 08 February 2010 was no different from the other days in the India of Twenty-first century.

First News item: Dainik Jagran a Hindi daily reported that the Haryana Police Rewari have caught a gang of five robbers, including three serving soldiers who have allegedly committed 11 crimes of killings and robberies between July 2007 and December 2009.

Second news item in the same newspaper reported that a Captain of the army and the local Railway Protection Force Ambala Cantonment Railway Station were involved in an altercation because the policeman objected to the officer pushing his own motorcycle from the train to the Railway Parcel Office. Police objection was based on the rule that only railway employees are permitted to handle booked baggage while shifting it from the parcel van to parcel office. Apparently the officer was doing somebody else’s job because he did not want to be kept hanging on the station to reclaim his vehicle. The altercation resulted in the officer being made to cool his heels for some time at the Police Post.

Third news item was also in the same daily where-in it was reported that a soldier travelling by Tinsukia Express fought with a railway employee who was attempting to steal the soldier’s belonging and the soldier was in turn booked by railway authorities for travelling on a ticket bought in someone else’s name (that this is common amongst those who buy tickets from railway agents is immeterial)

Fourth news was reported by the Indian Express Chandigarh Edition on page 8, about incarceration of seven army-men who had stopped and roughed up a policeman who was speeding away after hitting and injuring two motorcyclists near Bharatpur in Rajasthan. The local police claimed that actually they had caught and detained the culprit while the policeman in question was merely driving the impounded vehicle to the police station. Imagine the Bharatpur police in such a short time was able to nab the culprit, make a sketch/ photograph of the incident (a mandatory requirement for the investigating officer to fulfil) and move a vehicle involved in an accident. So next time you find yourself stranded on highway while the police blocks the traffic to complete the formalities after the accident just walk up to them and tell them about Bharatpur police.

Fifth news was about some 400 army-men getting trapped under avalanche at Gulmarg. This number itself pointed towards a huge tragedy in maing, but all three major English channels put this important news at number two or three. The one used the incident to cosy up to the Chief Minister and other officials of the state administration (who really had no role in the rescue). The other covered it in a perfunctory manner. Only one news channel covered it in a profession manner – yes you guessed it – the BBC (sad but true)!

My take on these insignificant news items is exactly that; many of my good friends in the army and out of it will say these are nothing but daily dose of minor aberrations which we all face in India. But, I beg to differ. These are symptoms of all that is wrong with the system.

• The first incident shows that serving soldiers believe that in the India of today crime pays.
• Second, third and fourth incidents prove that they are not too far of the mark. In first instance an officer has paid the railway to move his motorcycle by luggage van attached to a passenger train. But despite having paid for the service he must have pushed the vehicle at Devlali to put it in the luggage van of the train and at Ambala was pushing it from the luggage van to parcel office with the sole aim of quickly getting his vehicle released. If he was to wait for the railway employee, his motorcycle would have taken considerably more time to arrive. So he was a victim. But look how the system is turned on its head. The victim is detained and no questions are asked from the railway about the quality fo service. Same is the case with second instance where-in the soldier is slapped with a hefty fine for resisting theft of his articles. But most sad is the third instance where-in the seven soldiers are taught a lesson by the police for being good Samaritans. No wonder people do not stop to help accident victims.

However I also want to ask the army authorities (who are very busy taking care of bigger issues).

• Give more time to junior officers to be with their troops. So that they can identify latent qualities or aberrations in the psychological make up of their soldiers.
• Be less demanding in your administrative and ceremonial wishes. Let us for a moment stop making up for the loss of warrant of precedence by amassing more and more soldiers for menial works.
• Constitute multi-disciplinary and empowered teams of mature officers, including legally qualified ones who will undertake deliberate investigations into each incident of civil-military strife and take up follow up action; even legal action if required.
• Insist that self-respect of the soldiers is not compromised for administrative convenience and self-created emergencies.

And Quiet Flows Teesta

There have been numerous reports, articles and debates on the merits and demerits of the case against four senior army officers in so-called `Sukhna Land Scam'. I have no comments to make on that.

I have been prompted by two outstanding write-ups, that is, one in HT of 03 February 10 written by Lt Gen (retd) Vijay Oberoi and the other a blog titled `You are in the Army now' by Anubha Bhonsle on Ibnlive.in.com (http://ibnlive.in.com/conversations/topic/61431-1-1-29) These remind me of a cliche and a fable.

First the blog by Anubha reminds me of the cliche that if you pay peanuts - you get monkeys. Essential point she makes is that the Army is one of the last institutions standing in this country and that Army Act 1950 has been the main pillar on which the edifice of discipline in the Army stands, which in turn makes the officers behave better than others. Second, the people of India have a right to expect much higher standards of personal probity from the army officers as compared to any other strata of the society. She may be right on both counts. But we need to remember two caveats as well:-
1. If you want the Army men to behave better than average, please pay them better than average. Today a civilian government employee has (a) more job security, (b) better working hours, (c) better working environment, (d) better representation through the unions and (f) equal or better pay package. It is a fallacy to think that Canteen etc are real advantages. These are available to all government employees in form of Canteens for Central Police Organisations and Super Bazars for the civilian employees. In so far as the leave is concerned a civilian government employee works five days a week (104 days leave)as also gets numerous holidays (minimum 10) besides 30 days earned leave and 12 days causal leave, (Grand total 156 days) while a soldier only gets Sunday off plus 60 days annual and 20 days casual leave = 132 days (operational situation permitting).

2. If you want a motivated army, you have to look at `motivation' and not the Army Act 1950 for inspiration and motivation comes from high morale and high morale comes from sense of Elan and sense of Elan comes from feeling of being special and this feeling comes form factors like better job security and pay etc.

Now coming to Lt Gen (retd) Vijay Oberoi's article, this piece reminded me of the story about the monkey who ate away the food the two cats were fighting over. If any outside elements, be they the much maligned bureaucrats or any one else, are able to show the Army and its senior leaders in poor light, please remember that they are only taking advantage of the opportunity presented by the internecine warfare afflicting the higher echelons.