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.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Transactional Military Leadership Leading Army to Certain Demise
This blog is essentially to share my anguish on the lack of spine and forethought shown by senior military leadership. The absence of guts among the general officers of the Army is old story, but needs to be recounted periodically so as to arouse some reaction from some of us if we want this great institution called the Army to survive.
You all know that as part of devolution of financial powers IFAs are being posted to various Corps and Command HQs. Being from Defence Accounts, these people are civilians, who are governed by rules applicable to civil services. Which means:-
(a) They are not expected to do combat duties.
(b) They are not expected to not go out for exercises or undertake daily military routine of organised physical training, firing, administrative duties, station duties and so on.
(c) In a nutshell they are not to command troops or engage in any activity emanating there from.
(d) Their sole job is limited to rendering sound financial advise to the commanders so as to ensure correct utilisation of funds.
(e) There office routine is 9-to-5 spread over five day week.
(f) To perform his/her official duties each IFA has been given requisite support staff in terms of office superindent, clerks, daftaries, peon and so on.
(g) To commute from the home to office and back, they are entitles to transport allowance.
(h) To meet routine office expenditure including travel on duty they are entitled to requisite public fund.
Simply put, the IFA like any other civil government official has been given wherewithal by the Government of India to carry out his/her duties efficiently.
Despite having been given all necessary office staff and equipment and budget, the IFAs are getting army vehicles driven by combatant drivers and soldiers as runners curtsey the GOC/staff of the HQ the IFA is attached to. Question arises as to why are the vehicles being diverted from the military duties and combatant made to perform jobs of runner and duftaries in civil offices?
Now some of these worthy general officers/their staff would make two arguments. First that it is being done for the good of the Army. After all if IFA is happy, the proposals would be processed quickly. Second, it is really a non-issue because it involves a minuscule number of vehicles (may be 40 – 50) and about 100 soldiers.
My response to these arguments is as follows:-
(a) Firstly at a functional level this practice of illegally assigning combatants to civil offices is totally wrong and must be stopped forthwith. Such diversion of WE equipment and soldiers will not only impact on battle worthiness of the Army but also set a precedent for the IFA staff at Army HQ (and other civilian staff associated with the Army at various levels) to demand similar facilities.
(b) Secondly at, more substantive level, these arguments sound like a justification for bribery (please do not be surprised, because it is so). Every public servant is required to work efficiently without fear or favour. So if IFA gives concurrence for questionable proposals solely because he is gratified with combatant driver and runner then he (the IFA) is being disloyal to his country and is guilty of conniving in squandering public funds.
Counter argument to my plea would be that India is India and here the bureaucracy can be extremely insensitive and successfully stall even legit proposals through a simple mechanism of petty procedural objections/observations.
I agree that bureaucracy in India and more so the IFA variety exercises veto power over schemes of government of India and is considered law onto themselves. But my point is simple, succumbing to shortcuts or kowtowing the IFA may give us short term gains in terms of approval for the proposals which were either not well prepared or were a waste, but in the long term such acquisition or practice will lead to serious damage to character of the officer cadre and internal efficiency of the Army. After all it can be nobody’s case that we should encourage `transactional’ leadership.
If the Army as a institution is seen to be promoting free-enterprise system, wherein only the results in the form of profits matter, the transactional ethos would rein supreme and military ethics which form the basis of trust between the soldiers would vanish.
You all know that as part of devolution of financial powers IFAs are being posted to various Corps and Command HQs. Being from Defence Accounts, these people are civilians, who are governed by rules applicable to civil services. Which means:-
(a) They are not expected to do combat duties.
(b) They are not expected to not go out for exercises or undertake daily military routine of organised physical training, firing, administrative duties, station duties and so on.
(c) In a nutshell they are not to command troops or engage in any activity emanating there from.
(d) Their sole job is limited to rendering sound financial advise to the commanders so as to ensure correct utilisation of funds.
(e) There office routine is 9-to-5 spread over five day week.
(f) To perform his/her official duties each IFA has been given requisite support staff in terms of office superindent, clerks, daftaries, peon and so on.
(g) To commute from the home to office and back, they are entitles to transport allowance.
(h) To meet routine office expenditure including travel on duty they are entitled to requisite public fund.
Simply put, the IFA like any other civil government official has been given wherewithal by the Government of India to carry out his/her duties efficiently.
Despite having been given all necessary office staff and equipment and budget, the IFAs are getting army vehicles driven by combatant drivers and soldiers as runners curtsey the GOC/staff of the HQ the IFA is attached to. Question arises as to why are the vehicles being diverted from the military duties and combatant made to perform jobs of runner and duftaries in civil offices?
Now some of these worthy general officers/their staff would make two arguments. First that it is being done for the good of the Army. After all if IFA is happy, the proposals would be processed quickly. Second, it is really a non-issue because it involves a minuscule number of vehicles (may be 40 – 50) and about 100 soldiers.
My response to these arguments is as follows:-
(a) Firstly at a functional level this practice of illegally assigning combatants to civil offices is totally wrong and must be stopped forthwith. Such diversion of WE equipment and soldiers will not only impact on battle worthiness of the Army but also set a precedent for the IFA staff at Army HQ (and other civilian staff associated with the Army at various levels) to demand similar facilities.
(b) Secondly at, more substantive level, these arguments sound like a justification for bribery (please do not be surprised, because it is so). Every public servant is required to work efficiently without fear or favour. So if IFA gives concurrence for questionable proposals solely because he is gratified with combatant driver and runner then he (the IFA) is being disloyal to his country and is guilty of conniving in squandering public funds.
Counter argument to my plea would be that India is India and here the bureaucracy can be extremely insensitive and successfully stall even legit proposals through a simple mechanism of petty procedural objections/observations.
I agree that bureaucracy in India and more so the IFA variety exercises veto power over schemes of government of India and is considered law onto themselves. But my point is simple, succumbing to shortcuts or kowtowing the IFA may give us short term gains in terms of approval for the proposals which were either not well prepared or were a waste, but in the long term such acquisition or practice will lead to serious damage to character of the officer cadre and internal efficiency of the Army. After all it can be nobody’s case that we should encourage `transactional’ leadership.
If the Army as a institution is seen to be promoting free-enterprise system, wherein only the results in the form of profits matter, the transactional ethos would rein supreme and military ethics which form the basis of trust between the soldiers would vanish.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
AWHO: Now and Future
I have the March 2009, newsletter from Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO) in front of me. The newsletter has three main features, that is
(a) Maj Gen Mohan Singh retires after serving for eight long years as the Managing Director.
(b) During last 10 years (read outgoing MD’s tenure) the AWHO has constructed as many houses as it did during preceding 10 years.
(c) The newsletter also effectively admonishes the members for being too demanding.
Now for a little reality check.
(a) During last ten years the AWHO failed to buy even an inch of land in sought after places like Panchkula, Gurgaon, Banglore, Mumbai and Pune. The projects now underway at these places are on the land purchased long-long back.
(b) During the same period many group housing societies of central/state employees have purchased land at market price and built quality houses. For example a Group Housing Society made up of certain categories of Haryana Government Employees bought two acre site from Haryana Urban Development Authority at market rates in the year 2003 and despite delay in starting the construction because of some legal hassles, it is delivering 2250 sq ft flats with two covered parking at a cost of Rs. 4200000/-. Compare that with any AWHO project of similar specifications and you would know the reality.
(c) Present state of AWHO is amply clear from it’s own admission that it has doubled in 10 years. Compare that to other builders who have expanded manifold during lesser period.
Way Forward
Friends, the fact is that AWHO of today is nothing but a construction agent with an attitude! There is no vision, no desire to deliver! So what to do? We have two options.
(a) Option-I. Drop the misnomer called `Welfare’ and rechristen it as Army Housing Organisation. Pressurize the Board of Governors/Adjutant General to reconstitute the management in keeping with the principles of corporate governance, wherein:-
(i) All of us (including OR) have the option of becoming share holders from the day we join the Army.
(ii) The management is responsible for the demonstrated performance of the company based on set targets.
(iii) It functions in a transparent manner.
(b) Option –II. Create Group Housing Societies in the cities of choice. Take land from government agencies at market rates and construct houses for ourselves. Believe you me. It is possible and cost-effective. My preliminary survey shows that a Group Housing Society can buy land at a price of Rs. Five Crore per acre and still give highest possible quality construction and A1 facilities at Rs. 50 lacs for a 2250 sq ft super built up area flat. As you all know Five Crores will get you one acre of land in high-end suburb of metros.
While Option-II is quite workable for officers, I still feel that revival of AWHO as AHO is preferable to ensure quality housing for our OR as well.
(a) Maj Gen Mohan Singh retires after serving for eight long years as the Managing Director.
(b) During last 10 years (read outgoing MD’s tenure) the AWHO has constructed as many houses as it did during preceding 10 years.
(c) The newsletter also effectively admonishes the members for being too demanding.
Now for a little reality check.
(a) During last ten years the AWHO failed to buy even an inch of land in sought after places like Panchkula, Gurgaon, Banglore, Mumbai and Pune. The projects now underway at these places are on the land purchased long-long back.
(b) During the same period many group housing societies of central/state employees have purchased land at market price and built quality houses. For example a Group Housing Society made up of certain categories of Haryana Government Employees bought two acre site from Haryana Urban Development Authority at market rates in the year 2003 and despite delay in starting the construction because of some legal hassles, it is delivering 2250 sq ft flats with two covered parking at a cost of Rs. 4200000/-. Compare that with any AWHO project of similar specifications and you would know the reality.
(c) Present state of AWHO is amply clear from it’s own admission that it has doubled in 10 years. Compare that to other builders who have expanded manifold during lesser period.
Way Forward
Friends, the fact is that AWHO of today is nothing but a construction agent with an attitude! There is no vision, no desire to deliver! So what to do? We have two options.
(a) Option-I. Drop the misnomer called `Welfare’ and rechristen it as Army Housing Organisation. Pressurize the Board of Governors/Adjutant General to reconstitute the management in keeping with the principles of corporate governance, wherein:-
(i) All of us (including OR) have the option of becoming share holders from the day we join the Army.
(ii) The management is responsible for the demonstrated performance of the company based on set targets.
(iii) It functions in a transparent manner.
(b) Option –II. Create Group Housing Societies in the cities of choice. Take land from government agencies at market rates and construct houses for ourselves. Believe you me. It is possible and cost-effective. My preliminary survey shows that a Group Housing Society can buy land at a price of Rs. Five Crore per acre and still give highest possible quality construction and A1 facilities at Rs. 50 lacs for a 2250 sq ft super built up area flat. As you all know Five Crores will get you one acre of land in high-end suburb of metros.
While Option-II is quite workable for officers, I still feel that revival of AWHO as AHO is preferable to ensure quality housing for our OR as well.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Fables of Morality
Fables of Morality
Mr Arun Sourie, through his long winded article, `A goal they cannot corrupt’ in the Indian Express 17 to 19 September, posits himself as `high priest’ and installs Mahatma Gandhi as the ruling deity of morality in public life. It is no doubt that both the Mr Shourie and Mahatma Gandhi have a track record of sorts. Mr Shourie will always be remembered for his incisive reporting from burning hell, that was Assam in 1984 and Mahatma Gandhi, without doubt, captured imagination of the people and continues to do so to a great extent even today. But can they fit the bill in so far as morality in public life is concerned?
Mr Shourie first. He chides the political parties for fielding Lawyers as spokespersons. Why! Because he feels that they speak the language of convenience. Fair enough. May be many others hold similar views. But then Mr Shourie goes and uses the language of convenience to argue his case. He cites any one and every one to make a particular point. Consequently his arguemnt looses the sheen of morality, which is supposedly his USP. In the article he cites both Mr Churchill and Mr Gandhi. Now, every one knows that these two personalities were as different as chalk and cheese. They practiced two different kinds of politics. Mr Churchill was a realist, who had no qualms in saying that sometimes it is necessary to speak falsehood for greater common good. On the other hand, Mahatma Gandhi claimed to follow the truth – whatever the cost. He professed to shun expediency for the truth, always and every time. Whether he did so or not we shall see in a moment. The bigger point here is that Mr Shourie has behaved just like a `lawyer-spokesperson’.
Now coming to the status of deity for Mahatma Gandhi. As the honourific suggests, most of the people, including this writer accept that Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a Great Soul (Mahatma). That is to say that despite his personal flaws, which were many, he was better than most of us. But can he be the icon of morality? Answer is resounding No!
Khilafat Movement. Take the case of Khilafat movement. He (Gandhi) justified his support for this movement in the name of `Hindu-Muslim unity’. His support for a foreign cause was based totally on grounds of expediency, as would be clear from his following utterance: “The test of friendship is true assistance in adversity, and whatever we are, Hindu, Parsees, Christians or Jews, if we wish to live as one nation (Please mark the central impulse – one nation), surely, the interest of any of us must be the interest of all…We talk of the Hindu-Mahommedan unity. It would be an empty phrase if the Hindus hold aloof from the Mahommedans when their vital (italics mine) are at stake.” That is Pradhan, pp 151-2 quoted by RC Majumdar in Annus Mirabilis – 1919, Struggle for Freedom, Vol XI, Third Edition, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai,pp 319.
Champaran and Kheda Satyagraha. In Kheda, a terrible famine had struck the district and a large part of Gujarat, and virtually destroyed the agrarian economy. During the years of 1918 and 1919 poor peasants had barely enough to feed themselves, but the British government of the Bombay Presidency increased taxes by 23%. Gandhi proposed satyagraha - non-violence, mass civil disobedience Gandhi also insisted that neither the protestors in Bihar nor in Gujarat allude to or try to propagate the concept of Swaraj, or Independence. In Gujarat, Gandhi was only the spiritual head of the struggle.Actual mobilisation of the masses was undertaken under the leadership of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and a close coterie of devoted Gandhians, namely Narhari Parikh Mohan Lal and Ravi Shankar Vyas who organized the villagers and gave them leadership and direction. The revolt was astounding in terms of discipline and unity.
Non-cooperation Movement 1920. In June 1920, during its session at Allahabad, Gandhi tried to bring Congress around to launching of non-cooperation movement against the British to support ongoing Khilafat Movement. But moderates like Motlal and others like CR Das oppsed it. However by December they had also joined with Gandhi to launch for the first time a movement for Sawaraj (freedom). Besides Gandhi, the strikes by industrial workers also played a significant role in making the Congress veer towards demand for freedom. The movement caiught people’s imagination and culminated in a wide spread Hartal on 17 November 1921 to protest against the visit by the Prince of Wales. British Government seemed to be on verge of capitulation when Gandhi abruptly withdrew the agitation on 11 febuary 1922, on hearing that a peasant mob had set on fire a police station at Chauri-Chaur (in UP) leading to burning of 22 policemen. While the movement failed to achieve its main objective of sawaraj, it did spread the influence of Congress to newer areas, especially in the South.
Civil-disobedience Movement 1932-1934. The Second Round Table held at London in the year 1931 failed because the British, the Muslims, the Princes as well as Hindu Mahasabha refused to change their respective positions. Mahatma Gandhi returned to Indiaa disappointed man and launched Non-cooperation Movement. The movement was effective mainly in the provinces of Bombay and Bengal. However, the British, who were prepared for the confrontation managed to gain upper hand with in two months of the launch of the agitation. A large number of arrests were made, but many of these were `repeaters in Bombay and Calcutta. By mid-1932 Gandhi was looking for a way out, which was provided by the British in form of Communal Award in August 1932, which created separate constituencies for the untouchables among Hindus. Gandhi went on to launch a fast unto-death while in prison. This led to Poona Pact between Dr Ambedkar and Gandhi, with both demanding scrapping fo separate constituencies for the untouchables. This was accepted by the British and Gandhi withdrew Civil Disobedience Movement in May 1933 (except for himself).
Quit India Movement 1942. By May 1940, France had fallen to the Nazies and the British Empire seemd doomed to similar fate. It was at this juncture that Mahatma Gandhi returned to centre stage to launch a tightly controlled Satayagraha, wherein he would personally detail the volunteers to court arrests. All through 1941, te Congress leadership seemed divided with C Rajagopalachari recommending a compromise with Jinha led Muslim League and Nehru-Patel adopting a policy of wait-and-watch. But Gandhi was adamant that the party go ahead with a limited movement. Subsequent events showed that as usual he had miscalculated the British resolve and capacity. Cripps Mission which visited India in March 1942 was doomed to failure due to non-cooperation of the Congress and intransigence of Churchill who was not very keen to grant concessions to Gandhi. On 08 August 1942 the Congress Working Committee adopted Quit India resolution. The British responded the next day by imprisoning Gandhi. All the members Party's Working Committee (national leadership) were also arrested. Despite lack of direct leadership, large scale protests and demonstrations were held all over the country. Workers remained absent en masse and strikes were called. However, not all the demonstrations were peaceful. At some places bombs exploded, government buildings were set on fire, electricity was cut, and transport and communication lines were severed. A minor uprising took place in Ballia (eastern Uttar Pradesh). People overthrew the district administration, broke open the jail, released the arrested Congress leaders, and established their own independent rule. The British in a swift and strong response used military including air force to suppress the uprising. A total over 100,000 arrests were made nationwide, mass fines were levied, and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. By early 1944, India was mostly peaceful again, while the entire Congress leadership was incarcerated. A sense that the movement had failed depressed many nationalists, while Jinnah and the Muslim League, as well as Congress opponents like the Communists sought to gain political mileage.
Just like Mr RC Majumdar, I am also a realist and have no quarrel with the view that one must stand in solidarity with his neighbours. But what about Mahatma Gandhi, he always claimed to give precedence to the truth over expediency! Remember his withdrawal of non-cooperation movement after Chauri-Chaura incident. Why was he giving precedence to expediency in the case of Khilafat movement. A movement which was instigated by `trans-national’ identity and hence in no way supported `concept of One India’. So what was Mahatma Gandhi up to? Nothing more or less than real politics. He wanted to establish himself as supreme leader of Indian Struggle for Freedom. This act of his actually laid the first stone for the foundation of Two Nation Theory. Should he be the `Deity of Morality’? Let the reader decide. Most charitable view of Mahatma Gandhi is that while he did possess a great capacity for self denial and strong will, he was most erratic in his decision-making. He also suffered from rigidity and time and again used emotional blackmail in place of logic and reason to make his supporters fall in line with his esoteric ideas. In so far as his relationship with his wife and one of the sons is concerned - less said the better. So, was he worthy of being moral icon, well the record speaks for itself.
Indian history is replete with examples of Great Souls (Mahan Atmas). They have done their best for the people within the limits imposed by the time and circumstances they lived in. We revere them, even when they are from two warring sides. Example Akbar the great and Maharana Pratap. But we do not make them deities. This deitification is a recent phenomenon, and is rooted in the `Fables of Nationalism’ which have been woven and continue to be woven to claim a monopoly of sorts over `Indian Struggle for Freedom’ and to pass of expediency as search for truth.
Mr Arun Sourie, through his long winded article, `A goal they cannot corrupt’ in the Indian Express 17 to 19 September, posits himself as `high priest’ and installs Mahatma Gandhi as the ruling deity of morality in public life. It is no doubt that both the Mr Shourie and Mahatma Gandhi have a track record of sorts. Mr Shourie will always be remembered for his incisive reporting from burning hell, that was Assam in 1984 and Mahatma Gandhi, without doubt, captured imagination of the people and continues to do so to a great extent even today. But can they fit the bill in so far as morality in public life is concerned?
Mr Shourie first. He chides the political parties for fielding Lawyers as spokespersons. Why! Because he feels that they speak the language of convenience. Fair enough. May be many others hold similar views. But then Mr Shourie goes and uses the language of convenience to argue his case. He cites any one and every one to make a particular point. Consequently his arguemnt looses the sheen of morality, which is supposedly his USP. In the article he cites both Mr Churchill and Mr Gandhi. Now, every one knows that these two personalities were as different as chalk and cheese. They practiced two different kinds of politics. Mr Churchill was a realist, who had no qualms in saying that sometimes it is necessary to speak falsehood for greater common good. On the other hand, Mahatma Gandhi claimed to follow the truth – whatever the cost. He professed to shun expediency for the truth, always and every time. Whether he did so or not we shall see in a moment. The bigger point here is that Mr Shourie has behaved just like a `lawyer-spokesperson’.
Now coming to the status of deity for Mahatma Gandhi. As the honourific suggests, most of the people, including this writer accept that Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a Great Soul (Mahatma). That is to say that despite his personal flaws, which were many, he was better than most of us. But can he be the icon of morality? Answer is resounding No!
Khilafat Movement. Take the case of Khilafat movement. He (Gandhi) justified his support for this movement in the name of `Hindu-Muslim unity’. His support for a foreign cause was based totally on grounds of expediency, as would be clear from his following utterance: “The test of friendship is true assistance in adversity, and whatever we are, Hindu, Parsees, Christians or Jews, if we wish to live as one nation (Please mark the central impulse – one nation), surely, the interest of any of us must be the interest of all…We talk of the Hindu-Mahommedan unity. It would be an empty phrase if the Hindus hold aloof from the Mahommedans when their vital (italics mine) are at stake.” That is Pradhan, pp 151-2 quoted by RC Majumdar in Annus Mirabilis – 1919, Struggle for Freedom, Vol XI, Third Edition, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai,pp 319.
Champaran and Kheda Satyagraha. In Kheda, a terrible famine had struck the district and a large part of Gujarat, and virtually destroyed the agrarian economy. During the years of 1918 and 1919 poor peasants had barely enough to feed themselves, but the British government of the Bombay Presidency increased taxes by 23%. Gandhi proposed satyagraha - non-violence, mass civil disobedience Gandhi also insisted that neither the protestors in Bihar nor in Gujarat allude to or try to propagate the concept of Swaraj, or Independence. In Gujarat, Gandhi was only the spiritual head of the struggle.Actual mobilisation of the masses was undertaken under the leadership of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and a close coterie of devoted Gandhians, namely Narhari Parikh Mohan Lal and Ravi Shankar Vyas who organized the villagers and gave them leadership and direction. The revolt was astounding in terms of discipline and unity.
Non-cooperation Movement 1920. In June 1920, during its session at Allahabad, Gandhi tried to bring Congress around to launching of non-cooperation movement against the British to support ongoing Khilafat Movement. But moderates like Motlal and others like CR Das oppsed it. However by December they had also joined with Gandhi to launch for the first time a movement for Sawaraj (freedom). Besides Gandhi, the strikes by industrial workers also played a significant role in making the Congress veer towards demand for freedom. The movement caiught people’s imagination and culminated in a wide spread Hartal on 17 November 1921 to protest against the visit by the Prince of Wales. British Government seemed to be on verge of capitulation when Gandhi abruptly withdrew the agitation on 11 febuary 1922, on hearing that a peasant mob had set on fire a police station at Chauri-Chaur (in UP) leading to burning of 22 policemen. While the movement failed to achieve its main objective of sawaraj, it did spread the influence of Congress to newer areas, especially in the South.
Civil-disobedience Movement 1932-1934. The Second Round Table held at London in the year 1931 failed because the British, the Muslims, the Princes as well as Hindu Mahasabha refused to change their respective positions. Mahatma Gandhi returned to Indiaa disappointed man and launched Non-cooperation Movement. The movement was effective mainly in the provinces of Bombay and Bengal. However, the British, who were prepared for the confrontation managed to gain upper hand with in two months of the launch of the agitation. A large number of arrests were made, but many of these were `repeaters in Bombay and Calcutta. By mid-1932 Gandhi was looking for a way out, which was provided by the British in form of Communal Award in August 1932, which created separate constituencies for the untouchables among Hindus. Gandhi went on to launch a fast unto-death while in prison. This led to Poona Pact between Dr Ambedkar and Gandhi, with both demanding scrapping fo separate constituencies for the untouchables. This was accepted by the British and Gandhi withdrew Civil Disobedience Movement in May 1933 (except for himself).
Quit India Movement 1942. By May 1940, France had fallen to the Nazies and the British Empire seemd doomed to similar fate. It was at this juncture that Mahatma Gandhi returned to centre stage to launch a tightly controlled Satayagraha, wherein he would personally detail the volunteers to court arrests. All through 1941, te Congress leadership seemed divided with C Rajagopalachari recommending a compromise with Jinha led Muslim League and Nehru-Patel adopting a policy of wait-and-watch. But Gandhi was adamant that the party go ahead with a limited movement. Subsequent events showed that as usual he had miscalculated the British resolve and capacity. Cripps Mission which visited India in March 1942 was doomed to failure due to non-cooperation of the Congress and intransigence of Churchill who was not very keen to grant concessions to Gandhi. On 08 August 1942 the Congress Working Committee adopted Quit India resolution. The British responded the next day by imprisoning Gandhi. All the members Party's Working Committee (national leadership) were also arrested. Despite lack of direct leadership, large scale protests and demonstrations were held all over the country. Workers remained absent en masse and strikes were called. However, not all the demonstrations were peaceful. At some places bombs exploded, government buildings were set on fire, electricity was cut, and transport and communication lines were severed. A minor uprising took place in Ballia (eastern Uttar Pradesh). People overthrew the district administration, broke open the jail, released the arrested Congress leaders, and established their own independent rule. The British in a swift and strong response used military including air force to suppress the uprising. A total over 100,000 arrests were made nationwide, mass fines were levied, and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. By early 1944, India was mostly peaceful again, while the entire Congress leadership was incarcerated. A sense that the movement had failed depressed many nationalists, while Jinnah and the Muslim League, as well as Congress opponents like the Communists sought to gain political mileage.
Just like Mr RC Majumdar, I am also a realist and have no quarrel with the view that one must stand in solidarity with his neighbours. But what about Mahatma Gandhi, he always claimed to give precedence to the truth over expediency! Remember his withdrawal of non-cooperation movement after Chauri-Chaura incident. Why was he giving precedence to expediency in the case of Khilafat movement. A movement which was instigated by `trans-national’ identity and hence in no way supported `concept of One India’. So what was Mahatma Gandhi up to? Nothing more or less than real politics. He wanted to establish himself as supreme leader of Indian Struggle for Freedom. This act of his actually laid the first stone for the foundation of Two Nation Theory. Should he be the `Deity of Morality’? Let the reader decide. Most charitable view of Mahatma Gandhi is that while he did possess a great capacity for self denial and strong will, he was most erratic in his decision-making. He also suffered from rigidity and time and again used emotional blackmail in place of logic and reason to make his supporters fall in line with his esoteric ideas. In so far as his relationship with his wife and one of the sons is concerned - less said the better. So, was he worthy of being moral icon, well the record speaks for itself.
Indian history is replete with examples of Great Souls (Mahan Atmas). They have done their best for the people within the limits imposed by the time and circumstances they lived in. We revere them, even when they are from two warring sides. Example Akbar the great and Maharana Pratap. But we do not make them deities. This deitification is a recent phenomenon, and is rooted in the `Fables of Nationalism’ which have been woven and continue to be woven to claim a monopoly of sorts over `Indian Struggle for Freedom’ and to pass of expediency as search for truth.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Playing with Honour
“The way to procure insults is to submit to them: a man meets with no more respect than he exacts”: William Hazlitt (1778-1830)
The point is bigger. The fact of matter is that Top Brass of IA seems to be consistently failing in safe guarding organisational and individual interests of Armymen. Just a few examples.
(a) People of Kashmir list security checks as one of the major `demeaning' experience they have to undergo and most of press seems to agree. Now compare this so-called `humiliation' of a populace in terrorism affected area with `security check' a soldier/officer is made to undergo while visisting his own Army HQ! Why is it that military identity card is really not good enough to establish his bonafides? Why does he have to undergo baggage scan/search? Ever wondered who could have made these rules and who is responsible for thier continuation? Top Brass.
(b) Ever wondered why soldiers `deputed' to attend Republic Day parade have to undergo humiliating body search by Delhi Police while their own walk through the security checks? Who is responsible? Top Brass.
(c) Who is responsible for moving NCO/JCO Couriers without reservation in crowded trains for most trivial reasons like getting flowers? Top Brass.
(d) No wonder the Manager Ambala CSD wants to verify cars purchased by the Army men.
(e) GL Section Type `B' are affiliated to AF Wings, these sections are commanded by Colonels (SG) with 25 year or more service whose CRs are written by AF Station Commander who functionally places them under command COO ( a junior Group Captain) Army Brass has never objected to it. While the Group Captain from the AF commanding Tactical Air Centres (TAC) affiliated to Army formations remains totally under the AF and seperate from the Army.
(f) Rather than develop in-house expertise for CI/CT, the Top Brass is happy denuding Army Units of junior officers to fill up NSG and other sundry PMF. All for a few vacancies for the colonel and above.
(g) Army officers of Major rank on deputation with civilian organisations have had their CRs initiated by Deputy Secretary equivalents.
(h) Visit any Army establishment and see the econdition of offices of Major/Lt Col rank officers. While at it also try and see lavish spread of Brigadier and above.
The point is bigger. The fact of matter is that Top Brass of IA seems to be consistently failing in safe guarding organisational and individual interests of Armymen. Just a few examples.
(a) People of Kashmir list security checks as one of the major `demeaning' experience they have to undergo and most of press seems to agree. Now compare this so-called `humiliation' of a populace in terrorism affected area with `security check' a soldier/officer is made to undergo while visisting his own Army HQ! Why is it that military identity card is really not good enough to establish his bonafides? Why does he have to undergo baggage scan/search? Ever wondered who could have made these rules and who is responsible for thier continuation? Top Brass.
(b) Ever wondered why soldiers `deputed' to attend Republic Day parade have to undergo humiliating body search by Delhi Police while their own walk through the security checks? Who is responsible? Top Brass.
(c) Who is responsible for moving NCO/JCO Couriers without reservation in crowded trains for most trivial reasons like getting flowers? Top Brass.
(d) No wonder the Manager Ambala CSD wants to verify cars purchased by the Army men.
(e) GL Section Type `B' are affiliated to AF Wings, these sections are commanded by Colonels (SG) with 25 year or more service whose CRs are written by AF Station Commander who functionally places them under command COO ( a junior Group Captain) Army Brass has never objected to it. While the Group Captain from the AF commanding Tactical Air Centres (TAC) affiliated to Army formations remains totally under the AF and seperate from the Army.
(f) Rather than develop in-house expertise for CI/CT, the Top Brass is happy denuding Army Units of junior officers to fill up NSG and other sundry PMF. All for a few vacancies for the colonel and above.
(g) Army officers of Major rank on deputation with civilian organisations have had their CRs initiated by Deputy Secretary equivalents.
(h) Visit any Army establishment and see the econdition of offices of Major/Lt Col rank officers. While at it also try and see lavish spread of Brigadier and above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
