“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.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Reality of Power and Media in India
Reality of Power and the Media in India
Let me first revisit one of the cherished delusion of common people, that is, the Chiefs of Indian Armed Forces are so powerful that they must always be kept under most stringent checks lest they transgress their sphere of influence. Remember the outcry which has gone up when they requested the government to rectify anomalies in award of Sixth Pay Commission to the soldiers. This was touted as height of disloyalty and disrespect for the constitutional authority. Well reality is quiet different. Real power in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) lies with the bureaucrats. Let me elaborate with the example of recent scandal involving erstwhile head of Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), Mr Sudipta Ghosh. The fellow has been arrested by the CBI for what it calls “one of the biggest corruption scandals in recent times”.
As per the official website of the MoD, `The Ordnance Factories Organization is the largest and oldest departmentally run production organization in the country and is engaged primarily in the manufacture of Defence hardware. The organization functions under the Department of Defence Production and Supplies and is a dedicated facility for manufacture of Weapons, Ammunitions, Vehicles (Armoured and Transport), Clothing, General Stores and Equipment for Defence Services. Apart from supplying to Armed Forces, wherever adequate capacities are available, the Ordnance Factories also fulfill the requirements of Paramilitary & Police Forces/Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Civil Trade and foreign customers. There are 39 Ordnance Factories geographically distributed all over India at 24 different locations. Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) the corporate headquarters of these factories professes to follow the values of Integrity, Transparency, Fairness & Trust. India Today describes the OFB as `the world’s largest government production department’.
Mr Sudipta Ghosh was the head honcho of OFB for two years has been accused of amassing huge fortune through shady deals involving foreign firms. For the sake of appearances the OFB is supposedly an autonomous organization but in reality head of OFB reports to the Additional Secretary Defence Production in the MoD who in turn is subordinate to Secretary Defence Production, who reports to Defence Secretary MoD. These worthies control the OFB through a system of checks and balances wherein the MoD representative is always present on the various committees formed to progress major proposal. So the common sense syas that Mr Sudipta Ghosh could not have acted alone.
But when the scandal blew up, the bureaucracy, in a classic move turned the adversity into opportunity through a two step approach. First it immediately assumed the role of honest broker by declaring that the matter would be fully investigated and the guilty would be punished. Second, it made public it’s decision to exercise greater control over OFB by, hold your breath, having a Joint Secretary attend all important meetings of OFB and by making additional secretary Department of Defence Production available to OFB for closer interaction. Since these worthies were already on committees formed to progress OFB proposals how will they get closer? And, what will this closeness achieve? More corruption! Masterly case of `movement being passed off as action’.
Real culprit in the whole messy game are the bureaucrats in the MoD. Since the OFB is a rich source of all kinds of perks and privileges, the bureaucrats have a vested interest in keeping the functioning of the Ordnance Factories under warps because secrecy allows them to run a most inefficient conglomerate at the cost of lives of soldiers and taxpayers money. Sub-standard items produced by the OFBs are forced down the throat of Services by first getting the item quality cleared from Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), an in-house minion of Secretary Defence.
So-called national press has been conspicuous by its absence from this important issue. It is time for concerned citizen to take matters in hand and demand that OFB be immediately turned into a fully autonomous public holding company open to norms of transparent corporate governance. The bureaucracy in MoD must be divested of any power over the supplier (OFB), Quality Controller (DGQA) and Services. Why not have a regime similar to the one constituted for tele-services.
Let me first revisit one of the cherished delusion of common people, that is, the Chiefs of Indian Armed Forces are so powerful that they must always be kept under most stringent checks lest they transgress their sphere of influence. Remember the outcry which has gone up when they requested the government to rectify anomalies in award of Sixth Pay Commission to the soldiers. This was touted as height of disloyalty and disrespect for the constitutional authority. Well reality is quiet different. Real power in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) lies with the bureaucrats. Let me elaborate with the example of recent scandal involving erstwhile head of Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), Mr Sudipta Ghosh. The fellow has been arrested by the CBI for what it calls “one of the biggest corruption scandals in recent times”.
As per the official website of the MoD, `The Ordnance Factories Organization is the largest and oldest departmentally run production organization in the country and is engaged primarily in the manufacture of Defence hardware. The organization functions under the Department of Defence Production and Supplies and is a dedicated facility for manufacture of Weapons, Ammunitions, Vehicles (Armoured and Transport), Clothing, General Stores and Equipment for Defence Services. Apart from supplying to Armed Forces, wherever adequate capacities are available, the Ordnance Factories also fulfill the requirements of Paramilitary & Police Forces/Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Civil Trade and foreign customers. There are 39 Ordnance Factories geographically distributed all over India at 24 different locations. Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) the corporate headquarters of these factories professes to follow the values of Integrity, Transparency, Fairness & Trust. India Today describes the OFB as `the world’s largest government production department’.
Mr Sudipta Ghosh was the head honcho of OFB for two years has been accused of amassing huge fortune through shady deals involving foreign firms. For the sake of appearances the OFB is supposedly an autonomous organization but in reality head of OFB reports to the Additional Secretary Defence Production in the MoD who in turn is subordinate to Secretary Defence Production, who reports to Defence Secretary MoD. These worthies control the OFB through a system of checks and balances wherein the MoD representative is always present on the various committees formed to progress major proposal. So the common sense syas that Mr Sudipta Ghosh could not have acted alone.
But when the scandal blew up, the bureaucracy, in a classic move turned the adversity into opportunity through a two step approach. First it immediately assumed the role of honest broker by declaring that the matter would be fully investigated and the guilty would be punished. Second, it made public it’s decision to exercise greater control over OFB by, hold your breath, having a Joint Secretary attend all important meetings of OFB and by making additional secretary Department of Defence Production available to OFB for closer interaction. Since these worthies were already on committees formed to progress OFB proposals how will they get closer? And, what will this closeness achieve? More corruption! Masterly case of `movement being passed off as action’.
Real culprit in the whole messy game are the bureaucrats in the MoD. Since the OFB is a rich source of all kinds of perks and privileges, the bureaucrats have a vested interest in keeping the functioning of the Ordnance Factories under warps because secrecy allows them to run a most inefficient conglomerate at the cost of lives of soldiers and taxpayers money. Sub-standard items produced by the OFBs are forced down the throat of Services by first getting the item quality cleared from Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), an in-house minion of Secretary Defence.
So-called national press has been conspicuous by its absence from this important issue. It is time for concerned citizen to take matters in hand and demand that OFB be immediately turned into a fully autonomous public holding company open to norms of transparent corporate governance. The bureaucracy in MoD must be divested of any power over the supplier (OFB), Quality Controller (DGQA) and Services. Why not have a regime similar to the one constituted for tele-services.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Red Herring of AFSPA
Revoking AFSPA is nothing but a red herring. Legally a police constable has more powers in normal course of his duty than those given to and Armymen under AFSPA. For example in course of his routine duties (say in the state of Rajasthan or Tamilnadu) a police head constable can open fire without awaiting clearance from his superior and stop and search a suspect. Those opposing AFSPA are seeking to deny these powers to a Naik of the Army (equivalent rank to Head Constable) even in an area infested with insurgents and terrorists. How strange!
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
AFT and after
I agree with the concept of having a `Military Appeals Court' but I am not sure if AFT in present form is the answer. I also do not agree with our learned friend Navdeep's description of present army act as British Legacy for a `native army'. We need to remember that before the british there was no Army Act in India nor did any of our great Maharajas deem it necessary to enact one to match and surpass the British. LAstly if the present Army ACt was so bad why has it not been thrown away for last 60 years. Sexcond I also do not agree with our learned friend on the issue of `customs of war'. He suggests that thse are best done away with. The fact is that such customs provide basis to every law. For example the present civil code which forms the bedrock of Indian jurisprudence is based on `catholic customs and beliefs' by virtue of being carbon copy of Eurpoean jurisprudence and that is the reason why Indian Law many a times runs counter to social norms and hence observed in denial (case of marriages between cousins of same gotras in Haryana). AFT in present form is nothing but imposition of civil judiciary on the military. This will slowly but surely destroy very uniqueness of the military. What we needed was a `military system of justice presided by military judge, based on jury system free from command influence and JAG influence. Having provision for appeals but totally manned by Jury composed of people with proven combat record.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Inaction is the Best Policy
As an Indian I have no love lost for the Pakistan Army who have been implacable foes for us but again as an Indian I have greatest interest in getting the Taliban defeated. Hence when someone who has been the COAS of Indian Army analyses ongoing operations (Rah-e-Rast) in Swat I sit up and take intense interest in his writings.
But I am sorry to say that Gen Malik in article ` Pak offensive against Taliban’ The Tribune 03 June 2009, fails to enthuse me. Because his analysis smacks of defeatism. It criticises for the sake of it and fails to offer any worthwhile alternative course of action. Every point he makes is totally pessimistic.
First he pontificates that while `it will be easy for the army to enter cities, towns and villages...civil administration will take time to establish’. This is nothing but stating the obvious because the fact applies to all wars. So what is the general suggesting? No operations!
Second, the general claims that if army operations succeed it may act catalyst for consolidation of Talibs for neighbouring regions and in case of stalemate it may encourage Talibs to claim victory’. A strange kind of argument. The good general seems to be suggesting that `if you try you are sure to fail' thus `inaction is best'. How in keeping with his quick acceptance of governmental caveat that LoC not be crossed!!
Third, He claims that Pakistan army has no experience of counter-insurgency because it was focussing on conventional war with conventional tactics against India. So the deduction to me is that it must use the tactics it is good at. But when it is using conventional tactics Gen Malik criticises it for the fear of alienating local populace (as if they are any better now). Pray what is the answer? None so far as Gen Malik is concerned. Inaction perhaps!
Fourth, some of the points he makes about the tactics also seem to be quite premature or subjective. He criticises the policy of retaining certain control over media reporting from combat zone. But we all remember that US Policy of having embedded journalists (whose reports were vetted before airing) paid good dividends during Gulf War and on the other hand unrestricted reporting on Kargil did raise some controversies!
He again states the obvious that defeating Pakistani Taliban is intimately linked to success of operations in Afghanistan. This is true and as one gathers from press reports there seems to be certain synergy between NATO operations in Afghanistan and Pak operations in Swat.
Notwithstanding this, the broader question is what should a country do when faced with extra-territorial linkages to terrorism. Answer was provided by the Indian Army (in post Malik era) by fencing the LoC and thereby isolating and defeating terrorists in Kashmir.
Role of any Army is to fight and win, winning hearts and minds is for other organs of the state as conclusively proven by Sri Lank. Any attempt to divide soldier's attention by engaging him into non-military tasks should be seen for what it is - ploy by a weak military leadership hell bent on securing political patronage. How much harm such leadership has caused to Indian Army is a subject for historians.
But I am sorry to say that Gen Malik in article ` Pak offensive against Taliban’ The Tribune 03 June 2009, fails to enthuse me. Because his analysis smacks of defeatism. It criticises for the sake of it and fails to offer any worthwhile alternative course of action. Every point he makes is totally pessimistic.
First he pontificates that while `it will be easy for the army to enter cities, towns and villages...civil administration will take time to establish’. This is nothing but stating the obvious because the fact applies to all wars. So what is the general suggesting? No operations!
Second, the general claims that if army operations succeed it may act catalyst for consolidation of Talibs for neighbouring regions and in case of stalemate it may encourage Talibs to claim victory’. A strange kind of argument. The good general seems to be suggesting that `if you try you are sure to fail' thus `inaction is best'. How in keeping with his quick acceptance of governmental caveat that LoC not be crossed!!
Third, He claims that Pakistan army has no experience of counter-insurgency because it was focussing on conventional war with conventional tactics against India. So the deduction to me is that it must use the tactics it is good at. But when it is using conventional tactics Gen Malik criticises it for the fear of alienating local populace (as if they are any better now). Pray what is the answer? None so far as Gen Malik is concerned. Inaction perhaps!
Fourth, some of the points he makes about the tactics also seem to be quite premature or subjective. He criticises the policy of retaining certain control over media reporting from combat zone. But we all remember that US Policy of having embedded journalists (whose reports were vetted before airing) paid good dividends during Gulf War and on the other hand unrestricted reporting on Kargil did raise some controversies!
He again states the obvious that defeating Pakistani Taliban is intimately linked to success of operations in Afghanistan. This is true and as one gathers from press reports there seems to be certain synergy between NATO operations in Afghanistan and Pak operations in Swat.
Notwithstanding this, the broader question is what should a country do when faced with extra-territorial linkages to terrorism. Answer was provided by the Indian Army (in post Malik era) by fencing the LoC and thereby isolating and defeating terrorists in Kashmir.
Role of any Army is to fight and win, winning hearts and minds is for other organs of the state as conclusively proven by Sri Lank. Any attempt to divide soldier's attention by engaging him into non-military tasks should be seen for what it is - ploy by a weak military leadership hell bent on securing political patronage. How much harm such leadership has caused to Indian Army is a subject for historians.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Is it worthy of our Appreciation
Whew Last few days I have received copy of an open letter written to the present Pakistan Army COAS by a retired Indian Colonel from Corps of Signals. I read it and found it to be immature and irrelevant hence ignored it. But I am forced to respond now because too many of highly qualified and otherwise intelligent officers seem to be endorsing it. My advise to them is please do not. My reasons are as given in succeeding Paragraphs.
The crux of the matter is that the writer believes that the deal Pakistan Government reached with local religious head in Swat was wrong and it is for General Kayani as COAS to sit on judgment and then discard the deal and thereby save Pakistan from Talibans. Now this is not funny, it is out rightly illogical. In any country be it a democracy or dictatorship (even in Pakistan) the constitutionally legal government have a right to take certain decision which may not be to the liking of its army, but that does not mean the COAS should up and revolt. Such drastic action can only be justified against a government indulging in patent unconstitutional acts and then too as a last resort. We take some Indian examples. Safe passage has been given to the terrorists many a time in hostage situations, which may have been opposed by the then military commanders. But none of them revolted or rescinded the orders of elected government. As we now know that on the issue of release of terrorists for hostages in Kandhar the then Home Minister was not in agreement but he went along the cabinet decision. We also have cases where certain areas of the country have special provisions and there are differences of opinion on the issue between political parties but that does not mean it is a case for the Army to resolve. So Col (retd) H Puri is patently wrong.
Flogging of teenage girl is reprehensible but pray how can an Army be held responsible for a social evil. These are dangerous waters, which have sharks in the form of girl child foeticide, bride burning and so on floating. Army can only assist in social change. Let the Army remain professional and focused on business of war.
In so far as other smart comments are concerned these are best taken with a pinch of salt. I really cannot understand or fathom as to what would a serving Pakistani soldier and Indian Colonel doing together in Iraq in 2004. And the story which the writer tells about Pakistani soldier and Indian Officer has many variants including one where the soldier is a POW post 1971. It is a good story for hot blooded youngsters to narrate over a drink in Transit Camp Officer Mess. Let us leave it at that.
I believe that mature and professional Army Officers must avoid playing to the gallery or indulge in scoring brownie points. It is best left to rabble rousers and arm-chair experts. We should flag enemy weaknesses for exploitation at opportune time and not shout about them. A true professional ought to write or speak with full gravitas only after weighing his words very carefully. Lest he be taken as immature and excitable by his opponents. Remember you have to be better than any other in the World.
The crux of the matter is that the writer believes that the deal Pakistan Government reached with local religious head in Swat was wrong and it is for General Kayani as COAS to sit on judgment and then discard the deal and thereby save Pakistan from Talibans. Now this is not funny, it is out rightly illogical. In any country be it a democracy or dictatorship (even in Pakistan) the constitutionally legal government have a right to take certain decision which may not be to the liking of its army, but that does not mean the COAS should up and revolt. Such drastic action can only be justified against a government indulging in patent unconstitutional acts and then too as a last resort. We take some Indian examples. Safe passage has been given to the terrorists many a time in hostage situations, which may have been opposed by the then military commanders. But none of them revolted or rescinded the orders of elected government. As we now know that on the issue of release of terrorists for hostages in Kandhar the then Home Minister was not in agreement but he went along the cabinet decision. We also have cases where certain areas of the country have special provisions and there are differences of opinion on the issue between political parties but that does not mean it is a case for the Army to resolve. So Col (retd) H Puri is patently wrong.
Flogging of teenage girl is reprehensible but pray how can an Army be held responsible for a social evil. These are dangerous waters, which have sharks in the form of girl child foeticide, bride burning and so on floating. Army can only assist in social change. Let the Army remain professional and focused on business of war.
In so far as other smart comments are concerned these are best taken with a pinch of salt. I really cannot understand or fathom as to what would a serving Pakistani soldier and Indian Colonel doing together in Iraq in 2004. And the story which the writer tells about Pakistani soldier and Indian Officer has many variants including one where the soldier is a POW post 1971. It is a good story for hot blooded youngsters to narrate over a drink in Transit Camp Officer Mess. Let us leave it at that.
I believe that mature and professional Army Officers must avoid playing to the gallery or indulge in scoring brownie points. It is best left to rabble rousers and arm-chair experts. We should flag enemy weaknesses for exploitation at opportune time and not shout about them. A true professional ought to write or speak with full gravitas only after weighing his words very carefully. Lest he be taken as immature and excitable by his opponents. Remember you have to be better than any other in the World.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Fair and Square
Ways of Indian State are not fathomable for a common man.
Pay of soldiers serving on the Macmahon Line as also of those jungle bashing to seek and destroy the insurgents is taxed, but the self same state gives its civil servants 25% extra tax free pay for agreeing to be posted in the North East besides a house in Delhi and perference to thier kids for admission into professional colleges.
I am sure that this will with general approval from those who were bashing BJP for promising IT exemption to soldiers.
Pay of soldiers serving on the Macmahon Line as also of those jungle bashing to seek and destroy the insurgents is taxed, but the self same state gives its civil servants 25% extra tax free pay for agreeing to be posted in the North East besides a house in Delhi and perference to thier kids for admission into professional colleges.
I am sure that this will with general approval from those who were bashing BJP for promising IT exemption to soldiers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
