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.
Monday, November 30, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
