Bharat Rakshak

Journalists don't go out on a limb to malign the military forces. So some powerful backing is here. What is going on, India Today, Tribune, Ind Express and who else? We know some individual news reporters in addition to the media outlets.

The movement of the two units was noted with concern in this context, a senior Intelligence Bureau official admitted to The Hindu , but insisted that “at no stage was the possibility of a coup, or any attempt to overawe the government, ever discussed. We worried about indiscipline, or a show of support by some elements — and it's our job to consider those possibilities.”

Lt Gen Panag’s five tweets:

5/5: Night of Jan 16th: A Pre-emptive demonstration with a Cover Plan to pre-empt likely impending decision!

4/5: Units/fmns undertaking Deception or Demostration ops do not know the real aim. Cover Plan gives credibility. Sr Cdrs know the real aim.

3/5: Demonstration in mil terms implies to show/demonstrate something to alter enemy decision making. Done as a credible operation.

2/5: Cover Plan in mil terms implies to give a credible cover to operations undertaken to deceive the enemy.

1/5: Pre emption in military terms implies acting before the enemy does to upstage him from implementing his strategy, plan or operation.

I'll try to find the book here, but the argument presented in the thread isn't very convincing. IG would have come up with some constitutional mechanism to prolong the Emergency. For that matter, there wasn't a rebellion against the Brits after WW2 either. Perhaps the extreme tendency to be reactive plays a big part in preserving the government of the day.

Can the Lok Sabha MPs summon Shekhar Gupta or do they need a JPC for that?

There seems to be some truth in Shekhar Guptas article.

Few facts emerge on troop movement



http://www.indianexpress.com/news/movement-may-have-been-cover-against-sacking-hints-lt-gen-panag/933282/0

It might be important to make Shekhar Gupta tell the MPs what he knows for he printed a standing by statement next day. They should summon him in national interests. And it will put paid to future nakre by other journalists.

He need not reveal his sources but he has to tell his story to some one responsible under oath lest he lies again.

Right now he has to bring more facts or resign from Ind Exp as the editor.

Ethics requires it.

Where is Justice Katju who pontificates on everything expect journalist ethics?

The ongoing battle between Indian Army [ Images ] chief General V K Singh and the ministry of defence has now spread to the level of policy making, high-level sources in the government told Rediff.com

The fundamental issue in the psychological battle General Singh has waged against the government is that he wants radical changes made in the way arms deals are struck in India.

General Singh and other retired and serving army officers would declare victory if military officers are part of the defence secretary's team when decisions on arms purchases are made at the MoD.

Sources have told Rediff.com that the important sub-committee of the Task Force on National Security has recommended that officers of the defence forces be appointed at the level of director in the ministry of defence.

It is a baby step, but an important one.

This would dramatically change the perception of the MoD in the eyes of India's defence personnel.

But this recommendation is being challenged ferociously. There have been reports emanating that the controversies swirling around the army chief have cast their shadows on the deliberations of the task force on national security, which was set up last July.

In August 2011, General Singh briefed the task force, providing a comprehensive view of the issues concerning the army. He told members of the task force that there was a breakdown in the Indian Army's procurement policy.

Surprisingly, the task force did not act urgently and bring the issue to the prime minister's notice.

The task force seems to have treated General Singh's concerns in routine fashion. It appears the task force, which is headed by former Cabinet secretary Naresh Chandra, one of India's distinguished civil servants, is awaiting a formal completion of its assignment. It is expected to submit its report by the end of April.

Government sources claim a group consisting of retired diplomats and civil servants have opposed the inclusion of army officers in the MoD.

Rahul Bedi, the well-known defence expert and correspondent for Jane's Defence Weekly, says, "Since the last 20, 30 years experts have given advice to the government to induct uniformed men in the MoD. It's frightening to see delays in taking such decisions. The way this situation can escalate is very frightening. I am not saying that there is going to be a military takeover, but the morale of the soldiers is likely to be adversely affected."

"As it is," he added, "the Indian soldier looks upon the babus (civilian bureaucrats) and politicians as chors, and this is not going to change. This (the opposition to induct military officers at the MoD) is only going to reinforce his belief and his dislike of the MoD and the babus of the MoD and the political class."

When officers of India's armed forces sit along with the babus, Bedi says a certain responsibility and accountability will be imposed upon this newly formed establishment to make change come about.

Lt Gen retd Panag and his five tweets on the subject reeks of personal vendetta. Someone accosted him with this statement, on twitter only, he chose not to reply. From the day of publishing the report Lt Gen retd Panag has been defending Shekhar Gupta, saying that he might be having followup stories and therefore the last word on this.

May be he is in the BS camp.

...Significantly the public interest litigation filed in the Supreme Court by a retired naval chief, a senior journalist, a retired chief election commissioner, a former bureaucrat and three officers goes into details of the larger politics surrounding General VK Singh’s so-called age controversy.

Seeking to restore the army’s ‘institutional integrity’, the PIL step by step unravels some of the murky goings on behind the scenes. It points to the far-from-exemplary role of former army chiefs JJ Singh and, to a lesser extent, Deepak Kapoor, in determining the line of succession in the army with sections of the political leadership. It speaks of how the chiefs used the boards of at least four or five senior officers to move them from the line of succession, focusing on Major General Ravi Arora in detail. The major general was in the same batch as Lt General Bikram Singh, a gold medalist, senior and yet a year younger. He did not get through the major general to lieutenant general board....

Murky Forces are targetting Army Chief Gen V K Singh



IMO, the PIL is likely to be dismissed.

Chief of army staff General VK Singh blocked the appointment of then director general, defence intelligence agency, Lieutenant General Tejinder Singh, as chairman, National Technical Research Organisation, shortly after being offered the alleged bribe in the Tatra truck deal. He also red-flagged the Tatra contract, ensuring that the remaining order for 600-odd trucks was stopped. This has not been cleared till date.

General Singh had rushed to defence minister AK Antony to report the alleged offer of a bribe by Lt General Tejinder Singh to clear the Tatra file. Antony did not take cognisance of the serious charge by the chief, merely asking the general to take action as he thought best.

Sections of the media have reported that home minister P Chidambaram was pushing Lt General Tejinder Singh’s case for the NTRO top post. Significantly, the reports have not been denied, giving credence to speculation within the army that the retired DIA chief has high levels of political patronage.
Article continues below the advertisement...

Lt General Tejinder Singh, who dropped out of public view after the action taken by the army chief, has been very active recently against the army chief. Informed sources spoke of a taped conversation between Lt General Tejinder Singh and a senior army official where the former, referring to General VK Singh, said using an abusive word that there was enough to keep the latter active defending himself for two years. This information could not be independently verified, with the sources maintaining that the army did not want to release a tape as it did not want to compromise the other officer.

Senior defence officers, including former chief of naval staff, Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, claimed that the army chief was the target of a politicians-arms dealers nexus. Significantly the public interest litigation filed in the Supreme Court by a retired naval chief, a senior journalist, a retired chief election commissioner, a former bureaucrat and three officers goes into details of the larger politics surrounding General VK Singh’s so-called age controversy.

Seeking to restore the army’s ‘institutional integrity’, the PIL step by step unravels some of the murky goings on behind the scenes. It points to the far-from-exemplary role of former army chiefs JJ Singh and, to a lesser extent, Deepak Kapoor, in determining the line of succession in the army with sections of the political leadership. It speaks of how the chiefs used the boards of at least four or five senior officers to move them from the line of succession, focusing on Major General Ravi Arora in detail. The major general was in the same batch as Lt General Bikram Singh, a gold medalist, senior and yet a year younger. He did not get through the major general to lieutenant general board.

The Supreme Court is yet to examine the document and take a decision about whether it should be admitted or not. The petitioners believe that vested interests are calling the shots in determining the line of succession, and in the process bringing the office of the chief of army staff into disrepute. This, the sources said, creates the space for political control with Lt General Bikram Singh and his declared successor, Lt General Dalbir Singh Suhag, commander of the Dimapur-based 3 Corps. In the process a general widely respected in the army and described by retired and serving generals as a ‘thinking commander’ Lt General KT Parnaik, currently GOC, Northern Command, will retire without making it as the army chief. However, if the government had accepted General Singh’s date of birth as May 31, 1951, Lt General Parnaik would have taken command. He is seen as an outstanding officer who would not countenance activities of shady arms dealers who still continue to influence the business and politics of defence.

New Delhi: The CNN-IBN report on Indian Army's critical ammunition has shocked the Parliamentary defence panel. The members of the panel now want to summon Army Chief General VK Singh next week to explain.

General Singh had listed some of the critical deficiencies in ammunition and equipment in a letter to the Prime Minister that was later leaked. A CNN-IBN investigation shows that the problem could be much worse than imagined. In some cases, ammunition for just 10 days of war is left.

Reacting to the report, member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence and Shiromani Akali Dal Rajya Sabha member Naresh Gujral said, "This is absolutely shocking. We had no idea that this was the state of affairs." Talking to IBN18 Editor-in-Chief Rajdeep Sardesai, Gujral added, "I made a request to the Chairman in a Standing Committee meeting that we should summon the Army Chief and ask him because whatever is coming out in public domain is absolutely startling and shocking and it is something which causes great concern in our minds."

However, Former Director General, Infantry, Lt Gen (Retired) Shankar Prasad said it was the responsibility of the Defence Ministry and not the Army Chief. "Let me please put it very clearly. The defence of India is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, just as the internal security is the responsibility of the Ministry of Home Affairs so if the defence's preparedness is lacking today, please call the Defence Ministry official and the minister to the Parliamentary board rather than to summon the Army Chief," he said.

Army has repeatedly made a presentation to the political top brass that war reserves are below critical level. The presentation, a copy of which is with CNN-IBN, shows how the Army doesn't have sufficient reserve of certain ammunition in case there is war.

Among the list of critical imported ammunition that will last for just 10 days in case of conflict is key mainstay 125 mm tank ammunition called the Fin Stabilized Armoured Piercing. Reserves for it in 2009 were just for 5.85 days. However, 16000 more rounds are under procurement from Russia, which are yet to arrive.

The 122 mm high energy reduce charge used by the artillery will last for just 1.27 days if there is a full-scale war. The procurement has once again been re-tendered.

Imported items aside, the ones being manufactured by indigenous Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) are no better. Once again there is a list of ammunition that is stocked for less than 10 days of war.

According to the presentation in June 2008 the 120 mm Mortar Bomb was available for just 7.43 days of war. The government is still struggling with a fresh tender.

Ammunition for the 155 mm illuminating gun is available for just 4.65 days of conflict. The OFB is yet to make up this deficiency. The 155 mm SMK, smoke ammunition will last for 6.29 days.

There is a realisation that the deficiency for this smoke ammunition is likely not to be fulfilled since the OFB in an year manufactures ammunition that will last for just about 1.85 days of war. As if the shortage was not worrying enough a large amount of ammunition provided by the Ordnance Factory Boards have been found dud and faulty.

In 2008 as the document shows more than 86,000 rounds of 125 mm ammunition was found faulty, in many cases causing injury.

The ammunition for the basic INSAS rifle has been found faulty to the tune of more than 137 lakh rounds.

Till recently the government maintained war reserves for just 30 days of conflict. In the face of that number too much of the ammunition is at a hopeless level. War reserves for certain ammunition have also declined mainly because of the blacklisting of certain firms by the government. Sadly the depleting war reserves are only lately getting some attention.

A majority of India's air defence is also obsolete. A vast majority of the Air Defence guns are also of World War II vintage and the the Indian Army has admitted that 97 per cent of them are obsolete. In a clear message, the Directorate General of Air Defence pressed the panic button. It told the top brass that its air defence capabilities are hollow.

CNN-IBN has the details of the presentation and the facts are shocking. The network, set up to protect the Army field formations and vital installations from air attack, has been called vintage and obsolete.

Storm Signals on National Security

by Col. R. Hariharan

“Army chief’s letter bomb” screamed TV anchors when leaked contents of a letter from the Army Chief of Army Staff General VK Singh addressed to the Prime Minister reached the media. In his letter he had made ten points to show that the army’s fighting capability. The Army Chief listed ten points which have rendered the army ineffective to face threats to national security. All of them related the lack of timely procurements of armaments and ammunition to the troops.

The reaction to this national security fiasco in parliament was typical. Many members including the Right and Left, spent more time on the danger posed to national security by the leak, than its damaging contents. Some members like the Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Lallu Prasad Yadav, who was no paragon of probity, wanted the Army Chief to be sacked summarily for leaking the letter, without even bothering to find out who did it. His cohorts from UP and Bihar of the Samajwadi Party and Janata Dal (U) echoed the same sentiments.


Even experienced minister like Vayalar Ravi dismissed the letter as out pouring of a “frustrated” man, who lost the case to get his date of birth corrected. Congress party said national security was a sensitive issue and cannot be loosely discussed. Even the BJP which smells blood in every issue that affects government performance, only sniffed the peripheries of the issue.

The leak of the letter addressed to the Prime Minister comes at a particularly inconvenient time for the ruling coalition, which is getting tired of playing to the whimsical tunes of its regional partners. Only the day before, it was put on the defensive by a media interview by the Army Chief. In his interview he claimed he was offered Rs 14 crore bribe by a retired General, acting on behalf of a vehicle manufacturer to clear 600 substandard trucks destined for the army. Already the Army Chief had not made him popular with the ruling coalition when he approached the Supreme Court after his abortive attempts to get his date of birth corrected failed.

As a result of unholy combination of these controversies, General VK Singh’s damaging assessment on battle readiness of the army, runs the risk of not being taken seriously by not only the parliament but also nation. This is evident from the clichéd assurance the defence minister AK Antony gave in parliament when the contents of the Chief’s letter triggered a storm in parliament. He said the government was committed to ensure the safety and security of the nation.

Deficiencies in army’s weaponry, armament and ammunition have been nagging ulcers eating into our national security preparedness for a long time. Every war – from the 1962 war with China to the 1971 war to the Kargil conflict had glaringly highlighted such deficiencies faced by troops at the battle front. But beyond appointing committees to go into them we seem to be making no headway to improve the situation.

Lack of knowledge of matters relating to strategic security and failure to appreciate the real time needs of ever-changing technology requirements of modern battlefield make a mockery of our obsolete defence procurement procedure.

For defence procurement the Services concerned has to generate General Staff Quality Requirement (GSQR) for the item. This takes into consideration the battle scenario say in the next few years. Once GSQR is projected to Defence Ministry the first of the 7-step Indian defence procurement process starts. It is easy to understand why Stephen Cohen and Sunil Das Gupta of Brookings Institute in their book “Arming without Aiming: India’s military modernization” call this acquisition method as “convoluted” because enough opportunities for corruption and delay are built-in the process.

The cumbersome process has been taking anything from five to ten years to be completed, during which developments in weapon technology make the procured weapon system out of date, if not obsolete. As these deals involve billions of dollars the final decision is affected by diplomatic pressure from manufacturing nations.

Apart from this, after the bitter experience of the Bofors scandal, fear of allegations of corruption cropping up in defence deals has made the bureaucracy involved in the process overcautious. This fear in tandem with the Defence Minister AK Antony, who has sworn to weed out corruption on his charge at the helm, has seen the black listing of a dozen major armament suppliers of the world at various stages of the process adding to the delay. Despite the Defence Minister’s repeated assurances to speed up the process there had been no visible improvement on the ground.

Previously such delays were affecting procurement of modern missiles and such sophisticated weapon systems, aircraft and naval ships. However, now Army’s battle readiness is slowly being crippled as demands for even basic essentials of infantry weapons and artillery weapons have been pending for over a decade.

For instance infantry battalions are still not equipped with lighter rifles capable of better performance; we need about two million rifles to completely re-equip and replenish this basic arm. Similarly Army’s demand for heavy machine guns has also not materialized.

Strictly speaking, the Chief was pointing out nothing “new” in his letter to the Prime Minister. Earlier he had made a presentation on the same points to the Defence Minister; later a similar presentation was to a parliamentary committee also. Apparently the General shot off the missive to the Prime Minister as the last resort of an outgoing Chief who wanted desperately to make a change. And the Defence Minister was aware of the letter.

It is a shame that our defence research and development organization which has scored impressive achievements in rocket and missile development has not been able to fill in our requirements in some of the basic weaponry requirements. A major reason for this is the inordinate delay in developing a proto type and from proto type to final product.

Indian industry is quite capable of manufacturing many of the weapons and weapon systems. However, there is a political mental block as manufacture of arms, ammunition and equipment has been reserved for the public sector. These public sector units suffer from all the ailments of public sector – highly unionized workforce laying down norms, poor productivity, perennial failure to keep up manufacturing schedules, inadequate investment and poor quality of output. Though much has been said about public-private partnership Indian industries have not been given their due share in the ever growing defence pie.

According to Ashley Tellis, Carnegie Endowment scholar, Indian defency policy suffers from internal defence thinking. He says: “civil-military relations restrain military modernization and this is not accidental but deliberate.” By and large this appears to be a correct observation, if we see the parliament’s totally futile reaction of targeting the Army Chief for leaked letter rather paying attention to its damaging assessment on national security readiness.

This seeming lack of interest in national security affairs has become part of the political culture where national security has been treated as a holy cow, allowed to fend for itself. That is why the response to defence requirements has been to allocate more funds rather than critically scrutinise and reform our systems..

After 60 years of independence we should be ashamed to be world’s largest importer of weapon systems. It is clear there is disconnect between the rapid progress the country has made in various fields and defence production. We need to integrate defence requirements with national development, so that the progress made in science and technology as well as industrial progress is gainfully utilized to meet the needs of armed forces. In a welcome step, the union government has constituted the Naresh Chandra Committee in July 2011 to review national security. Considering the competing demands of ever growing developmental needs, and defence expenditure, it would be worthwhile to examine this aspect while evolving the security doctrine.

It seems yet another salvo has been fired by the irrepressible General VK Singh with one more allegation of corruption in high places. According to the latest media report, the Army Chief has requested CBI to look into the allegations contained in a letter written by Trinamool MP Ambika Banerjee in May 2011 alleging widespread procurement scams committed by Lt General Dalbir Singh when he was the Inspector General of the Special Frontier Force (SFF). It is significant that General Dalbir Singh, currently commanding 3 Corps, is in line to succeed Lt General Bikram Singh designated as the next COAS. The MP is also reported to have named army officers including a former Army Chief who are alleged to have received crores of rupees in kickbacks in defence procurements.

It is clear General VK Singh is in a combative mood. He appears to be determined to root out corruption as best as he could in the few days he is in service. In the bargain he has antagonised the political class, in particular the ruling coalition, which is rocked by corruption scandals one after the other. Some retired Generals are unhappy with Army Chief’s conduct. They talk of its demoralising effect on the armed forces. They are forgetting it is time for catharsis in the armed forces. Both the defence ministry and the armed forces are as much accountable to the people as any limb of the government. They cannot hide under the garb of secrecy to allow a corrupt system to go unchecked lest corruption compromises national security.

Political class is unaccustomed to a man in uniform questioning the validity of their existing systems. This class having built a cosy set up with existing systems are not going to allow the General’s forays unchallenged. We can see the storm signals going up for such action; but before any precipitate action is taken, parliamentarians should ponder over the issues the General has raised. I have some simple posers to parliament members who got so worked up because of the General's letter to the Prime Minister:
· What is the core issue affecting national security? Leaking of the letter or ilI-equipped army which its chief says cannot perform effectively?
· If they sack the General, will it improve national security? Will it remove the glaring deficiencies and weaknesses he has pointed out?

Politicians have a bloated self-image as guardians of democracy. It is good to remember General VK Singh, despite his frontal assault in true Rajput style, has raised fundamental issues because he values the democratic system as much as politicians do.

The nation should be careful how it handles the issue as storm signals are up on national security. It is time for some serious introspection from all of us.

His media compulsions are tempered more by the opportunities that may be availed by gul panag and hence the support to the nefarious express paper, "the journalism of courage" was it??.

shaker is now reduced to a mere spit and scoot artist, without being burdened by the necessity of proof or even the need not to tarnish decent and hallowed institutions. Not to mention the tacit support to the arms lobby who are the only ones who would benefit from shaker's journalistic fulminations.

Another padma bushan candidate in the making?? Must be quite painful to have mere pretenders who have been so awarded and yet shaker's sublime and colossal presence on the Indian firmament of journalism has yet to be suitably recognized.

His media compulsions are tempered more by the opportunities that may be availed by gul panag and hence the support to the nefarious express paper, "the journalism of courage" was it??.

The Chief is the neo General Maximus Decimus Meridius reloaded...singlehandedly taking on the rotten system....perfect icon for the anti establishment younginstanis....i am pretty sure if a poll is conducted he will be seen as an youth icon along with Anna Hazare may be one step more than him....

Having known both of them, that's not the sort of people they are. Gen. Panag if you recall had a run-in with Gen. Kapoor over the corruption issue. Gul Panag frequently comes on the media to bat for the Army. I have no idea what the story is but lots of people wore the uniform with honour. In my mind atleast they've earned a certain benefit of the doubt. FWIW i really don't understand what all his tweets are supposed to mean. Lots of pre-empt and cover thrown in. At the end what purpose would be served for the actors?

An Imminent Hijack by the Arms lobby

by RSN Singh, Canary Trap

The biggest curse for any Indian today is probity. Had Gen VK Singh accepted the Rs 14 crore bribe he claimed he was offered, he would have been the darling of the establishment and would have rode to the office of governor of some state on retirement.

The revelations by the army chief regarding an attempt to bribe him by a Lt Gen during the course of an interview with a national daily was known to this author and informed people in the journalist fraternity. The fact that there exists evidence by way of a taped conversation between the said Lt Gen and the army chief is also not a new input. This author had written about the role of this Lt Gen in trying to bribe the army chief at the behest of certain arms supplier in an earlier Firstpost article, “Who’s trying to fix the army chief by raking up his age?” in July 2011.

This article was widely circulated. The offer of bribe was to push the sale of Tatra vehicles at an exorbitant price. A particular firm was purchasing second-hand Tatra vehicles and selling it through Bharat Earth Movers Ltd (BEML) at more than double the cost. Reportedly, while the cost of each vehicle off the shelf was around Rs 30-40 lakh, there was a bid by the arms lobby to sell it to the Indian army for about Rs 1 crore.

The army chief refused to put the army and the country to such a massive loss of tax-payer money. It is then that the Lt Gen allegedly offered a bribe of Rs 14 crore. When the army chief did not relent, he is understood to have pleaded that army chiefs before the present incumbent had all played ball and those who will succeed him would also do so. Tatra vehicles have been procured by the Indian army since 1986.

Significantly, the army chief said that he immediately reported the matter to the defence minister and offered to quit if he was considered a ‘misfit’. This offer to quit is pregnant in import, and its depth and linkages are yet to unravel.

A conscientious and God-fearing defence minister did acknowledge in the Rajya Sabha that the matter was indeed reported to him and he stated that he sank his head in his hands. Was it because of the conflict between his ‘head and heart’? Or in other words, was it because of the conflict between the defence minister’s personal integrity and political integrity or political compulsions?

It is rather well known that the defence minister has always held the army chief in very high esteem for reasons of personal integrity, something which resonates with his own personality. Some sources have revealed to this author that Antony had almost decided to rule in favour of Gen VK Singh in respect to the date of birth controversy after the first opinion of the law ministry, which categorically upheld the general’s contention. It was then that powers in positions superior to Antony compelled him to readdress the case to the law ministry. It did weigh heavily on his conscience, and there were political offers and assurances to recompense the hurt caused by the deliberate miscarriage of truth and justice in ways more than one.

The general found it hard to buy the bargain on a basic issue that questioned his character. Notwithstanding the efforts of emissaries he did not relent and offered to resign. The political class, prodded by a megalomaniac bureaucracy for fear of the ‘succession plan’ being upset in deference to the arms lobby, as also the unacceptable adverse political fallout for reasons of political funding requirements, began to threaten the general that should he choose to offer his resignation it would not be accepted.

The general was thus driven to the Supreme Court.

The establishment, more so powers superior to Antony, were unnerved by this development, as they were acutely conscious that the general’s case was ‘open and shut’. Leave alone experienced lawyers, even a first year law student will vouch for the fact. What happened thereafter is well known. Every institution in India has probably discredited itself in this age row.

It is not that the army was not confronted earlier with such instances of discrepancies in dates of birth of officers. They are routine and are resolved quickly and appropriately. An exactly similar case was resolved in the late 1990s just one day before the retirement of one Col Ramesh Chandra Dixit. VK Singh was made the first and last exception. Last exception, because the MoD or the Army Headquarters consequent to their ruling on Gen VK Singh’s age, cannot legally dare to reiterate that the Army List, or the Military Secretary’s Branch enjoy primacy over the Adjutant General’s Branch with matters pertaining to date of birth of officers.

What was therefore perpetrated on the army chief was a fraud. A fraud so outrageous that it seemingly reduces India to the category of Banana Republic. Who perpetrated this fraud? It was two army chiefs in succession, whose reputations are today under attack for their unsavory deeds and involvement in various scams. Imagine an army chief (COAS General Deepak Kapoor ,COAS Gen N C Vij and Admiral Madhavendra Singh) appropriating flats meant for families of Kargil martyrs.

Can it get worse? It is no wonder that these army chiefs, who as father figures, should have protected the professional and personal integrity of their subordinates, chose to force Gen Singh to accept a particular date of birth, failing which there was an implied threat that the controversy would be used to derail him. They should have instead apologised for the omissions and commissions of a particular branch of the army headquarters. Once the so-called ‘acceptance’ was obtained on the repeated plea of ‘organisational constraints’, the army chiefs began to breath easy.

Gen Singh’s subsequent pleadings to explain the ‘organizational constraints’ fell on deaf ears. The sigh of relief was because the ‘succession plan’ as desired by the arms lobby was now in place.

The Indian army and the army personnel as such are not safe under such chiefs.

The bureaucrats became part of the design only after Gen Singh raked up the issue of his date of birth as COAS (Chief of Army Staff). Four former chief justices of India, all of them with impeccable credentials, gave opinions in his favour, but this did not appeal to the moral sense of the ministry. That the law ministry gave an opinion categorically upholding Gen Singh’s stand, did not help. When the general said it was not a question of additional few months, but his honour, it did not help. He was ridiculed, not only …………….by the political and bureaucratic establishment but by some retired generals as well.

These retired generals are now (Who? can some one list), courtesy television channels, very familiar faces. All of them have a dubious past. One of them was forced to resign from the army because of IB reports regarding his indiscriminate womanising. The other is known to have run away with his senior’s wife, and the third was in the dock for possessing a false degree. So much for the detractors of Gen Singh!

These characters only testify that the muck in the army has been accumulating over the years. It was quite evident when some generals awarded themselves shamelessly after the Kargil conflict.. There was no bravery or operational genius on display on their part. It would have been befitting to send some of them packing. The politics of the day saved them.

Corruption in the arms procurement process is not a new phenomenon. It started soon after independence. There was the Jeep scandal in VK Krishna Menon’s time. The underpinning of the Tehelka sting operation was also regarding the same corruption. So what is new?

What is alarming and dangerous is the level of influence the arms lobby has acquired that it has begun to decide as to who would be the army chief and the length of his tenure. The tentacles of this lobby have penetrated every conceivable pillar institution of the state.

Reportedly, several crores of rupees have been spent by the arms lobby to perpetuate the date of birth fraud on Gen Singh. Such is the depth of influence of the lobby that only a divine intervention can salvage the obvious truth that every ‘straight’ Indian realises: that morally and legally Gen Singh’s date of birth is 10 May 1951 and not 10 May 1950 as inflicted by the two army chiefs at the behest of the arms lobby. It is rather depressing to find so many ‘not too straight’ serving officers in the army.

The arms lobby first contrived to inflict the date of birth controversy on the general; then launched a media campaign to make him resign by engineering a divide between the general and the defence minister, as also the civil authority versus military. Then there was an attempt to prevent him from going to court by invoking tradition and precedence; then there was a campaign to make him withdraw his case from the Supreme Court; then there was psychological pressure being put on him to resign after the Supreme Court order which says nothing about his date of birth; and when he did not resign then there were desperate moves to get him sacked.

The fabrication of the story regarding the bugging of the defence minister’s office at the behest of the general should be seen in this backdrop. The story was so poorly scripted that it fell apart. The writers of this script continue to enjoy immunity. The letter leak (from the general to the prime minister) should also be viewed in the same vein. The clamour for the chief’s head by some bizarre quarters(Mulayam and Lallo Yadavs - conviniently by bashing a "Singh" these Caste Satraps buttress their "Yadav" position too) was also at the behest of the arms lobby.

A former diplomat (NSA Brajesh Mishra), who messed with India’s national security, was pulled out of the cobwebs to suggest that the general should be sent on ‘forced leave’, little realising that there is no such provision in army law. He did not prefer ‘sacking’ probably due to his own vulnerabilities. Another former diplomat(KC Singh ?) with no locus-standi and no knowledge of army functioning has been taking special delight in VK Singh bashing. The man, it is apparent, has more than one motivation in doing so. This diplomat claimed that the unprecedented media campaign against Gen Singh unleashed by a daily newspaper published from the north was with the tacit approval of the PM. A prime minister getting after his own army chief via the media, if true, can happen only in Banana Republics.

A few years ago one Commander Nadeem(??) was mowed by a truck while he was taking his morning jog on the lawns of Shanti Path in New Delhi. He was dealing with the acquisition of some sensitive equipment. The recent death of a MoD official, Kumar Yashkar Sinha, and his wife is also intriguing. Initially the police dubbed the case as one of murder by strangulation of the wife by the husband followed by ‘suicide’ by the latter by setting himself aflame.

The profile of the officer suggests that he was of very strong character and enjoyed great marital harmony with his wife. It is, therefore, most unlikely that he had any suicidal tendencies. The police, based on a letter recovered from the scene of the crime, is attributing ‘work pressure’ by some superiors of the official for his alleged suicide. It is bizarre. No person will kill his wife because of his own work pressure. No person will strangulate his wife and then immolate himself.

He could well have hung himself instead of choosing such a painful route to suicide. It now emerges that the official was also dealing with RTI in the MoD. Is the murder of the official and his wife the handiwork of the arms lobby? The possibility cannot be ruled out.

The machinations of the arms lobby seem to have subverted the top leadership of the army considerably. One army chief allegedly initiated the culture of political funding by linking the army to the arms lobby- bureaucracy- politician nexus for political funding. The desperation and ruthlessness of the key players and key institutions could well be motivated by 2014 elections.

It is a matter of grave concern that succession plans in the army are being made at the behest of the arms lobby. It is not merely a question of subversion of a few people at the top. It has a cascading affect and thus the entire selection system gets vitiated and in the process the entire army gets subverted.

Lord Wavell had predicated the survival of India as one entity on the preservation of the Indian army as an effective and irreproachable instrument. This instrument is not fraying from the edges but is under threat from the top. If the slide continues, India would unravel. As it is, the state is losing its writ at a frightening pace. If the last bastion crumbles, India will indeed survive as another Banana Republic. Let us therefore save the Indian army and save India.

A recommendation to appoint officers from the defence forces at the level of director in the ministry of defence is being ferociously challenged, reports Sheela Bhatt.

The ongoing battle between Indian Army chief General V K Singh and the ministry of defence has now spread to the level of policy making, high-level sources in the government told Rediff.com

The fundamental issue in the psychological battle General Singh has waged against the government is that he wants radical changes made in the way arms deals are struck in India.

General Singh and other retired and serving army officers would declare victory if military officers are part of the defence secretary's team when decisions on arms purchases are made at the MoD.

Sources have told Rediff.com that the important sub-committee of the Task Force on National Security has recommended that officers of the defence forces be appointed at the level of director in the ministry of defence.

It is a baby step, but an important one.

This would dramatically change the perception of the MoD in the eyes of India's defence personnel.

But this recommendation is being challenged ferociously. There have been reports emanating that the controversies swirling around the army chief have cast their shadows on the deliberations of the task force on national security, which was set up last July.

In August 2011, General Singh briefed the task force, providing a comprehensive view of the issues concerning the army. He told members of the task force that there was a breakdown in the Indian Army's procurement policy.

Surprisingly, the task force did not act urgently and bring the issue to the prime minister's notice.

The task force seems to have treated General Singh's concerns in routine fashion. It appears the task force, which is headed by former Cabinet secretary Naresh Chandra, one of India's distinguished civil servants, is awaiting a formal completion of its assignment. It is expected to submit its report by the end of April.

Government sources claim a group consisting of retired diplomats and civil servants have opposed the inclusion of army officers in the MoD.

Rahul Bedi, the well-known defence expert and correspondent for Jane's Defence Weekly, says, "Since the last 20, 30 years experts have given advice to the government to induct uniformed men in the MoD. It's frightening to see delays in taking such decisions. The way this situation can escalate is very frightening. I am not saying that there is going to be a military takeover, but the morale of the soldiers is likely to be adversely affected."

"As it is," he added, "the Indian soldier looks upon the babus (civilian bureaucrats) and politicians as chors, and this is not going to change. This (the opposition to induct military officers at the MoD) is only going to reinforce his belief and his dislike of the MoD and the babus of the MoD and the political class."

When officers of India's armed forces sit along with the babus, Bedi says a certain responsibility and accountability will be imposed upon this newly formed establishment to make change come about.

"Let us not forget that in all societies -- whether it is in the West or in India or in other countries around Asia -- military establishments are the last to change," says Bedi.

"They are the most difficult to change," he adds. "I think it's about time we overcame our allergy for the armed forces."

The core issue of the ongoing tensions between General V K Singh and the ministry of defence is that most of the powers of procurement of weapons and equipment lie with the MoD.

It is perhaps time the Indian Army's sensitivities are taken care of in the task force's report.
Sheela Bhatt in New Delhi

Indian Express takes cover behind Lt Gen retd Panag's tweets lending credibility to conjectures.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/movem ... g/933115/0

By T R Ramaswami

The leaky-weaky-snafu-cum-imbroglio in the defence sector has provoked very interesting reactions and suggestions. Historically, armies have been around millenniums before the words 'democracy', 'parliament' and 'civil service' came about.

Democracies were created when the king ceded power to the people and, as in the US, the army won independence and created a democracy. US Congress and most parliaments follow Robert's Rules of Order - written by Gen Henry Martyn Robert - a US general! In nations whose independent history is not even the length of a human life, democracies have survived only where the army is apolitical. Like ours. Let's keep it that way.

There are unstated fears that the army is getting too big for its boots. The truth is that the army has already taken over this nation. They ensure that elections are held without fear. They are fighting on the borders, fighting insurgency (police work) within the borders, handling floods, earthquakes, tsunamis (all civil work), finishing stadiums and even winning medals.

They run some of the best schools, A-class medical and engineering colleges. Each institution - NDA, IMA, DSSC, AWC, NDC, HAWS and CIJWS - is AAA+ where the world comes to learn. Their cantonments match Singapore and Shanghai. Last but not least, their betis dominate Bollywood and beauty contests.

They are effectively in charge without sitting in 10, Janpath (Race Course Road and Rashtrapati Bhavan are rubber stamps) because the other arms of state have proved to be totally inept. Even babies falling in borewells trust only the army.

The no-love-lost relationship between the neta, babu and jawan goes back to pre-Independence days. The neta, of course, claims to have fought for Independence though the British knew which neta really fought and these were either bumped off, hounded out of the country or sent far away to the Andamans so that their josh, methods and patriotism, etc, didn't spread within the mainland.

Some netas contrived to get into jails like Nainital, Allahabad, Yerawada and so on from where they could write letters which became books. Unfortunately, it is this brand of netas who became leaders post-Independence and wrote history to suit themselves.

Many think that the army did not have a role to play in the Independence struggle. The truth is that two armies played a huge role in our Independence, deliberately not acknowledged. First, the Imperial Japanese Army that swept the British from Singapore to the tennis court of Deputy Commissioner Charles Pawsey's house in Kohima (hence the name, Battle of the Tennis Court) and showed that Asians can defeat Europeans on land too.

Earlier, the Japanese had demonstrated this on sea when in 1905 in Tsushima Bay, under Admiral Heihachiro Togo, they plastered the Russian Navy. And don't forget Pearl Harbor.

The second army that played a role in Independence was our own British Indian Army - by pushing the Japanese from the tennis court and culminating in the Second Battle of Sittang in July 1945, the last major land battle in WWII, they sent a terse and firm message to the British: you cannot rule Indians any more.

One institution sat pretty throughout the Independence struggle and the war with its contribution equal to zilch: the Indian Civil Service - the daddy of today's IAS. The neta, too busy holding annual talk-shops, was unprepared for Independence that was suddenly handed over within five months of Mountbatten's arrival.

The political leadership continued with British armed forces' chiefs and babus and the Prime Minister wanted them to continue for 15 years. So much for the preparedness of the political class for Independence, which they claim to have been 'fighting' for decades.

Thus, an unprepared neta class with a zero-contribution civil service were suddenly scared - and are - of the only force that had and still has not only a pan-India image, cohesion, organisation and efficiency that none can match, but also the respect and backing of the people. We elected the first elected Communist government; will we also have the first democratically-elected military government?!

Questions have been raised regarding the reorganisation of the armed forces and the defence ministry. Some have looked at the US Goldwater-Nichols Act model of 1986. But that requires a level of political and civil maturity and expertise that is unavailable here.

Further, that model is only suitable for a country that has no enemies on its borders and all campaigns are overseas. Here, with every inch of the border and even the coast a hot zone, we need a model that suits our problems.

The Railway model suggests itself. With a CoDS or chairman of the Defence Board (MoS status like NSA) at the helm with the chiefs and the defence secretary as members and everyone on the same side, we can avoid a repeat of today's tragicomedy. In fact, do we need a separate army, navy and airforce? Can we at least start integration by coinciding the borders of commands?

The defence budget will also be separate. What about indigenisation? One does not expect aircraft-carriers and planes - the huge investment and our minuscule demand makes it unnecessary - but what about rifles, bullets, bulletproof jackets, night-vision equipment, all-weather boots and small artillery?

Is 65 years too little even for this or is there a cabal among all sections that prefers status quo? Lastly, when defence equipment takes 10-20 years to design, develop, test and induct, you cannot do it with five-year plans and two-year chiefs/defence secretaries. We need a rolling modernisation and acquisition board with industry, armed forces, finance and other luminaries where one-third retires every five years.

Only then can a long-term perspective plan be developed, sustained and implemented. Otherwise, even if recent TV telecasts and newspaper headlines were rebroadcast/printed 10 years hence, they will still be relevant. Considering the status of the Kargil Report implementation - this is a safe bet. Any takers?