<SNIP> Mr. Vats..definitely my source is Outlook .....I just read article about this ....What i find unacceptable..is that officers were first asked to go to leh ..then were sent to hashimara torture cells ..how can u lie and do this to ur very own people.... If some of the the officers did committed some acts , unbecoming of an officer ..Court Martial them and ask them first , and if proven guilty make them to put down their n papers..I guess we are not IRAQ or some ARAB kind of air force...I think we are the only AF in the world which has committed act like this !!!
The OUTLOOK article looks reliable to me as it includes various specific examples , dates , names and figures...For eg ..Mr. Nagesh just wrote a letter and for this he was punished ..how can one justify this....??
I started looking article on this stuff after my friend who is in IAF mentioned this and what i , accidently , found comes as a rude shock to me as i am all set to
Join IAF in coming JAN 2012 in Technical branches ...seriously now having second thoughts to join or not !!!
To begin with, you can cut out the "Mr." part - no offense but it is irritating.
Now, coming to Outlook, well, I have followed that magazine for many years now and invariably, if there is ever a hit job of the worst kind, it appears in the Outlook. They made every possible effort to tarnish the image the an ex-CNS some time back by printing cock-and-bull stories in edition after editions, knowing fully well that the said person, governed and guided by rules of his service, is in no position to fight back. And, I do know a thing or two about Services to seperate wheat from chaff. So, if I have reservations about Outlook and stories it prints, I have my reasons.
I guess, this is article you've been reading: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?205376
Now, I can blow 10K holes into that story but that would be wastage of time and effort. For a simple reason that, it tells only what seems sensational. That article is meant to generate the very feelings you're expressing by selectively quoting facts. The story only 'alleges', paints a scenario of grave torture and subjugation and and you've bought the story hook-line and sinker.
But let me ask you to do something - try and find a follow up article in Outlook on this very issue or, see if they take this topic to its logical conclusion and let the readers know as to what happened in the end. And please, do share with us if you find anything.
Coming to what happened during the said time period - please understand one thing before hand - In Services, along with other related government agencies, some of your fundamental rights, guaranteed under constituions, are suspended. Even slightest of deviation from the accepted rules and regulations can land you in trouble. Let me give you an example - an officer was subjected to Court of Inquiry because he went to location X which was 35kms from his unit location on sunday
w/o telling his unit.
Compared to the above, what the officers in technical and tpt wing did (going slow) is something unparalleled in history of Services - save for the mutiny by Sikh troops in 1984. Most of the officers were punished/pulled up for this...people have lost their jobs in the Services for much less. Yes, it is very likely that some of them got engulfed in the developments, but others did get what they deserved. There is no amount of justification - Pay Commission, or no Pay Commission - for what these men did. Being in the uniform, and having taken an oath, you do not, repeat do not, do anything to jeopardize the safety of the Nation. Pure and Simple.
Please read this article in the very same Outlook on what men, and their wives, did:http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?204850
If you trust the same Outlook article in terms of treatment to Officers, I hope you will accept the acts of commissions and ommissions by these same officers as given in this article.
And if you really want to read a balanced article on what happened, please read this:http://iaf00.tripod.com/pay.html
An excerpt on your Officer, Mr. Nagesh:
The IAF top brass finally cracked the whip. Wing Commander K.R. Nagesh, an electronics engineer and the most prominent rebel in the force, was arrested and placed under custody for dereliction of duty on January 22, 1998. His crime: he led the IAF's engineering and technical cadres in an unprecedented protest strike in December. For the first time in the history of the Indian Air Force, a wing commander faced a court martial for protesting against pay disparities. Nagesh fought back, he approached the Delhi high court with a writ petition challenging the IAF's 'system of disciplinary action' which, he said, amounted to abject human rights violation. After 16 days being held in custody at the IAF's Palam air force base in New Delhi, Nagesh was released on February 7. IAF spokesperson Squadron Leader R.K. Dhingra said that the authorities were forced to take extreme action after a near mutiny by ground duty officers -- engineers and technical cadres -- badly hit several air force bases across the country. Dhingra said there is nothing new in the system of disciplinary action and court of inquiry against Nagesh. "We have recorded evidence against Nagesh. Now a competent authority within the IAF will decide what action should be taken against him,'' he said. The IAF official argued that the action should not be seen as ''an excess from the air force wing.'' ''The IAF is a disciplined organisation and we have to live with it,'' he added.
Please read this from Indian Express dated Fen 04, 1998: http://www.indianexpress.com/Storyold/20643/
NEW DELHI, February 3: The Delhi High Court today upheld the legality of the detention of Wing Commander Nagesh by the Indian Air Force and dismissed a habeas corpus alleging that the detention was illegal and coercive in nature.
A division bench comprising Justice Devinder Gupta and Justice N.G. Nandi while dismissing the public interest litigation said the officer was detained "under lawful authority. As the person has been detained under lawful authority, there was no reason for the court to interfere in the matter''. The bench, however, observed, "Such detentions should not be harsher than what is required.'' A petition filed by Sqn Ldr (rtd) J.S. Puniya and V.J. Dabas alleged that Wng Cmdr Nagesh was put under `close detention' for giving a representation against the huge disparity of pay between pilots and ground duty officers.
Appearing for IAF, Rakesh Tiku and Rekha Palli pointed out that the detention was fully within the powers provided under the Air Force Act and that summary of evidence has already began in the case of `wilful disobedience' shown by Nagesh. Tiku further said the detention has already been challenged by Nagesh before a single judge bench in the High Court hence the habeas corpus was not maintainable.