Indian Army: News & Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sanku » 11 Jan 2012 14:21

Surya wrote:Hell just froze over

Moi, ASP and Sanku on the same side :eek: :mrgreen:


I like to believe its the other way round Surya, we seldom disagree but on very few points (1 or 2?).

rajeshks
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 29 Dec 2007 22:43

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rajeshks » 11 Jan 2012 14:23

Austin wrote:At the same time Govt has every right to tell them to go if they wish to do so and if they loose confidence in these person who serve them at their pleasure .


Unfortunately this time it is the 'person who serve them' and the nation lost the confidence in 'them' (the government). If it was porkistan he could have asked 'them' to go.. but since he was born in a good country and in a good family he cant act like 'them'..

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 11 Jan 2012 14:27

ASPuar wrote:He can approach the SC directly, under Art 32. What is the problem with that? Art 14, 15 rights can be invoked. SC has plenary powers to restore the fundamental rights of a citizen. SC can issue a write of mandamus to direct the authorities to correct the dates. A writ of certiorari seems unlikely in such a case. And yes, quo warranto could be invoked to question the authority of MS Branch to make any changes.

CAT has no jurisdiction in Armed Forces matters, only AFT does.

Incidentally, high courts have far more far reaching powers of writ than SC.

@VIVS: The fact that the Chief, like every other government officer, serves at the Presidents pleasure does not mean that he can be dismissed at will, without good and sufficient reason. There is no implied or real threat here. Any action of the government can be challenged in the SC.


Generally in service matters writ is not accepted by SC easily. But then all the remedies in SC that I mentioned is under Art 32 and could be tried. Certiorari is to certify and SC can ask AG branch to certify all details and also certify who has the final authority to maintain personnel records in Army. But individual choice of remedy would depend on papers and legal advice.
As regards wider jurisdiction to HC that stems from 226 which is in the nature of direction Injunction besides writ order. Hence it is wider.

Dismissals are not arbitrary and there is due process. All Govt servants of Union enjoys protection under constitution but Govt does have absolute power to remove even without inquiry Art 311(2)(c)

AFT is equivalent of CAT for Armed forces.

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2400
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Yogi_G » 11 Jan 2012 14:37

Why specifically 2 years? Because we will have Agni-III and Agni-V cover in place by then? I am not able to understand. In fact as India and China start competing for resources real hostilities will only begin from that time period on. "Will the threat exist after 2 years" doesnt make sense to me. If it is about the agni cover, then we have to remember that the missile cover brought no respite to Pakistan during Kargil and after.

Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3418
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Kakkaji » 11 Jan 2012 23:31

ASPuar wrote:Asking "Will the China threat last more than two years", finance ministry blocks expansion of military capabilities.


My 1-2-3 reply to the MOF:

1. Will China exist after two years - yes

2. Will India exist after two years - yes

3. Therefore, the threat will exist after two years. :)

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sanku » 11 Jan 2012 23:43

Kakkaji wrote:
ASPuar wrote:Asking "Will the China threat last more than two years", finance ministry blocks expansion of military capabilities.


My 1-2-3 reply to the MOF:



My 1-2-3 reply to MOF

Dear Sir,

1) Will you be service of GoI after two years?

2) Do you want a sinecure from GoI after two years?

3) Do you really want to find out how your decisions panned out after two years?

With deepest regards
XYZ

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 11 Jan 2012 23:56

In two years UPA-II would be gone hence MOF is asking for threat perception two years down the line.

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sanku » 12 Jan 2012 00:45

chaanakya wrote:In two years UPA-II would be gone hence MOF is asking for threat perception two years down the line.


:rotfl:

Yes but the Babu has no such escape clause. :wink:

Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Airavat » 12 Jan 2012 07:27

A 2008 article in IE

It is learnt that in his original application to joint the Army, Singh’s date was wrongly entered due to a clerical error at his school. This mistake was subsequently corrected by Singh and the correct date of birth was confirmed and registered at the AG’s branch. But the MS branch, in charge of promotions, did not update the records even though Singh had been entering 1951 as his year of birth in all his annual appraisal forms. Sources say that despite repeated reminders, the MS branch did not change his date of birth.

It is learnt that General Deepak Kapoor today ordered a high-level inquiry into the matter to investigate the reasons behind the MS branch not updating Singh’s birth date in its records. The investigation will also establish whether the omission was a genuine mistake or a deliberate attempt by a certain section of officers to gain an advantage in selection to the Chief’s post in 2012-13.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Jan 2012 07:46

Airavat wrote:A 2008 article in IE

It is learnt that in his original application to joint the Army, Singh’s date was wrongly entered due to a clerical error at his school. This mistake was subsequently corrected by Singh and the correct date of birth was confirmed and registered at the AG’s branch. But the MS branch, in charge of promotions, did not update the records even though Singh had been entering 1951 as his year of birth in all his annual appraisal forms. Sources say that despite repeated reminders, the MS branch did not change his date of birth.

It is learnt that General Deepak Kapoor today ordered a high-level inquiry into the matter to investigate the reasons behind the MS branch not updating Singh’s birth date in its records. The investigation will also establish whether the omission was a genuine mistake or a deliberate attempt by a certain section of officers to gain an advantage in selection to the Chief’s post in 2012-13.


In fact I thought everyone knew this as they argued on this thread. There was also news that a particular teacher that Singh had falsified his DoB by a year. Will try and find that.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby krishnan » 12 Jan 2012 10:31

http://indianmilitarynews.wordpress.com ... rt-tenure/

Squabbling among generals over the age of Army chief General VK Singh has plunged to a new low, with a case of crude impersonation and forgery emerging in Pune. Investigators are frantically trying to trace one Rafique Shaikh, who forged papers to show that General Singh was born in 1949 as part of what is seen as a plot to shorten the tenure of the army chief.

The certificate with a forwarding letter from a Member of Parliament was sent to defence minister A K Antony and circulated among media to muddy the waters over General Singh’s age.

The Kirkee Cantonment Board in Pune filed a police case alleging that Shaikh forged General Singh’s “birth certificate” to show that he was born in 1949 and not in 1951 — the year of birth shown in the Army chief’s class X certificate. R C Jagtap, Chief Executive Officer of Kirkee Cantonment Board, in his police complaint has said “Mr Rafiq Shaikh with malafide intention submitted an application to obtain a certificate for his son” and used it to create the purported birth certificate of Gen Singh.

The birth certificate manufactured by Shaikh was riddled with loopholes, with a non-existent maternity home as his birth place. But it brought out the resolve of vested interests and a faction in the Army to push Singh out by May 2012.

At the root of the controversy is what General Singh has for years called a typo in his application to the Union Public Service Commission for admission to National Defence Academy. The teacher who filed the application for Singh entered 1950 as the year of his birth instead of 1951 as recorded in Class X certificate. The Supreme Court has laid down that details in the Class X certificate are to be treated as the relevant date for all official purposes. The discrepancy resulted in two dates of birth for Singh in the Army’s records. While the military secretary’s branch recorded 1950 as the year of birth based on the UPSC form, the adjutant general’s office maintained that it was 1951.

General Singh tried to get the anomaly rectified several times. Even the ministry of defence asked the Army to reconcile the records when the chief was being appointed a corps commander. Strangely, however, the divergence was allowed to persist.

A strong section in the Army as well as the defence ministry suspects that the controversy is now being exploited by vested interests hurt by some of the recent measures as well as patrons of some officers whose career prospects are better served by uncertainty over the succession order.

Defence Minister AK Antony has now stepped into the issue, in the wake of an RTI application, a law ministry opinion saying that Gen Singh’s birth year should be 1951, and several media reports. He has asked the ministry to carry out fresh verification, with orders to “go by records” and not to give any opinions. The MOD finding will have to be approved by the Cabinet Committee on Appointments, a senior MOD source said.

A legal opinion given by the ministry of law and justice too has said that General Singh’s birth year should be 1951. If this is accepted, then Northern Army Commander, Lt Gen KT Parnaik, would become the next chief in March 2013.

However, if the UPSC application showing 1950 as Singh’s year of birth is taken into consideration, then Lt Gen Parnaik would be eliminated from the race and Lt Gen Bikram Singh, currently heading the Eastern Command, will take the baton after Gen Singh retires in May 2012.

Feuds among the Army brass are hardly unknown. But what differentiates the current bout is the lengths travelled by those wishing Gen Singh to retire early. Retired officers have been circulating Gen Singh’s alleged birth certificates and select pages from documents, triggering suspicions whether heartburn over his tough actions are in play.

The measures taken by the Army chief on the Sukna and Adarsh scams have left behind a trail of bitterness, even generating a sense of betrayal.

nash
BRFite
Posts: 898
Joined: 08 Aug 2008 16:48

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nash » 12 Jan 2012 10:35

can't hope after this:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/will- ... on/898335/

Will China threat last 2 yrs? FinMin stalls military expansion

The second phase of the government’s ambitious military expansion plan — worth Rs 65,000 crore — has run into rough weather. The finance ministry has red-flagged the plan with detailed queries and sent it back to the defence ministry with a bizarre question: will the Chinese threat last more than two years?

While responses have been prepared explaining the impossibility of ascribing a time period to the threat or even speculating on what the situation will be two years from now, sources said, the political understanding is that the finance ministry is probably not keen to clear such a high-cost plan this financial year.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had given in-principle clearance last year to a five-year expansion plan, which involves fresh accretion of 89,000 troops with 400 officers — one of India’s biggest one-time military expansion efforts.

The plan includes setting up a new strike corps in Panagarh, West Bengal, along with two more divisions. An independent armoured brigade along with an artillery division will be part of the set-up. These plans were fast tracked after the Army conveyed to the PM that according to available intelligence, China has been rehearsing military action during a limited local offensive.


It was in this context that the proposal for a new mountain strike corps, pending for over a year with the defence ministry, suddenly acquired momentum with the PMO promptly clearing it.

Sources said the finance ministry has also blocked the second stage of expansion of India’s first Navy-only bases, INS Kadamba in Karwar along the Karnataka coast. This Rs 13,000-crore plan involves creating more than a dozen piers and more berths which will host, among other ships, India’s next aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, better known as Admiral Gorshkov, which is now being refurbished in Russia.
Last edited by nash on 12 Jan 2012 10:37, edited 1 time in total.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby krishnan » 12 Jan 2012 10:36

The min should forward the Q's to china

VinayG
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 19:02
Location: chicago

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby VinayG » 12 Jan 2012 11:58

time to get that lunatic FM out of his post for god sake why even defense deals would have to get clearance from FM if the DM himself have approved it , or does the FM is in dreamland thinking that the lizard will wag his tall and our armed forces will will need to fight wars with stick and stones. i just cant bloody believe it that pathetic jack a$$ FM had asked such a question :evil:

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12717
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 12 Jan 2012 12:18

VinayG wrote:time to get that lunatic FM out of his post for god sake why even defense deals would have to get clearance from FM if the DM himself have approved it , or does the FM is in dreamland thinking that the lizard will wag his tall and our armed forces will will need to fight wars with stick and stones. i just cant bloody believe it that pathetic jack a$$ FM had asked such a question :evil:


The problem is we don't have finance and where will the money come from?, the Govt has borrowed INR 40K crore extra. The JNU ding dings running our economy for the last 7 years while personally enriching themselves have ruined it. We cannot expect no consequence when the large scale loot, freebees and loan write offs have been happening left right and centre.

No point seperating FM , DM etc. its all one Government

We cannot fund programmes when our coffers are empty, thats why have we spent so much on C-17's, C-130's when the MMRCA was not purchased. We have a problem with priorities.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 12 Jan 2012 12:19

Sanku wrote:
chaanakya wrote:In two years UPA-II would be gone hence MOF is asking for threat perception two years down the line.


:rotfl:

Yes but the Babu has no such escape clause. :wink:


I know but MOF is asking essentially a threat perception assessment and query must be based on what would have been written as justification by Army and MOD.Probably MEA would have stated that China is our friend and surely we don't feel threatened by our "friends". Babuz would have built in escape clause and this question could not be asked by Babuz alone without confirming from FS and FM through EFC. :twisted: Talk of power tussle in corridors of power.

VinayG
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 19:02
Location: chicago

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby VinayG » 12 Jan 2012 12:27

Aditya_V wrote:We cannot fund programmes when our coffers are empty, thats why have we spent so much on C-17's, C-130's when the MMRCA was not purchased. We have a problem with priorities.


Aditya_V then how do we expect to save our nation from all the threats if we don't spend money were our defense PSU's lagging behind either we make or we have to buy we got no choice right now
i am not telling china is going to attack tomorrow or after 2 years but we need to be prepared for that we need to start now rather scratching our heads and buying weapons twice the price which was the story during kargil

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12717
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Aditya_V » 12 Jan 2012 12:41

I agree, but we have to pay for decisions taken as a nation few years before. Forces are the tip of the spear, the body is rotten and everything is seen from political viewpoint and our coffers are empty.

Lets look it now that GOI is facing a record deficit what choices are there
1. Spend anyway regardless of deficit, then inflation will shoot up along with interest rates and the GOI will be preety much in state of Greace, IMF will intervene and completely kill our defence programmes
2. Raise tax rates and fee charges (Indian Tax rates are Compared to Global levels very high- direct and indirect) which will lead to more black money and kill the economy further. This would further lower Tax collections
3. Can we cut Babu salaries or numbers- Political sucide
4. Can we reduce Kickbacks and hence cost of Government contracts in other departments- absolutely no Babu or Politico will agree.
5. Stop the extravagence in Freebees - Politically not advisable. Remember the like 2008 budget the 2013 budget is expected to have a lot of incentives for UPA-3.

So what GOI do, postpone the decision and pray Chinese don't attack. Easy option no. And look at the point, they are only bothered if the attack will materialize within the next 2 years and not after that.

In an Nutshell, we cannot isolate and blame the Finance Ministry alone. Finance ministry approval is also necessarily and no point just blaming the FM, and saying DM is great. Its whole GOI and those leading it who get credit and debit for decisions made along with the people who voted them in to power.

VinayG
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 19:02
Location: chicago

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby VinayG » 12 Jan 2012 12:55

Aditya agree with your points but what makes me angry and helpless because these fools are the first ones to run away and hide in bunkers in case of any attack where the men in uniform defending their country facing all odds. i know our babus are corrupt and never thought they are soo deep it started to rot from inside.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 24744
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 12 Jan 2012 15:51

Congo, Pakistan, and the Indian Army Chief imbroglio

Sandhya Jain
9 January 2012

The scandalous conduct of some Indian members of the UN Peacekeeping Mission in Congo, under the command of the then Major General Bikram Singh, may translate into major embarrassment for India at various international forums if the government abides by a covert ‘line of succession’ hinted by the Attorney General in his rather vacuous ‘opinion’ on the matter.

Islamabad (with helpful nudges from Beijing and other capitals reworking their ‘interests’ in the Asia-Pacific region) can be expected to exploit all propaganda about human rights violations in India – particularly in Jammu and Kashmir – to the hilt.

New Delhi should, in the circumstances, consider if the J&K Government’s decision to demand and continue to push for withdrawal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act from the State has been externally inspired by forces hoping to take advantage of Indian discomfort in the human rights arena.

Pertinent in connection with the ‘line of succession’ school of thought is the fact that the next in the line of succession, Lt Gen Bikram Singh, has a Pakistani daughter-in-law. While the lady may now be a naturalized Indian citizen (like Congress president Sonia Gandhi), the fact remains that Lt Gen Bikram Singh has had Pakistani relatives at critical phases of his service, and will continue to have Pakistani relatives at the peak of his career and beyond. This is not to cast any aspersions on the highly respected soldier, but it would be an understatement to say that the issue is causing grave concern in many quarters.

The Centre would in fact do well to review its whimsical policy on the matter of officers of the diplomatic and military services having foreign wives/spouses. In an era when the intelligence agencies of major nations are actively pursuing their strategic goals, the presence of foreign spouses entrenched in establishments where they have official duties is most undesirable.

As for Congo, it is a blot on the Indian Army’s glorious tradition of valour and gallantry in foreign lands, especially in UN Peacekeeping Missions. In 2007-08, the UN complained of the 6 Sikh Battalion fathering children with “distinctive Indian features,” which were reportedly confirmed by DNA tests conducted by UN in Durla, Congo. The allegations of misconduct cover 12 officers and 39 jawans, who reportedly paid minor girls in North Kivu for sex. The Congolese government further alleged that some Indian peacekeepers, instead of helping to protect civilians from violent militias, fraternized with rebel Tutsi general Laurent Nkunda.

The matter now rests with an army court of inquiry (CoI) in Meerut, which will share its findings with the UN as per rules. Army sources say a separate inquiry is going on against the unit’s commanding officer for failure to maintain discipline.

Chronicle of a Date of Birth

Currently, a new bench of the Supreme Court is examining a PIL filed by the Grenadiers Association, Rohtak Chapter [Writ Petition no. 513/2011] on the issue of whether or not the Union Government is empowered to change a person’s date of birth by tampering with the established record.

The controversy pertaining of Army Chief Gen. V.K. Singh’s date of birth is totally contrived and rests on the Military Secretariat’s failure to maintain its records correctly. This is the branch responsible for promotions, and seems to be the hotbed of internal politics.

Union Defence Minister A.K. Anthony – arguably the greatest Non Performing Asset of the ruling coalition – totally failed to perform his duty when he rejected the statutory complaint sent to him by Gen V.K. Singh asking for his date of birth to be reconciled. In fact, with his callous and cavalier manner of handling the entire issue, Mr. Anthony has become a party to the public humiliation of the Commander in Chief.

That the issue is a no-brainer can be seen from the established record:-

[1] Gen V.K. Singh was born on May 10, 1951 in the Military Hospital, Pune – and the hospital record on the event must be treated as immaculate.

[2] His birth was entered in the service record of his father (of 14 Rajput) – again this evidence cannot be argued with.

[3] This same date is reflected in his school leaving certificate and about 19 other documents such as Police Verification of age, which have been furnished by Gen. Singh.


So how did the controversy arise?

As a 14-year-old school boy, V.K. Singh’s teacher filled his application form for the UPSC exams for entry into the National Defence Academy, and erroneously entered his date of birth as May 10, 1950 [which does not amount to a legal document by any yardstick]. The young minor signed the form without noticing the error.

It may be noted that contrary to the stories being planted left and right by at least two anti-Singh factions, the General was eligible for the NDA in the event of either date of birth being true.

Prior to the Services Selection Board interview, his school leaving certificate, letter from his father’s unit indicating DoB and police verification of age were all sent to the UPSC board and he was ‘provisionally’ admitted to join the NDA pending receipt of the board examination certificate. The NDA and IMA records all reflect his date of birth uniformly as May 10, 1951.

All career records with the Adjutant General’s office, the official record keeper of the Army, also bear this date – in fact there is NO official record with a different date. The mistake is by the Military Secretary’s office which failed to update its records throughout the career of Gen Singh and now expects him to pay the price.

The controversy has brought to light the fact that a lobby in the Army had worked out a ‘line of succession’ long back, and Gen. V.K. Singh has long been a victim of this group. The barrage of media reportage – all hostile to Gen Singh – reveals that when Singh was a Major General waiting to be promoted to Lt. Gen., the discrepancy in his birth year in documents held by the Adjutant General’s office and Military Secretary’s office was noticed by army headquarters. An entrenched lobby got active and forced Gen Singh to sign an undertaking that he would abide by 1950 as his year of birth and not petition for it to be changed to 1951!


This is clearly mala fide in law and intent, and Gen Singh obviously signed under duress to get his legitimate due. Whosoever was the Defence Secretary each time Gen Singh signed an agreement to abide by a false date of birth must be called publicly to account for his conduct, and apologize for this act of malfeasance.

In his opinion to the Government of India, the Attorney General suggested that Gen Singh be forced to accept the 1950 date so as not to disturb the ‘line of succession’. :(This again is macabre and mala fide; if this is the level of the senior most law officer in the country, we clearly need a new Attorney General. And if Mr. Anthony cannot do justice in a case where the legal record is so crystal clear, maybe we also need a new Defence Minister.

Indeed, this is the crux of the PIL now pending before the Supreme Court – can a Government diktat alter a person’s Date of Birth? Hitherto, the Supreme Court has upheld the matriculation certificate as adequate proof of age [Gen. Singh has much more, as shown above].

This is also the view of at least three former Supreme Court judges. Former Air Chief Fali Homi Major’s assertion that Gen Singh should not move the apex court for justice while in office is officious and unwarranted and harms the famed neutrality of the armed forces. Since the two men also belong to different services (army, air force), this suggests a quest for a political sinecure; Fali Homi Major would have done well to maintain silence.

Ultimately, all blame for the unseemly controversy lies with A.K. Anthony. He has denied justice to a soldier, divided the ranks, and failed to perform his duty. Informed sources suggest the Minister is being guided by bureaucrats and some former Army officers who were targeted by Gen Singh in corruption cases.

‘Honest’ Anthony has neither law nor morality on his side. He would do well to jettison his advisors, step up to the plate, and make amends in the name of justice and fair play. Army Day on January 15 would be an appropriate time.

Else, the Prime Minister should intervene and resolve the issue without further delay, so we can celebrate the Republic in peace.

The author is Editor, http://www.vijayvaani.com

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Jan 2012 16:14

Without saying anything on the issue of his DoB the COAS had to say the following during his annual press conference

"Will desist from answering any questions on my age debate. No point vitiating the way things are."
.
"Reprehensible that spins are being given to my motives in this (age) issue. I dont want to get involved in it."
.
"Right from the time this issue came up, it has been tackled by me in organisational interest."


Quote of the Day:
"Vested interests at play. We know who these people are. Unfortunately they cannot remain hidden." ~ COAS


it falls in line with my opinion that skeletons will fall out.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 12 Jan 2012 16:27

Aditya_V wrote:No point seperating FM , DM etc. its all one Government

We cannot fund programmes when our coffers are empty, thats why have we spent so much on C-17's, C-130's when the MMRCA was not purchased. We have a problem with priorities.


True and most people here would have hard time understand that.

We cannot spend when we have such a huge borrowing with high budget deficit and so many social programs that will take a life of its own in the election year plus last couple of years expensive buy.

I suspect once the MMRCA deal is cleared we will have to wait for a long time till the next big ticket item which will only come when the next government comes in and hopefully the current one does not ruin our coffers.

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Jan 2012 16:36

^^pandyan, you can read this for a better picture.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2795655.ece

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 12 Jan 2012 16:36


Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sanku » 12 Jan 2012 20:16

TimesNow says that its sources are pretty clear that CoAS is not going to take the nonsense lying down.

http://www.timesnow.tv/Chief-unsettled- ... 393485.cms

Rolling screen says Gen V.K. Singh says its a matter of "honor and integrity"

tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby tejas » 13 Jan 2012 00:15

Time for the lungi wearing dolts to be told they are wearing no clothes. Antony is one India's worst Raksha Mantris ever and that is saying a lot.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 13 Jan 2012 00:17

Its a matter of honor and integrity for the whole nation that India is country that follows the right path or way. Not just the Army chief.

I wonder at the mental balance of the Attorney General who suggests accepting the worng date of birth record of the Mil Secy which is clearly in the wrong. He should have given the right advice based on legal priniciples and let the politicians make the political call. Why is he taking the hit?

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8308
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 13 Jan 2012 00:22

Sanku wrote:Rolling screen says Gen V.K. Singh says its a matter of "honor and integrity"

I hear several government officials were seen secretly checking their dictionaries for the meanings of these unfamiliar words. :mrgreen:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 13 Jan 2012 01:27

The media attack dogs keep harping on the 'controversy' where there is no issue. Either self directed sensing a story or being guided by political minders.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 13 Jan 2012 04:06

Interesting headline from Telegraph paper...

Army Chief keeps quit option

If you read the article how do you get the headline? Unless its to shape the news?

We are spot on, on the India Today hatchet job.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2472
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 13 Jan 2012 06:23

'Army able to launch faster response against Pakistan'
:
:
Gen Singh came closer than any other government official, while describing the widely speculated Indian warfighting doctrine popularly referred to as “Cold Start”. “There is nothing like Cold Start. But we have a ‘proactive strategy’ which takes steps in a proactive manner so that we can achieve what our doctrines and strategies (demand),” he said.

This doctrine learns from Operation Parakram, when the military mobilised for war against Pakistan after the terror strike on the Parliament in New Delhi on December 13, 2001.
:
:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 13 Jan 2012 07:40

Its more like Running Start with forces already available and reinforced with strike corps to exploit advances.

So it cuts the TSP hope that Indian retaliation will need time to muster. So in that sense its a stabilizing posture towards preventing overt TSP based terrorism.

With this terrorism is mainly a Internal Security issue.

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby abhishek_sharma » 13 Jan 2012 07:43


rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7745
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 13 Jan 2012 10:43

ramana wrote:Its more like Running Start with forces already available and reinforced with strike corps to exploit advances.

So it cuts the TSP hope that Indian retaliation will need time to muster. So in that sense its a stabilizing posture towards preventing overt TSP based terrorism.

With this terrorism is mainly a Internal Security issue.



ramana, the most interesting part of the article is this:

Gen Singh noted that “a lot of changes” had taken place since 2001. “In the next two years, even more changes will take place. We have done studies and made a plan to speed up deployments. We will have some new cantonments, forward locations…and changes in the method of mobilisation. From Parakram, there are a lot of changes. What we did in 15 days, we now do in seven; and will do in three days in the future,” he explained



ramana, just read the above with what I had shared over the mail. Post 2001, IA is a transformed force.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby merlin » 13 Jan 2012 10:55

ramana wrote:The media attack dogs keep harping on the 'controversy' where there is no issue. Either self directed sensing a story or being guided by political minders.


I would put all my money on the "guided" by political minders. As in lifafa.

Badar
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Badar » 13 Jan 2012 13:04

ramana wrote:Its more like Running Start with forces already available and reinforced with strike corps to exploit advances.

So it cuts the TSP hope that Indian retaliation will need time to muster. So in that sense its a stabilizing posture towards preventing overt TSP based terrorism.

With this terrorism is mainly a Internal Security issue.


It is also a destabilizing posture with respect to conventional warfare as Pakistan no longer has the comfort of monitoring buildup to tell when a attack is real.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 13 Jan 2012 20:59


Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Surya » 13 Jan 2012 21:28

It is also a destabilizing posture with respect to conventional warfare as Pakistan no longer has the comfort of monitoring buildup to tell when a attack is real


or a stablizing posture - beware and do not do something stupid or you will pay a price

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 13 Jan 2012 22:49

Badar, I see it as a stabilizing posture for now TSP has to think twice before sending terrorists to attack Indian state symbols of power as they did in 2001: J&K Assy and then the Lok Sabha.

Off course internal terrorist are another matter and is a internal security matter.

In one way the IA under VKS has reduced the potential for external terror strikes from TSP.

Earlier stance of deploying troops in far away cantonments gave teh TSP enough margin to indulge in terrorists attacks and rely on Internaltional intervention by waving the nuke flash point red rag to stave of the retaliation.


Three days or 72 hours is good to reinforce and exploit advances of the already assembled holding corps.


This is conventional deterrence at play as I wrote in 1999 BR Monitor article. Keeps the threshold high.

Badar
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Badar » 13 Jan 2012 23:40

ramana wrote:Badar, I see it as a stabilizing posture for now TSP has to think twice before sending terrorists to attack Indian state symbols of power as they did in 2001: J&K Assy and then the Lok Sabha ... Earlier stance of deploying troops in far away cantonments gave teh TSP enough margin to indulge in terrorists attacks and rely on Internaltional intervention by waving the nuke flash point red rag to stave of the retaliation.

This is conventional deterrence at play as I wrote in 1999 BR Monitor article. Keeps the threshold high.


hmm, I see your logic but I am not convinced.

Is conventional warfare really credible as retaliation to a terrorist attack? Yes the US/Israel did it, but to what end? I use the word credible as both useful (to india), believable and bad enough to deter.

Are the people deterred by conventional might on a trigger-hair also the same who help execute the terrorist strikes? If a terrorist strike is all that is needed to trigger a conventional war then there are enough nihilists in the world who would love to exploit that situation; even if the ISI/PA movers and shakers were deterred.

Assume a terrorist incident has occurred and the army moves in and occupies swaths of territory? What happens next? What's the end game like - Gaza?Iraq?Afghanistan? Or does the enemy says "oh sorry" wont do it again? If loss of territory was such a deterrent and not an incitement for further mischief why did'nt '71 finally solve that problem?

I am just worried about the Guns of August scenario. Perhaps aerial punitive strikes are the way to go?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 52 guests