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.
Roperia
BRFite
Posts: 778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Roperia » 23 Feb 2012 04:40

No doubt Bengalis won againt the Pak-jabis but IA's help was critical else that Genocide of SDREs by TFTA was going to continue for sometime atleast. The genocide in Balochistan and FATA continue to this day, nothing that the fierce tribals/pashtuns can do in front of better equipment and training.

Vietnam War - Stats from wiki
North Vietnam & NLF 1,176,000 dead
United States of America 58,220 dead
Republic of Vietnam 220,357 – 316,000 dead

The only conclusion I can try from here is that North Vietnamese lost every battle but indeed won the war.

My only point was some on this forum, deliberately took pot-shots at others ethnicity while somehow suggesting that they belong to the region of "viraat" hindus.
Last edited by Roperia on 23 Feb 2012 04:46, edited 1 time in total.

Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2233
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Rony » 23 Feb 2012 04:44

Arun Roperia wrote:Calling someone else's opinion as unintelligible, BS and dumb shows the level the above poster (Rony) has stooped to put forward his point.


Where did i called him unintelligent and dumb personally ? Please show me where did i say that. I said that his views (about martial race and his equating those people who are against this nonsense thory as somehow anti-sikh and hence against secularism) are BS which i dont see as personnal attack.

Arun Roperia wrote:Quoting 700 years old civilizations to prove the capabilities of one's own people, while dismissing with disdain even the modern history of northern India only exposes the selective use of history that taints the poster's argument.


You are again quoting me wrong. Where did i shown a 'disdain' about modern history of Norethern India ? Give me exact quotes please ! I "quoted 700 years of old civilization" to prove my point that different regions of India displayed "martial" (what ever that means) qualities in different periods of time. If some northies displayed martial qualities in modern history, some southis displayed it in anceint history.Thats the whole point i was making. 'Who is martial and who is not' depends on which period you are talking about and for how long. If southies are martial at some point of time, the northies are martial at some other point of time.

Arun Roperia wrote:The dynasties that are being quoted here are before the time Muslims invaded India


So history starts from muslim invasions ? What about Shakas, Hunas and other barbarians from central asia who invaded India in pre - islamic era.What about people who fought in south east asia in medeival times for their empire? They are not martial enough ? Oh btw, not all the dynasties which i mentioned are pre-islamic. The vijayanagar empire is famous presicely because it acted as a bulkwark against islamic intrusions.

Arun Roperia wrote:Without going too much into the past, it is a fact that even in modern India a large number of Jaats serve in the Indian Army, including the Jat Regiment, Rajputana Rifles, Sikh Regiment and the Grenadiers. Jats even today prefer to go for either agriculture or soldiering as their profession. They have proved in pre and post independence periods that they are fearless soldiers (Refer The Brave People). As farmers, we value our physical strength and work industriously on our lands. These professions are labour intensive jobs and hence there is a degree of strength and perseverance that comes with being a Jat.


All this is fine and dandy but irrelevant to my point. I never disputed that Jats, sikhs and what ever you want to include in that list are not "martial enough". My point is this whole martial theory nonsense from sikhs, jatts etc etc northies looks so immature and childish . There were plenty of times where i had hearty laughs and mocked Pakjabis and Pathans (both in real life and online) for their facination with this nonsense. Never thought some Indian northies too would fall for this charade.

Roperia
BRFite
Posts: 778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Roperia » 23 Feb 2012 04:56

Rony wrote:Where did i called him unintelligent and dumb personally ? Please show me where did i say that. I said that his views (about martial race and his equating those people who are against this nonsense thory as somehow anti-sikh and hence against secularism) are BS which i dont see as personnal attack.


Wouldn't you concede that there was a mature way to disagree with him?

Rony wrote:You are again quoting me wrong. Where did i shown a 'disdain' about modern history of Norethern India ? Give me exact quotes please ! I "quoted 700 years of old civilization" to prove my point that different regions of India displayed "martial" (what ever that means) qualities in different periods of time. If some northies displayed martial qualities in modern history, some southis displayed it in anceint history.Thats the whole point i was making. 'Who is martial and who is not' depends on which period you are talking about and for how long. If southies are martial at some point of time, the northies are martial at some other point of time.

Arun Roperia wrote:The dynasties that are being quoted here are before the time Muslims invaded India

Rony wrote:
So history starts from muslim invasions ? What about Shakas, Hunas and other barbarians from central asia who invaded India in pre - islamic era.What about people who fought in south east asia in medeival times for their empire? They are not martial enough ? Oh btw, not all the dynasties which i mentioned are pre-islamic. The vijayanagar empire is famous presicely because it acted as a bulkwark against islamic intrusions.


Sikhism was founded during the 15th century and jaats migrated to their present day home (Haryana/Punjab/Rajastha) in 15th-18th centuries only. May be we have nothing to compare before that time. :)

I hope we can all move to discussions related to IA.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4761
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Yayavar » 23 Feb 2012 06:21

Arun Roperiaji - possibly came from Sindh??

Can we take Jats or others being best or not to some other place, hopefully off BRF. Please glance through the list of bravery awards - civilian and military- and you will find that all of Indians are equally martial and brave.
So can we drop this discussion now?

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5115
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby devesh » 23 Feb 2012 06:27

sometimes it is good to get into these useless but very enlightening debates. basically reminds us that the vestiges of imperial slavery still remain with us. like that "madrasan" girl's blog post few months ago, which was filled with cheap shots and animal droppings of the most smelly kind. and of course, some posters claiming that "south Indians" are "resentful" of "North Indians". Punjabis, especially Sikhs, should visit Andhra and take some time to understand the local language. they will truly realize that in that part of the country people have the most idealized and romanticized vision of Sikhs. seriously, this isn't a lie. try to befriend an Andhra person and subtly probe into his/her opinion on Sikhs, what you are going to get is perhaps the most idealized image of "good" and "brave".

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4792
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby SBajwa » 23 Feb 2012 06:45

Devesh!! most of the Sikhs are not like what you think!! or what is stereotype. BR is full of Arm chair generals who can't/won't run a mile but have vast ranging opinions about Indian defense forces. Opinions are like ******* everybody got one. The real martial people are those who are serving and have taken oath to protect their land!!!

Age old stereotypes of Rice vs Wheat, Meat vs. Daal, Tall vs Short! do not apply in 2012!!!

India has become a very cohesive in last 20+ years!! I have a tenant (in mohali) from Kerala and previous one was from Bihar. So these age old stereotypes about "Tall vs Short" and "fighter vs non-fighter" do not hold.

But there are still some traditions where some parents are proud of their children serving the country in armed forces others are scared!!

Some parents are very proud (Capt. Saurabh Kalia, Capt. Vikram Batra, etc) of their Martyred children.

That's the difference between "Martial and non-Martial" Martial is where parents don't cry after their son(and now daughters too) have sacrificed their life while protecting their Matrabhoomi(motherland). Non-martials will be reluctant to even join the forces. BTW.. Once again talking about Martial vs. Non-Martial I know several people from Haryana and Punjab who migrate to Gujarat just to get enlisted into Indian defense forces.


Now!! I don't know whether we can classify the police, home guards and even security guards as "Martial"

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 434
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby aditp » 23 Feb 2012 06:52

Brake on VK blueprint

SUJAN DUTTA
New Delhi, Feb. 21: The Centre has mothballed army chief Gen. V.K. Singh’s ambitious programme to reform and restructure the military from the headquarters downwards.

Gen. Singh calls the reform programme to make the army leaner and faster “transformation”. The ideas were borne out of a two-year study when he was the Eastern Army commander before taking over as the chief. The study was conducted along with Lt Gen. A.K. Singh, currently the Southern Army commander.

The programme essentially has three pillars:

Bring the Corps of Electronics and Mechanical Engineers (EME), the Army Service Corps (ASC) and the Army Ordnance Corps (AOC) under a single “logistics branch”

Integrate officers of the rank of major general with the air force and the navy — and likewise accommodate air vice-marshals and rear admirals in the army (cross-posting) — to make joint operations simpler to execute

Raise two mountain corps (each of about 30,000 troops) to be deployed along the disputed border with China.

The proposals were sent by the army headquarters to the government after the “Sudarshan Shakti” exercise by the 21 (strike) Corps in Rajasthan in December that Lt Gen. Singh had described as the “testbed for transformation”.

The ministry has now asked the army headquarters to “review and re-analyse” the idea of “transformation”. It has questioned whether the mergers of the EME, ASC and AOC were feasible and desirable. On the proposal to cross-post major general-equivalent officers in each of the three armed forces, the ministry wants the concurrence of the navy and the air force.

The raising of two mountain corps — which would mean expanding the infantry — has essentially run into objections from financial advisers and the finance ministry. Two new mountain divisions (totalling about 25,000 troops) are already being raised in the Northeast.

In the army headquarters, an officer associated with the programme said “there seems to be a reluctance in the government to understand modern military concepts”.

The architects of the reform programme believe that the duties of the ASC and the AOC often overlap and bureaucratise military deployment. The ASC is responsible for transporting and distributing supplies to keep the 1.3-million-strong army going. A third of the army is actively deployed on border and counter-insurgency duties.

The ordnance corps is tasked to ensure that stores are available to all units — fuel, fodder, needles, tanks, uniforms, helmets, guns, vehicles, night vision devices, bullets, bombs — the whole paraphernalia of war.

The Corps of EME is tasked to keep weapons, radars, sensors and equipment fighting-fit in the hinterland as well as in forward locations.

The EME, the ASC and the AOC are non-combat arms but are forward-deployed. Without their services, the battalions, brigades, divisions and corps — the field formations — would not operate.

Gen. Singh apparently wanted the three logistics branches to be broken down into smaller contingents that would be integrated into the combat units (teeth) of the army and shorten the supply line (tail) so that deployment could be faster.

In military jargon, he was proposing to reduce the “teeth-to-tail” ratio.

In 2001, for example, it took about a month for the army to be fully deployed along the border with Pakistan under “Operation Parakram” after the attack on Parliament. At a news conference leading to Army Day (January 15) last month, Gen. Singh had claimed after “Exercise Sudarshan Shakti” that deployment time was now down to about 15 days on the western front.

The ASC and the AOC — the inventory, supplies and transport corps of the army — are frequently plagued by corruption cases. A former chief of the ASC, headed by a lieutenant general, is waging a battle in Delhi High Court to stave off a court martial.

Roperia
BRFite
Posts: 778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Roperia » 23 Feb 2012 06:52

Devesh ji,

The charge you levied is uncalled for and I think it is important to disabuse that. You should have read the fitting reply to that blog post as well. Let me post it for your reference 'Tis the season for open letters

If you browse to the comment section, you'll find what you called as "cheap shots and animal droppings of the most smelly kind" from the people who took "madrasan" girl's blog a little too seriously.

Every community takes pride in its history and that shouldn't be interpreted by others as disrespect towards them.

Viv ji,

I'm all for suspending this discussion but some on this forum should stop taking pot-shots at others ethnicity while somehow suggesting that they belong to the region of "viraat" hindus.

Many on this forum suggested that they are equally aggressive and possess the same physical strength than any Jaat or Sikh. I completely agree but I also assert that statistically

1. most wars in Indian modern History have been fought in northern India.

2. The Jaats/Sikhs who make 2% each of our country's populations are very passionate about Indian military and enlist in large numbers.

We're proud of our contribution but some here have started taking offence to these figures and have started quoting empires/dynasties from Middle Ages to prove that they are as aggressive and strong as their fellow compatriots from the north (something that I never questioned).
Last edited by Roperia on 23 Feb 2012 07:18, edited 4 times in total.

kunalverma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 07 Sep 2011 22:01

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby kunalverma » 23 Feb 2012 06:55

Wow, can't believe how easily and quickly this forum has degenerated into a name calling, slanging match!
I've said this before, and I say it again, every region has produced some outstanding fighters. It's wonderful to take pride in ones achievements and traditions, but its vitally important to look at the whole picture. More importantly, we have to stop looking at Military History through narrow prisims.
SinghSardar, let me give you an example: Shivaji in the West was fighting the Mughals at around the same time as the Assamese under Lachit Borphukan were taking on the same opposition in the East. Shivaji fought a battle of attrition with reasonable success, while the Ahoms thrashed the Mughals decisively at Saraighat. So dramatic was the defeat, that no army ventured into the area again. At the end of the day, Shivaji's name is known to every child while the Borphukan is not.
Similarly, there are hundreds of such actions - at first it looked like some guys were needling you and you were getting all chuffed up. Don't you realise you almost sound like a caricature. Rise above it pal - you remind me of a Sikh soldier who once told me that south of the Sutlej lay Delhi and beyond that there existed only 'tambis'!
Anyway, I suggest everyone take a chill pill!

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9656
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby abhishek_sharma » 23 Feb 2012 07:05

Two days ago I said that we should end this discussion. Lock this thread for 24 hours and warn anyone who starts discussing this issue again.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5115
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby devesh » 23 Feb 2012 07:05

SBajwa ji,
I know. and you need not worry. My post was simply to show that the North vs South extremes are present on both sides. I don't think negatively of Sikhs just b/c some poster on BRF said something. I lived in Delhi for a crucial period of my youth and have enough memories of good friendships from that time to not be taken in easily by online nonsense. in the same way, neither are all south indians like the girl who made that vitriolic blog post a few months ago. that is merely one extreme.

generally speaking, I personally think that the martial/non-martial BS has been give a lot of credence based on the participation rates in IA. never mind that the present IA continued from British times and therefore the practices of Brits got imprinted on BIA. on a deeper note, the lesser participation of the 4 southern states in IA, in the non-officer (vast majority) bulk is b/c of the post-1565 history. till that point, just like rest of India, South Hindus were highly militarized. one could even say that between 1350 and 1565, South Hindus were more militarized and "martial" than any other region in India.

Any hope for rectifying this imposed de-militarization in independent India was lost when power passed into the hands of an elite establishment which was already suspicious of "militarization" and was resentful that they had to accommodate, at least partially, to the interests of groups that were heavily numbered in IA. they wouldn't have wanted this militarization to be regained by that part of the country which lost it in the past 400 years.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5115
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby devesh » 23 Feb 2012 07:07

abhishek_sharma wrote:Two days ago I said that we should end this discussion. Lock this thread for 24 hours and warn anyone who starts discussing this issue again.



why the rage saar? I think this is good. it gives an opportunity to take a look at controversial beliefs. it should be encouraged. at some point, we have to confront these issues. we can't just pretend that they don't exist and hide our heads in the sand. why such fear of debate about "controversial" stuff? I think it's quite healthy to have these fist throwing matches every one in awhile as long as they don't get overtly abusive.

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9656
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby abhishek_sharma » 23 Feb 2012 07:13

The problem is that sometimes people are not thinking clearly and deeply. Everyone uses Lahori logic a few times (including me). And these mistakes spoil the image of one region/group in the eyes of others. Given the imperfect nature of this world, discussing controversial issues is a bad idea, IMO.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4792
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby SBajwa » 23 Feb 2012 07:14

bottom line!! Martial are those who are Brave and non-Martial are those who are Cowards!! now you can find these distinct varieties in all species (irrespective of their color, food, origin, history, stereotypes,etc)!! let alone humans!!

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17089
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 23 Feb 2012 07:19

Received by email.

An open letter addressed to the Prime Minister from Lt Gen V K (Tubby) Nair forwarded as received.

Respected Prime Minister,
Most people, including myself, believe that old soldiers should just fade away. Ever since retiring from the Indian Army as the Western Army Commander and subsequently having served as the Governor of Manipur and Nagaland, I firmly held that we have had our innings and matters were best left to those who followed us. However, after giving it considerable thought, I take the liberty in all due respect of writing this 'open letter' to my Prime Minister for like hundreds and thousands of my brother officers - both retired and serving - I am deeply concerned about what today is talked about as the 'Age Controversy'!
In my book, leadership, be it in matters military or otherwise, is based on three simple principles - righteousness, decisiveness and fairness! All three of these seem to have been vitiated in this particular case. There is no doubt that all records, both in the MS and AGs branch, until 2006 clearly reflected 1951 as the Chiefs date of birth. Based on an erroneous entry in the Army List, after the officer had already been cleared for the rank of Lieutenant General, first the MS branch records and then the AGs records were tampered with. To my mind and understanding, this is the simple crux of the issue and I fail to understand what sort of message has been given to the rank and file of the Indian Army by your Government’s inability to resolve this issue.
To hide behind the legal system – the retraction of the Government’s rejection of the Statutory Complaint frankly left the Chief’s lawyers with no choice but to withdraw their petition – and for the media and your Government to project this as a defeat for General VK Singh is indulging in theatrical politics. Like many of my brother officers, after the media blitz that reported on the Supreme Court’s deliberations, I too felt that the Chief should immediately resign in protest. However, once the Order of the Honourable Court came out five days later – without any TV channel or newspaper reporting it – the shoe seems to be on the other foot. By not resigning and continuing with his job despite what was widely projected as a ‘public humiliation’, VK Singh has shown a degree of personal courage that makes me proud of the man and by extension, the Indian Army. Had he resigned, it would have been a petulant act. We must not forget that there
is a lot more to the office of the COAS than just the age issue.
Today, Mr Prime Minister, many would like to burry this issue and may accuse me of flogging a dead horse. However, it is my duty as an elder who has served my country to the best of my ability, to point out to you that once the smoke settles, you will be asked why you let this happen. In a system that is reeling from endless corruption charges, where many have learnt to bend with the wind, one man stood up for what he considered wrong. The ‘system’ may have closed in around him and in the short term, defeated him by denying him justice. But you, Mr Prime Minister, are today being seen as the person who is not only shielding the perpetuators of this original crime, but also protecting the beneficiary of this blatant manipulation.
I have had the honour of interacting with you when you were the Finance Minister of our country. I have always found you to be a man who could quickly grasp the larger picture and resolutely follow your convictions. Since Independence, the civil-military equation in this country has evolved in its own unique way, perhaps creating certain imbalances which need to be looked at for like the ‘age issue’, these too cannot be wished away. In a fractured and fragmented country that came together in 1947 as the Union of India, I can say with great pride that the Indian Army managed to retain its secular and non-communal outlook. This has to be protected at all costs! In your watch, if all the lions were to get up and go, the wind will say, I told you so!
Lt General VK Nayar, PVSM,SM(retd)


Does anybody have access to the full order of the Supreme court on this issue? If so, can the link be posted please.

Arav
BRFite
Posts: 141
Joined: 03 Aug 2011 15:38

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Arav » 23 Feb 2012 07:26

Chetakji the letter has been posted by Kunali ji in the previous page. Even the court judgement is somewhere there in last 3 or 4 Pages. It has got lost in this Martial race campaign...(I dont have idea how to link that one here)

kunalverma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 07 Sep 2011 22:01

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby kunalverma » 23 Feb 2012 07:35

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 26 OF 2012
 
                                     
                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 
                   CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
 
            WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 26 OF 2012
 
 
VIJAY KUMAR SINGH                                         Petitioner(s)
 
                                VERSUS
 
UNION OF INDIA                                            Respondent(s)
 
 
 
 
                            O   R   D     E   R
 
 
 
1. Interlocutory Application for impleadment is 
rejected.
 
2.      General Vijay Kumar Singh, Chief of the Army - the
 
petitioner - has approached this Court under Article 32 of
 
the Constitution of India challenging order dated December
 
30, 2011, Office Memorandum dated July 21, 2011 and order
 
dated July 22, 2011. By these orders/office memorandum, the
 
petitioner's date of birth in the service record has been
 
recognised as May 10, 1950. The petitioner maintains that
 
his date of birth is, in fact, May 10, 1951 and must be
 
treated as such for all purposes in the service record.
 
3.      A caveat has been filed on behalf of the respondent-
 
Union of India.      The matter initially came up before us on

February 3, 2012.           In the course of hearing on that date,
 
certain issues cropped up particularly in relation to the
 
decision making process leading to the order dated December
 
30, 2011. At the request of the learned Attorney General,
 
the matter was adjourned for today.
 
4.       As        soon     as      the       hearing        commenced     today,
 
Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, handed
 
over    to    us   a    short    affidavit      of    K.L.    Nandwani,    Deputy
 
Secretary, Ministry of Defence, on behalf of the respondent.
 
The    affidavit       is   taken   on    record.      It    is   stated   in   the
 
affidavit that the order dated December 30, 2011 may be
 
treated as confined to the order holding that statutory
 
complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. The
 
second part of the order dated December 30, 2011                            which
 
deals with the merits on the diverse contentions raised in
 
the complaint          has been sought to be withdrawn.
 
5.       We grant permission to the respondent to withdraw
 
the order dated December 30, 2011 to the extent noted above.
 
In view thereof, the petitioner's grievance with regard to
 
the part of the order dated December 30, 2011                        which deals
 
with the merits of the controversy                   does not survive.
 
6.       The principal controversy, accordingly, now remains
 
to the challenge to the Office Memorandum dated July 21,
 
2011 and the order dated July 22, 2011. By the                             Office
 
Memorandum dated July 21, 2011, the respondent has annulled
                              
the order issued by the ADGMP dated February 25, 2011 and
 
has reiterated that the petitioner's official date of birth
 
will continue to be maintained as May 10, 1950.
 
 
7.      By order dated July 22, 2011 that followed Office
 
Memorandum dated July 21, 2011, while maintaining that the
 
petitioner's date of birth in the service record continues
 
to be maintained as May 10, 1950, it has been held that
 
there is no reason for it to consider effecting any change
 
in the date of birth of the petitioner as recorded.
 
8.      We have heard Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel
 
for the petitioner, and Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned
 
Attorney   General,    and   Mr.   Rohinton   F.   Nariman,   learned
 
Solicitor General, for the respondent-Union of India, at
 
quite some length.
 
9.      In the course of hearing, Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati,
 
learned Attorney General, stated that the respondent-Union
 
of India had not questioned the integrity or bonafide              of
 
the petitioner.       He also stated that the contest by the
 
respondent-Union of India to the Writ Petition was on a
 
matter of principle and it did not reflect any lack of faith
 
or confidence in the petitioner's ability to lead the Army.
 
10.     As a matter of fact, the question before us in the
 
Writ Petition is not about the determination of actual date

of birth of the petitioner, but it concerns the recognition
 
of a particular date of birth of the petitioner by the
 
respondent in the official service record.
 
11.     In   view   of   the   statement     made   by    Mr.   Goolam   E.
 
Vahanvati,    learned     Attorney       General,   and     the   limited
 
controversy in the Writ Petition as indicated above, learned
 
senior counsel for the petitioner does not wish to press the
 
matter further and he seeks withdrawal of the Writ Petition.
 
12.     Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
 
 
 
                                   .......................J.
                                   (R.M. LODHA)
 
 
 
NEW DELHI;                         .......................J.
FEBRUARY 10, 2012.                 (H.L. GOKHALE)
    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 26 OF 2012
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
                                         
 
ITEM NO.39                  COURT NO.8                SECTION X
 
 
             S U P R E M E     C O U R T   O F    I N D I A
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
 
 
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 26 OF 2012
 
 
VIJAY KUMAR SINGH                                       Petitioner(s)
 
                           VERSUS
 
UNION OF INDIA                                          Respondent(s)
 
 
(With appln(s) for ex-Parte stay and exemption from filing O.T. and
impleadment as party respondent and I.A. No. 4 appln. for
permission to file addl. documents)
 
 
Date: 10/02/2012    This Petition was called on for hearing today.
 
 
CORAM :
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. GOKHALE
 
 
For Petitioner(s)       Mr.   U.U. Lalit, Sr. Adv.
                        Mr.   Puneet Bali, Adv.
                        Mr.   Prabhjit Jauhar, Adv.
                        Mr.   Akshit Goel, Adv.
                        Mr.   S.S. Jauhar,Adv.
 
 
For Respondent(s)       Mr.   Goolam E. Vahanvati, Attorney General
                        Mr.   Rohinton F. Nariman, Solicitor General
                        Mr.   Devadatt Kamat, Adv.
                        Mr.   T.A. Khan, Adv.
                        Mr.   Anoopam N. Prasad, Adv.
                        Mr.   Nishanth Patil, Adv.
                        Mr.   Anandh Kannan, Adv.
                        Mr.   Ritin Rai, Adv.
                        Mr.   B.V. Balaram Das,Adv.
 
 
For Impleadment         Mr. Santosh Kumar Suman
Application             (applicant-in-person)

kunalverma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 07 Sep 2011 22:01

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby kunalverma » 23 Feb 2012 07:46

Operative paras are 10 and 11.
Frankly, the moment GOI withdrew their letter of 30 December 2011, VKS's lawyers should have withdrawn and left since the petition basically was challenging that order. Media reports are all based on deliberations which have no meaning and GOI is trying to hide under the media smokescreen. The Order does not say anything about the validity of two date of births, about three acceptance letters, etc. The ball is squarely back in AKA's court. VKS is right, there is no controversy. His YOB is 1951 in the AG's branch even now. Babujis are fully aware of this. They again order a correction, it'll be illegal.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16358
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 23 Feb 2012 07:50

would someone be kind enough to report the martial race posts so that we can split it off from the main army thread ? if not this thread will be trashed.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17089
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 23 Feb 2012 07:54

Arav wrote:Chetakji the letter has been posted by Kunali ji in the previous page. Even the court judgement is somewhere there in last 3 or 4 Pages. It has got lost in this Martial race campaign...(I dont have idea how to link that one here)


My bad, Sir.

The very poor signal to noise ratio currently being seen here due to postings from members of the "martial races" had led me to skip many pages.

kunalverma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 07 Sep 2011 22:01

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby kunalverma » 23 Feb 2012 07:55

Equally importantly, I think the MOD should be publically humilated for their handling of the disabled issue. I think Gen Cardozo is in Bombay today. Let's get the basic facts from him and go after these insentive b******* who can't see how morally and ethically sick they are.

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9656
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby abhishek_sharma » 23 Feb 2012 07:56

If possible delete pages 84 to 88. Very few good posts would be lost.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5115
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby devesh » 23 Feb 2012 07:56

Arun Roperia ji,
I will reply in OT thread. bredators have entered the arena!

Roperia
BRFite
Posts: 778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Roperia » 23 Feb 2012 07:59

chetak wrote:
Arav wrote:Chetakji the letter has been posted by Kunali ji in the previous page. Even the court judgement is somewhere there in last 3 or 4 Pages. It has got lost in this Martial race campaign...(I dont have idea how to link that one here)


My bad, Sir.

The very poor signal to noise ratio currently being seen here due to postings from members of the "martial races" had led me to skip many pages.


Three posts by BRFite Sardar led to 4 pages of counter-claims by the descendants of chola dynasty to prove their manliness and still "viraat" hindus won't share the blame.
Last edited by Roperia on 23 Feb 2012 08:08, edited 1 time in total.

Roperia
BRFite
Posts: 778
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Roperia » 23 Feb 2012 08:05

devesh wrote:Arun Roperia ji,
I will reply in OT thread. bredators have entered the arena!


I hope you use more civilized language this time. (Refer - "animal droppings of the most smelly kind").

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3728
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Vipul » 23 Feb 2012 08:10

Govt takes money back, Army grapples for arms.

Indian Army’s modernisation plan for current fiscal has been seriously hit with Finance Ministry re-appropriating Rs 3,000 crore ostensibly on account of delayed spending last month and the force left with only Rs 950 crore to spend for its 106 plan proposals.
Non-availability of funds has resulted in Army’s critical modernisation proposals being shelved this year. This includes procurement of ultra light howitzers for artillery, replacements in the helicopter fleet, raising of a Pinaka multi-barrel rocket regiment, component level repair facility for T-90 tanks and equipment for special forces. Besides there is a serious shortage of armour piercing shells for tanks and artillery.

Defence Ministry sources said out of a total allocation of some Rs 10,000 crore as modernisation budget 2011-2012 for the Indian Army, Rs 4,000 crore was spent by the military towards committed liabilities. Out of the remaining amount, Rs 2,000 crore was given to Director General, Ordnance Factories.

While top ministry officials said that 66% of the defence budget had been spent by December 2011, they confirmed that Finance Ministry had taken away Rs 3000 crore from Army’s modernisation budget last month as the military acquisition process was slow.

However, Army says that only Rs 320 crore has been spent on 106 proposals that were submitted the Defence Ministry for military modernisation plan at the beginning of the fiscal. “What modernisation we can do with only Rs 950 crore left for a million-strong force,” said a senior official from the headquarters.

Although the Army blames the Finance Ministry for re-appropriating Rs 3,000 crore, the latter says the money was taken back as there was no way the military could have spend it this year due to delayed decision making.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5115
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby devesh » 23 Feb 2012 08:12

I hope you use more civilized language this time. (Refer - "animal droppings of the most smelly kind").



:roll:

go back and read my post. I was talking about the "madrasan" who made the original post. I was addressing that above comment to the stuff that she said. That should make you happy no?! I have clarified further in OT.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16358
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 23 Feb 2012 08:17

kindly start a new thread. no martial race bakwas there. use OT thread to continue that if you want.

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6203
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 02 Jul 2018 09:30

jaysimha, this is a very old version of the thread. Please post in this one: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6809&start=3400

I'm locking this one.

P.S.: I've moved your posts to the right thread.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests