Indian Army : News and 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.
chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 27 Mar 2012 20:35

Pranav wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:His senior gave him a remedy, which he did not follow.


If Antony is being honest, then it amounts to insubordination by VKS, which is a very serious charge. More likely Antony is just looking for an escape route.


How can you be so sure that he is looking at an escape route? VKS has not denied that he Antony did not ask him to file an FIR.

Murugan wrote:VKS brougt to book the sukhna culprits. if he would hv not ben an upright one, if he would have cared for chamchagiri and afraid of his career in the army he would have mollycoddled with the scamsters only.

He brougt to the notice of RM the adarsh scam.

Guys, the army rule 21(?) clearly suggests that it is duty of officer to bring to the notice of his imediate superior any misdeeds. he aptly informed his immediate superior. such rules are also followed in corporates.

Regarding AK saying that VKS did not want to pursue, he did not pursue... Then who is the boss? and why did he take action later?


In Sukhna Case, VKS was not bribed. Here VKS is a direct party. The cases are different.

If you know the rules so good, tell me what AK should have done? ordered a probe on VKS saying?

Next question: the army rule 21: Des the rule say that it should be only verbal and not in writing? I just want to understand as you seem to be the experts.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54261
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 27 Mar 2012 20:36

CJ, Look up the Indian Army Act and find it. Demanding the poster to do your research is not journalistic.
He showed the way you take it if you want to.

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

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 27 Mar 2012 20:40

ramana wrote:J
CJ you know better than to refere to same ephithet.

Can some one put upt atimeline for this Tatragate?

When was the offer made?

Why?
When was it reported to AKA?

so on and so forth.
A crucial thing is when did the Tatra Vectra Spiox become an intermediary?


I know Tatra was bought by a US company after Czechslovakia split.


Sorry abt the first.

It was reported 2 years back.

Tatra Vectra is a subsidiary company, which is as per the rulebook.

However, Vectra has a suggested history of graft because of which army tender for 197 helios were cancelled. last time they used retired Amy men. This time it seems they have a serving one.

CJ, Look up the Indian Army Act and find it. Demanding the poster to do your research is not journalistic.
He showed the way you take it if you want to.


As per journalistic standards, what i learnt over the years is to use "suggested" "alleged" etc.

they seem to know all in rule book and have declared a party guilty. Hence i am asking how do they know?

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

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby nelson » 27 Mar 2012 20:42

ShauryaT wrote:
nelson wrote:It would be better if there is a Tape recording of conversation between AKA and VKS when the latter reported the bribe offer made to him. No :?:
OK, I am all for the general but you want an army officer to tape his defense minister? I dread to even think what that means.


JMT, not serious, not joking also. Even if one existed it would be with the RM not COAS, right.
Last edited by nelson on 27 Mar 2012 20:47, edited 1 time in total.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby Murugan » 27 Mar 2012 20:45

AK is saying that the complaint was oral. he could hv asked VKS to give his complaint written. Why AK 'obeyed' VKS. why AK did not pursue it?

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby Pranav » 27 Mar 2012 20:49

The big picture:

Rs. 14-crore bribe offer to army chief exposes scam worth crores in Tatra trucks

New Delhi: The revelation by the Army chief, General VK Singh, of an offer of a 14-crore bribe has sharply brought into focus what was really at stake. The bribe was allegedly offered by a lobbyist for a truck supplier who flooded the Army for more than two decades with 7,000 over-priced vehicles which performed poorly when put to use. Yet, this supplier, Tatra, a Czech manufacturer, who supplies the trucks to the Army through a Defence Public Sector Undertaking Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. (BEML) was not blacklisted. In fact, the swindle worth hundreds of crores appears to have been facilitated by the government-owned BEML which supplies the Army with trucks and other equipment.

The middleman who met General Singh wanted clearance for one more batch of 1600 vehicles in September 2010. For this, the lobbyist allegedly offered 14 crores. (Read: 14-crore rupee bribe offer recorded on tape: Sources) In 2010, the government changed the rules so that different manufacturers could apply for the contract through open bidding. After nearly 25 years of a monopoly, Tatra became one of three or four contenders. Since then, the contract has not been awarded to any supplier.

Tatra all-weather all-terrain trucks are used to transport missiles, artillery and troops. These trucks are manufactured in the Czech Republic. The cost to the country has been huge. A 4x4 Tatra truck, for example, costs between 40 to 50 lakhs in Europe. It was sold by BEML to the Army at nearly double that price. Ashok Leyland and Tata Motors supply similar trucks for 16-18 lakhs. Jacks for the Tatra truck, available in the market for Rs. 3000 for similar heavy vehicles, were bought for Rs. 30,000 each by BEML on behalf of the Army.

The top dollar paid for the trucks wasn't matched by performance. A whistleblower named Anil Bakshi reveals that the Army has, for a while, been unhappy with the performance of the Tatra trucks. Mr Bakshi was a defence contractor for the Indian Army and was contracted to prep vehicles for the Army's use after they had been bought. In 2009, he said that 45 Tatra trucks arrived with faulty or damaged tyres and old batteries. He refused to clear them for usage.

Other experts say that spare parts are not easily available for Tatra trucks. BEML takes upto two years to deliver spare parts.

Instead of buying these trucks directly from the manufacturer, BEML uses a middleman named Tatra Sipox, a London-based trading company. However, government rules make it necessary for all defence equipment to be bought directly from the manufacturer. In 1986, India signed a transfer-of-technology agreement with a Czech company named Omnipol. The idea was for BEML to learn how to eventually build heavy vehicles locally. That deal continued till 1997 when BEML signed with Tatra Sipox, a London-based trading company, and not the original manufacturer of the trucks. The Czech company is the original manufacturer. In violation of defence rules, a middleman or dealer had entered the picture. BEML never gathered the expertise to eventually build a Tatra-like truck on its own.


Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/rs-14 ... stories&cp


70 lakhs rupees x 7000 trucks = USD 1 billion approx

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby Murugan » 27 Mar 2012 20:55

If one has full access to timesnow's debate of yesterday one lt. General bakshi (army's legal dept) mentions all the legal obligations were folowed by VKS as far as reporting the incident is concerned.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54261
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 27 Mar 2012 21:00

Is Tatra Spiox a wholly owned subsidary of Vectra?

anmol
BRFite
Posts: 1820
Joined: 05 May 2009 17:39

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby anmol » 27 Mar 2012 21:03

Pranav wrote: 70 lakhs rupees x 7000 trucks = USD 1 billion approx


Ajai Shukla says that the trucks are bought for 110 lakhs, so close to USD 2 Billion.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby Murugan » 27 Mar 2012 21:07

It is like some abdulla suggested the president not to pass death order to afzal guru because he has allegedly masterminded the parliament attack. he was not one of the attackers. And president obliged...

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby Murugan » 27 Mar 2012 21:16

It was major general (not lt geneal) retd g d bakshi former research fellow IDSA who quoted army rules in the debate yesterday at timesnow

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby Murugan » 27 Mar 2012 21:23

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_ar ... gh_1668205

Now army being asked to explain press release

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4191
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby Murugan » 27 Mar 2012 21:29


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

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 27 Mar 2012 21:30

chackojoseph wrote:
Without FIR, there is no case.


Actually, there is no need for FIR as is being made out by many stalwarts on TV and elsewhere. If VKS reported the matter, what was needed was a discrete preliminary inquiry into whole affair and findout the criminality and culpability of actors involved. A direction to CBI to do preliminary investigation( done umpteen times ) before case reaches FIR stage. CBI itself can register FIR based on its investigation and prosecute the case.

So while, VKS did right, it is patently wrong to suggest that he should have filed FIR with one SHO of Police Station. RM should have ordered CBI to do preliminary investigation instead of clutching his head. CBI would have collected all necessary paperworks.

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

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 27 Mar 2012 21:35

chackojoseph wrote:
Pranav wrote:As per service rules, his responsibility is to tell his boss, not directly approach police. He has fulfilled that responsibility.

Now Antony seems to be alleging that he had given order to VKS to file FIR which was disobeyed by VKS. If Antony is telling the truth then there will certainly be a paper trail. Let's see if Antony can prove it.


So whats the procedure VKS should have followed? Just tell his boss and go away? He did tell his boss and his boss told him a remedy. VKS said he did not want to pursue. He sits on the file without taking action. Why it took 2 years for him to disclose this to media? Why is he doing it now?

Both are at fault.

What about an internal probe like Sukna case?


It needs to be carried out by an independent agency.
However for internal probe one needs officer to be equal or senior in rank and not subordinate to the officer making complaint or the accused. Else the probe would be vitiated from the beginning.

He did cancel Tatra contract. So he did his bit. RM did not do what was required of him.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby Kanson » 27 Mar 2012 21:44

Arun Roperia wrote:Army Chief V.K.Singh Exclusive Interview with Chauthiduniya

This video was divided into "Gen ka court martial - I" and "Gen ka court martial - II", so most of it is similar to them.

Though, there are some parts that were not included in those 25 min clips.

At 39:30 he makes a point that the Bofors artillery being made by OFB is for our panda friends up north and the artillery we are going to buy too would be deployed in the mountains.

At 47 he explains [u]why he made the ration for both officers and jawans the same. Brilliant! [/u]

At 56, he debunks the narrative created by media that he has given most time of his tenure to concentrate on his age controversy.

At 59, he talks about the Supreme Courts order regarding the age controversy. He seems a little disappointed with SC just cancelling government's order on his statutory complaint and not pursuing this matter till the end.

At 1:08, he is asked to compare IA with TSPA. :lol: He lists three important differences.


Def. he did many good thing that needs much appreciation. I usually don't lend my support to top brass. Observed from certain quarters, these top brass failed to prove, from my pov, and fit to do really good things for the soul of the army. So it is rare for me to appreciate any such high ranking official from armed forces. To my surprise I appreciated Gen. VKS a year before much before this age controversy erupted.

viewtopic.php?p=1011613#p1011613

And he proved himself after an year that he is still fit for many such appreciations! Heart felt kudos!

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

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby nelson » 27 Mar 2012 21:47

A poignant story by Wg Cdr retd Unni Kartha of his buddy of NDA time, Col AGJ Swittens (Late), POW after the 1971 war. Shows how an ungrateful country we are.

http://cyclicstories.blogspot.in/2012_0 ... chive.html

Just saw, Wg Cdr Unni has significant contributions on BR Airforce pages.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby Kanson » 27 Mar 2012 21:54

harish_ch wrote:http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Bribe-offer-to-army-chief-VK-Singh-exists-on-tape-Reports/Article1-831639.aspx

Just wondering...Is every conversation made in army chief's office recorded?


You can take for granted that offices of top officials ( of such caliber ) do have such facilities. CVC/IB/CBI/ED etc are some of such high offices.

Pranav
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5280
Joined: 06 Apr 2009 13:23

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby Pranav » 27 Mar 2012 22:11

The first agreement was signed in 1986 with Omnipol a Czech company. In 1992, after the bifurcation of Czechoslovakia, BEML starts buying trucks from Tatra Sipox UK.

Documents with CNN-IBN show Tatra Sipox UK was a London based trading company, not the original manufacturer, breaking the first rule of procurement, which says you must buy from the manufacturer.

Tatra Sipox balance sheets of then show it had a working capital of just 30 thousand pounds.

Its shareholder included an NRI Ravi Rishi and Joseph Majesky. The latter, according to Slovakian papers, faced jail term for siphoning funds.


Moreover, when BEML signed the MoU with Sipox the firm was registered for providing spiritual, religious, and social services.

The procurement from Sipox faced its first hurdle in 2003 when the Equipment Branch raised objects.

In the letters, copies of which are with CNN-IBN, the officer concerned raised some questions.
* Who the original manufacturer of the truck was?
* What was the source of procurement?
* What was the price at which it was being procured?
* And what the role of Tatra Sipox UK was?
Within two months, as the documents show, the letter treated cancelled.

The holding pattern then further changed, and BEML signed a joint venture between Tatra and Vectra. The latter once again has Ravi Rishi as its major shareholder.

In 2003, BEML signed a 10-year agreement with Tatra Sipox (UK) to increase the scope of the relationship. As per rules, the Chief has to sign on the defence deal every year. The last time the deal was inked was in February 2010, by Genenral (Retired) Deepak Kapoor. The red flag was raised by General VK Singh later that year, shortly after he was alleged offered a bribe by Lieutenant General Tejinder Singh.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/gen-sings-br ... 268-3.html

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54261
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 27 Mar 2012 22:16

IB bugs everyone including most junior babus in the chain of command. Its SOP.
And its known.

Meanwhile DNA reports:

LINK

....
Though the general spoke of the bribe in the context of buying Tatra trucks, the defence ministry, it appears, did some clever jugglery and ordered the CBI to investigate only the bribery and not the case of purchasing substandard trucks.

The inquiry, at best, would be limited because two years have passed since the “incident”. Expectedly, Antony’s role is now in question — why did he wait for two years; why did he not act when the general told him about it. But all that he was prepared to tell the media outside Parliament on Monday was “it is a serious allegation, I have already taken action”.

That the inquiry will yield little is anybody’s guess. The issue at hand — a Rs14 crore bribe offer — happened within the confines of the army chief’s office in South Block. There was no one other than the general and the person making the offer. So, this means the larger issue — buying substandard Tatra trucks — will remain uninvestigated.

DNA had done a series of investigations in July 2011 highlighting that Tatra trucks were sold to the army at an inflated price. For over a decade, Tatra trucks were bought from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) via a London-based firm.

Bharat Earth Movers Ltd (BEML), a defence public sector undertaking, routinely imported the trucks and sold it to the army. It is surprising that BEML patronised a foreign manufacturer at a time when the Indian automobile industry had flourished. Also, using the firm as an intermediary is strange considering that the firm had nothing to do with the original manufacturer.

In 1987, BEML had signed an agreement with Omnipol Foreign Trade Corporation, then part of the erstwhile Czechoslovakia. Under that agreement, the licensor, Omnipol, was to furnish all assembly and production drawings of Tatra for Rs3 crore by March 1997. But 25 years later, BEML has not been able to buy the trucks on its own.

The defence procurement guidelines clearly say all purchases should be made from the original equipment manufacturer. But BEML has been dealing with Tatra Sipox (UK) Ltd, which is neither the OEM nor a subsidiary of the OEM.

But these aspects, along with the meat of the army chief’s allegations, will not be a part of the CBI’s investigations for now. Sources in the CBI told DNA that all it has been asked to look into by the defence ministry are the “claims” made by Gen Singh in the interview. :eek:

Gen Singh had also highlighted that these imported trucks lacked basic service or maintenance backup, leading to immense problems for the army and jeopardising its operational capabilities. In fact, soon after the bribe offer, Gen Singh stopped the purchase of Tatra trucks by the Indian Army. :idea:

Though the general did not name anyone in the interview, Lt Gen (retd) Tejinder Singh issued a clarification that he was not the person who met Gen Singh or offered him the bribe. :roll:

Lt Gen Singh’s name had cropped up as one of the owners of a flat in the controversial Adarsh Housing scam in Mumbai and he is believed to have been unhappy with the army chief’s tough stand against corruption.

Taking to DNA, CBI spokesperson Dharini Mishra said the CBI has received a letter from the defence secretary Shashikant Sharma’s office asking it to investigate the army chief’s allegations. “We are examining it and after due diligence, a preliminary inquiry would be registered, if required,” Mishra said.

The Lok Sabha had to be adjourned for the day after political parties demanded an explanation from the government. Politicians, however, made it clear that they were upset with the general for approaching the media instead of filing a written complaint asking for an investigation. :(( Some even questioned the timing of the revelation.

Quick to defend an embattled government, Congress party spokesperson Manish Tewari questioned the army chief’s behavior. :(( The other spokesperson, Abhishek Manu Singhvi chose a neutral posture. :rotfl: “It is really unfortunate. Being a government official and head of the Indian Army, he should have registered an FIR if someone came to him and offered him a bribe,” he said. :((

Even Team Anna had something to say. RTI activist and a key member of Anna Hazare’s core team, Arvind Kejriwal said, “We have a lot of respect for General VK Singh. He has fought a lot against corruption and probably that is why he is being targeted.”


ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5242
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 27 Mar 2012 22:19

A little bit about Ravi Rishi of Vectra.


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

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 27 Mar 2012 22:20

ramana wrote:Is Tatra Spiox a wholly owned subsidary of Vectra?


It acts as a subsidary of A.S Tatra.

Chaanakya,

I understand the procedure. The story is just unfolding. We need to stop blaming first and see how it unfolds. Generally speaking, VKS has done a great job.

Let us see how it unfolds.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54261
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 27 Mar 2012 22:22

Pranav, This Ravi Rishi seems NRI only for business purposes.
Some links to his ops in India.

1) Newsletter:
http://www.vectragroup.com/newsletter/index.html

2) Editorial in Newsletter:

http://www.vectragroup.com/newsletter-a ... orial.html

3) Vectra Group website:
http://www.vectragroup.com/index.asp

The other guy Joe Majesky also has a trail in google. There is a pdf which cant access.

"For Yeddy, Hegde to remember"

Looks like a lot of dangling skletons all over.

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

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 27 Mar 2012 22:38

^^^^ It is one of the reason why I am yet to point at AK. The company is too big. Its UK based Ltd company, but key people are unknown. They managed a serving personnel in Army. Think about MoD.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby Kanson » 27 Mar 2012 22:49

chackojoseph wrote:I understand the procedure. The story is just unfolding. We need to stop blaming first and see how it unfolds. Generally speaking, VKS has done a great job.

So, you see the finger pointing done by St. Antony against VKS in this case is baseless as you acknowledge the job done by VKS as a great one. :?:
Last edited by Kanson on 27 Mar 2012 22:59, edited 1 time in total.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2998
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby Kanson » 27 Mar 2012 22:58

. Politicians, however, made it clear that they were upset with the general for approaching the media instead of filing a written complaint asking for an investigation. :(( Some even questioned the timing of the revelation.


If such deal span across several years, it is mostly likely that Politicians from both end of the spectrum are involved.

this is going to be 'Bofors' for this UPA Gov and Antony.

dnivas
BRFite
Posts: 247
Joined: 05 Dec 2008 05:54

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby dnivas » 28 Mar 2012 00:00

chackojoseph wrote:I find it difficult to accept because I don't see the anti-lungi logic. A personal attack on me won't change the debate equation. There is no history of such a thing happening before. How can you be so sure that AK is wrong and he did not follow the rules too?

VKS followed rule by telling his senior. His senior gave him a remedy, which he did not follow. He did not take an alternative route too.


BG, so why did Anthony start a CBI enquiry now. He should send a email to VKS and reiterated him to file a FIR.

What is the difference between the time when VKS first reportted to Defence minister and now.

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5829
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby krisna » 28 Mar 2012 01:09

^^^^
wrt to VKS and RM issue
RM position is superior to COA. Hence COAS can complain only to RM and RM takes action based on that. whether it is orla or written is immaterial as it involves the army/defence forces. the very revelation of COAS saying that he was offered Rs 14 crores should have triggered RED FLAGS in RM's mind.
More galling is the fact that RM has a penchant for being "too honest". RM takes himself too seriously as incorruptible.

being the boss, RM should have taken corrective steps including an inquiry into the affairs of the COAS revelations. Also dig more into the affairs also in defence procurement.

Ex-- Being a hakim, if a resident or medical physician assistant tells me something abnormal in a patient, I tend to check on that- either dismiss it as of no consequence or act on it and do the needful, thanking the resident or the medical assistant for it. If I fail to take note of it and something happens to the patient I am responsible and not the resident or medical assistant. They dont treat the patient(without me kept informed). I have the authority to dipsense medicines or take appropriate action for the patient. They have to follow me not the other way.

Similarly RM has more powers than COAS. he should have duly taken note of the explosive revelations. It is his responsibility.
he cannot be like an ostrich with its head buried under the sand. Buck stops with him.

RM is unfit to be in this role. He is as corrupt as any other politician by his non actions.

Utterly shameful considering my opinion about RM so far.
IMHO FWIW.

Jamie Boscardin
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 71
Joined: 02 Aug 2010 21:56

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby Jamie Boscardin » 28 Mar 2012 01:15

Before this episode broke out, I never had even heard about this channel "chauthiduniya".
VKS is upto something very very concrete, its a big kudos to him for whatever he has in his mind and should be in the larger interest of the nation.
Why I say so, is coz if he had anything dirty on him, he would have gone the Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi, Tehelka and so many other whistle blowers ill-faith's way.

In the video, its the host who asks the question to VKS, as a charge, "You were offered a bribe and you failed to take action against the person offering you the bribe", this is the charge against you
- So, how come the host/anchor knows about an incident, which as per follow-on reports took place in a closed door in Army HQ between COAS VKS & the alleged bribe giver?
- Now, while answering to this question, VKS says that "he informed this incident to Raksha Mantri" after hearing which our cool dude AKS replies that these are the kind of people we should keep away from us". This also can be a way of VKS saying that AKS did not initiate any action (might be he was also trying to say, that AKS did not allow him to go ahead and take sumo moto action).

Also, COAS VKS, mentions that the alleged person retired from the IA few days/months back. Gen Tejinder retired 2 yrs back..so does that mean that he is mentioning someone else?

Gosh, VKS has provided a big big HOLE to initiate the cleansing process, and he has made it ample clear, he isn't going down without a fight and he is battle ready!!

I must admit I'm getting goose bumps!!

anjan
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 08 Jan 2010 02:42

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby anjan » 28 Mar 2012 01:33

In that NDTV session people kept bringing up monitoring of higher officers. My understanding is that the IB already monitors all senior officers. It's not exactly a secret in Army circles. They have them by the short and curlies and that's kind of why VKS like episodes don't usually happen. It would be ridiculously surprising if the IB doesn't already have a nice fat dossier on the person offering the bribe. If they want to know what happened between AKA and VKS they should probably go ask Chidu.

Ask for chacko's question on VKS not taking action, I'm not even sure how that would work. Either VKS made a complaint or not. AKA as the defence minister is not in the business of making suggestions. He either ordered VKS to do something or not. If VKS did not obey an order then that is insubordination and we need to know. Otherwise it appears Mr. Clean twiddled his thumbs when faced by a complaint from a subordinate. Ajai Shukla also brings up the interesting point that BEML, the direct beneficiary of the scam, is under the Defence Minister too. He shouldn't need anything from anybody, much less a complaint, to ask BEML to explain why they were marking up a product by 100%+. Unless of course we are to believe that the usual SOP for St. Antony is to request/cajole and otherwise persuade people to take action on corruption cases.

I also find it interesting that the Def. Secy. was not in the picture from what we're told. Wonder why that is. Maybe Subramanian Swamy is right and AKA held back because this reaches far beyond AKA's pay grade.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby Sagar G » 28 Mar 2012 01:37

This is a very odd situation, junior tells his superior about corruption, senior asks junior to pursue the case junior doesn't pursue for reasons unknown and superior takes no action because junior didn't pursue it , now as soon junior talks about it in media suddenly the superior wakes up gives a statement in parliament blaming the junior for inaction and by miracle the CBI is now looking into the allegations.

Now why didn't RM do this before irrespective of whether Gen. pursued it or not, he is the superior he has the power to take action, also why Gen. decided against taking any action ???? Both have to do a lot of answering it seems.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5242
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 28 Mar 2012 01:40

dnivas wrote:
BG, so why did Anthony start a CBI enquiry now. He should send a email to VKS and reiterated him to file a FIR.

What is the difference between the time when VKS first reportted to Defence minister and now.
No difference. The RM knows he goofed up and will not admit. VKS was honest enough to admit that maybe he did do a mistake by not proceeding on it. It is in his interview.

What I hope comes out of this mess is the this entire structure of DPSU's, OFB' and even the DRDO has to go. As VK Singh suggested. This rot needs a BIG surgery to be corrected. Piecemeal steps will not do. We need far better and informed civilian over sight on the process. I feel the opposition is missing out on a huge opportunity. Do not make this about Antony. Make this about the system. Ask for an independent inquiry of the process, the structure of appointment, acquisitions, budget allocation.

VK Singh laments in the interview of why he was not able to use up the 2011-12 capital budget. I hope every chief from now on is measured on that benchmark.

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5829
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby krisna » 28 Mar 2012 01:52

Now why didn't RM do this before irrespective of whether Gen. pursued it or not, he is the superior he has the power to take action, also why Gen. decided against taking any action ???? Both have to do a lot of answering it seems.


COAS has stopped signing the orders for the defective trucks and duly informed RM his superior about it.
RM take to pursue it. If COAS was not interested in pursuing the case he would not have informed RM.
Also COAS was and is in danger of kicked out of the post due to his revelations at that time and now also.
The question arises what is the role of RM in this -
1) why did RM not due anything about it since it was revealed to him.
2) Does RM pay scale is not enough to bring the culprits to book?
3) what does RM know about corruption in defence?
4) Being silent on this corruption despite told about it means RM is also corrupt?
5) Are other members of the cabinet along with RM corrupt hence RM is silent as he cannot take action on them?


Bottom line is
If you see something, say something-- done by COAS.
If you hear something, do something -- not done by RM.


Ridiculous that a letter by TDP political member gets an enquiry ordered by RM.
whereas an upright officer known for his honesty says something, our dear incorrutible RM sits on it for 2 years.

My point is not casting in aspersions on AKA as a person but about not using his position of authority.
In some ways his personality will come into focus because of his "incorruptible" nature.

Sagar G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2594
Joined: 22 Dec 2009 19:31
Location: Ghar

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby Sagar G » 28 Mar 2012 02:04

krisna wrote:COAS has stopped signing the orders for the defective trucks and duly informed RM his superior about it.
RM take to pursue it. If COAS was not interested in pursuing the case he would not have informed RM.
Also COAS was and is in danger of kicked out of the post due to his revelations at that time and now also.


RM being a superior is guilty of inaction but still it isn't clear why didn't Gen. pursue the case he himself has said that RM asked him to but his answer is confusing. I didn't see the entire interview but the clipping of this particular question was played in news channel and the Gen. said IIRC that he himself wasn't sure if it was an outright bribe offer or not.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby peter » 28 Mar 2012 03:29

Pranav wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:I am saying onus lies on both of them. Both are equally guilty. Why is VKS a hero and AK a villain?


Without VKS, the story of the loot would have remained buried. So we should be grateful to him for speaking up.

chackojoseph wrote:VKS helped loot for two years as he did not complain. Whats the point after complaining after two years when the deed is done?


No. Are you even following the discussions or just arguing for the sake of arguing?

Late 2010:
http://www.dnasyndication.com/dna/article/DNMUM240304
In fact, soon after the bribe offer, Gen Singh stopped the purchase of Tatra trucks by the Indian army


Feb 2010:
In 2003, BEML signed a 10-year agreement with Tatra Sipox (UK) to increase the scope of the relationship. As per rules, the Chief has to sign on the defence deal every year. The last time the deal was inked was in February 2010, by Genenral (Retired) Deepak Kapoor.

Gen Singh informs Anthony about the bribe and Anthony asks General Singh to "take action"? This has got to be the most preposterous suggestion. Since Singh is "involved" because he was offered the bribe how could he be investigating his own allegation?

Now let us see the jokes made by Anthony:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/I-asked-Army-chief-to-act-on-bribe-offer-but-he-didnt-Antony/articleshow/12426526.cms
1: Anthony is "shocked":
Recalling the incident, the minister said the Army chief had told him that one retired General Tejender Singh met him and offered Rs 14 crore bribe. "I was shocked... It took me one to two minutes to regain my composure. Then I told him to take action but he told me I do not want to pursue it. I don't know why he did not want to pursue it at that time," Antony said.


2: A shocked Anthony now says that General VKS's verbal communication not good enough eventhough :
The minister said in the past he has taken action even on anonymous complaints from any quarters.

Admitting that he could have acted when Gen Singh told him about the bribe offer, Antony said as a minister "I cannot act just on a complaint...I did not get any written complaint at any stage."

So imagine the situation. COAS is telling Anthony about the offer of bribe but Anthony "cannot just act on complaint"!

3. The "same complaint" made in a newspaper is good enough for Anthony to order a CBI enquiry:
The minister said that when he read about the allegations in a newspaper yesterday, he immediately told the defence secretary to take action without waiting for any formal complaint. "This was action I took," he said.

Since then a CBI inquiry has been ordered for a comprehensive probe. "CBI will inquire into everything," Antony said.


Joseph Chacko if you still do not see Anthony's fault I don't think you ever will. Question is why?

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3826
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby hnair » 28 Mar 2012 04:02

Maybe at that time, General Singh might have asked time for getting a better bead on the sleazy guys? We shall know from the inquiry, or better yet, a memoir.

If Gen Singh says to backoff on inquiry, as a CoAS and as one of his chief policy advisors, Shree AKA might not go ahead. Which is highly uncharacteristic of Shree Anthony, but possible.

Frankly, I wish these two decent men have not been made to play antagonistic roles over the past two years :(

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5829
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby krisna » 28 Mar 2012 04:10

Sagar G wrote:
RM being a superior is guilty of inaction but still it isn't clear why didn't Gen. pursue the case he himself has said that RM asked him to but his answer is confusing.

viewtopic.php?p=1261025#p1261025
COAS has stopped signing the orders for the defective trucks and duly informed RM his superior about it.

The ball is in RM court. He is the boss and should decide whether to take action based on his complaint or not.
Here RM did no action as he thought it was nothing to enquire about. Now there is a corruption bomb lighted he is scurrying for cover .Hence he is casting aspersions on COAS saying he did not want to pursue it.

I didn't see the entire interview but the clipping of this particular question was played in news channel and the Gen. said IIRC that he himself wasn't sure if it was an outright bribe offer or not.

viewtopic.php?p=1261007#p1261007

some one should tweet-
see something, say something-- COAS
hear something, do nothing -- RM.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20610
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby Philip » 28 Mar 2012 04:17

From the emerging details of this sordid affair,the foll. is very evident.

1.The relationship between the MOD and the service chiefs/services is abysmal.Especially if you are a difficult chief not willing to "toe the line".As I said earlier ver the DOB controversy,the MOD/GOI treat the services like watchdogs,kept tightly on the leash,allowed freedom only when an intruder enters the "compund".From time to time,bones are thrown to them to keep them happy.They are not expected to be like pets,live indoors,part of the family ,but kept in kennels.Moreover,their freedom and status has consistently been whittled down since Independence to the benefit of thehandlers/ babus.

2.At this moment in time,we have a DM with blinkers.Long before the COAS/DOB controversy exploded on the scene,the DM had earned for himself the reputation of being overtly cautious to the point of inaction where decisions took place at excruciatingly slow speed.His demonstration in parliament of "holding his head in his hands"
speaks for itself.Even if there was no written complaint from the chief,he should've independently activated his own discreet inquiry into the allegations.He has reacted like the proverbial monkey covering his eyes.

The inordinate delay in re-equipping the IA with artillery,helos,MICVs,and a host of other critically needed eqpt. ,some issues languishing for decades ,and contonuing to languish like that of the artillery,cannot be understood as it betrays an indifference by those who in the last decade in particular,have held the post of DM.
"St.Anthony" sadly appears to have placed hos own saintly reputation and interests above that of the ministry he has been given charge of.His inaction on this issue in particular cannot be defended whatsoever .

3.The COAS too has proven himself to be from his track record always "slow on the draw".He allowed his DOB issue to drag on/was comfortable with it until he realised that he would not get his full term and then sprung the issue on the nation through the media.As long as his cpmfort level was obtained,he also did nothing! He was the perfect chief for the DM,both two of a kind.His deliberate time-selected actions are suspect ,as they are conveniently orchestrated only when it suited his personal interests best,and not because of the interests of the service he led! Contrast this with the behaviour of a former chief,who told me when he went to Russia to inspect a most important weapon system being offered to us.He was just shown the object/system from the outside without being allowed a full internal inspection.He immediately told his hosts that unless he was given a full briefing on the weapon system and its capabilities and saw every detail of it for himself, he would return to India post haste.His hosts then gave him the full monty,etc.! This chief post retirement,refused every gubernatorial or diplomatic offer, and had to wait for years to sell his valuable property below market value because he wanted the payment only by cheque.

4.The rot that lies within our PSUs.The so-called mask of "indigenisation",otherwise known s screwdriver technology.Aeons ago I was flying from B'lore to Delhi with a senior air force officer .I asked him about our efforts/success at indigenisation of radars,etc.He laughed and said that all the DRDO (at that time) seemed to be doing was importing the eqpt,and assembling it locally ,calling it indigenisation.he gave me a list of some items which were touted in the media as being "home grown".The media channels today have given some instances in the alleged Tatra scam,grossly inflated prices for some of the eqpt. like fire extinguishers,jacks,etc.,just like the CWG scam.The style is the same,except that in this case,iimported eqpt. is also allegedly being passed off as indigenous eqpt.

If the lid has been lifted on the Tatra manufacture,that too of a lowly truck,imagine the other crates of eqpt. being manufactured by other PSUs.A full investigation is required.

5.the power of the arms dealer/broker in the Indian context.The names of the prominent dealers are well known in Delhi.like the controversial family of a former CNS.They appear to have total immunity and act with impunity.How is this possible unless the nexus between arms manufacturers,babudoms,the services and the political bosses are in cahoots together,to a greater or lesser degree.To dramatically reduce this influence,as one must be realistic as one cannot completely eradicate it,one needs a pro-active and fearless DM and the inclusion of the armed forces into the decision-making/policy equation of national security.This requires a visionary PM to appoint such a man.A servile lackey,who behaves like a puppet will never be able to do so.

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5829
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby krisna » 28 Mar 2012 04:42

^^^^
Beg to differ from these observations you have made.

3.The COAS too has proven himself to be from his track record always "slow on the draw".He allowed his DOB issue to drag on/was comfortable with it until he realised that he would not get his full term and then sprung the issue on the nation through the media.As long as his cpmfort level was obtained,he also did nothing! He was the perfect chief for the DM,both two of a kind.His deliberate time-selected actions are suspect ,as they are conveniently orchestrated only when it suited his personal interests best,and not because of the interests of the service he led!


1) COAS has clearly complained about DOB earlier also to the same RM who for all "incorruptible reasons" did nothing till COAS went to court. COAS got pilloried for it which was not his fault.
Why did COAS go to court--- when RM did nothing regarding his complaint he had to resort to the ultimate law of the land as a citizen of India.
2) same thing with defective tatra trucks with massive kickbacks likely involving GOI/MOD functionaries. RM did nothing again.
COAS being the whistle blower is in the dock.

Again why is COAS saying in public-- because our incorruptible RM did nothing. he said it aloud regarding DOB and corruption--- his tenure is ending shortly, he will be a targetted man for the rest of his life by low lives in media and GOI.
If he said it after his tenure is over, again GOI and its media will spin it that he did nothing when in position of COAS.

COAS has everything to lose by his revelations.

See my post-- viewtopic.php?p=1261007#p1261007
Ex-- Being a hakim, if a resident or medical physician assistant tells me something abnormal in a patient, I tend to check on that- either dismiss it as of no consequence or act on it and do the needful, thanking the resident or the medical assistant for it. If I fail to take note of it and something happens to the patient I am responsible and not the resident or medical assistant. They dont treat the patient(without me kept informed). I have the authority to dipsense medicines or take appropriate action for the patient. They have to follow me not the other way.

In the above case if I dont do anything to the patient and patient suffers badly despite being told by my assistants. I am responsible. Also if my assistants believe if I did not take due diligence in the patient case, they complain to my superior. If my superior is also my colleague and trusts me. Then only option for the assistants is to go the patient and inform something is wrong or to the media which will bring spotlight on the responsible hakim. Imagine if assistants reveal if after they are dismissed/go to another job then my superior and myself will claim that they are saying as they lost their jobs.

Here I=RM and assistant=COAS.
Rest is self explanatory.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Indian Army : News and Discussion

Postby peter » 28 Mar 2012 05:08

hnair wrote:Maybe at that time, General Singh might have asked time for getting a better bead on the sleazy guys?

No. Anthony says he wanted the COAS to take action and COAS did not want to pursue it further.

hnair wrote:If Gen Singh says to backoff on inquiry, as a CoAS and as one of his chief policy advisors, Shree AKA might not go ahead. Which is highly uncharacteristic of Shree Anthony, but possible.

Wrong interpretation. Anthony on one hand claims he even acted on anonymous complaints and this time a complaint from COAS is not good enough?

You should think about why the same complaint in a newspaper caused Anthony to order an inquiry.

Frankly, I wish these two decent men have not been made to play antagonistic roles over the past two years :(

Decent or not is'nt the key point. Question is integrity and decisive decision making.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests