Dhiman wrote:It has to do with "checks and balances" and "separation of powers": two fundamental principals behind democratic systems. A supreme court judge cannot make laws, Parliament MP's cannot decide court cases, and in the same manner, army chief cannot sidestep police and prosecute someone for committing a domestic crime (bribery). If this was not the case, India would be like what Pakistan is today.
It does not stop anybody from filing a case. A supreme court jusge can file a case. parliament can appeal on a case via procedure. An Army chief cannot be stopped from investigating internally or externally. naturally, he cannot prosecute. Antony asked him to take action not prosecute.
anjan wrote:What? What happened to all your journalistic "alleged" and all? This is beyond stupid. One shouldn't need a formal complaint to want to figure out just why one of the companies under his direct control is charging the Army a 100%+ markup. Is this so complicated to understand. I truly don't know what kind of cockamamie organization would require a formal complaint before a higher up can make inquiries into the operations of his subordinates.
That's not omission. That willful negligence. The best argument for him is that he's simply not powerful enough to stop certain types of corruption. Beyond that it's your argument that's insane and ignores the reality of any organizational structure.
While we're at it I'm curious why you think a anonymous complaint is actionable by the good saint but a verbal one from the Chief is not. If he really wants a piece of paper he should have written himself an anonymous complain. After all isn't he the greatest, that paragon of virtue, cleaner than the driven snow, the one and only Saint Antony.
Which place you felt that i passed a judgement? calling an insane suggestion has nothing to be journalistic about.
You are again going round and round and round. I have said that AKA is at fault and he should have investigated. How hard is it to understand? So did the Defense minister say "its my judgement, punish me if I am wrong." I don't understand why you have to keep talking same stuff again and again and again. Move beyond the point, can you?
What he said in parliament is that he normally acts on even the anon complaints, this time he judged that it needn't be and he had asked the Gen to take action. The gen refused and he implied even i didn't take it.
Why are you pushing all these as your own and not AKA said? AKA has already said all that. You are claiming that it is a new thing you are saying.
nelson wrote:You can only learn when you have an open mind. No matter what is being told, you want to keep harping on the same point, which betrays a closed mind. No chance of learning any thing here.
If you are not able to find a reply to my 'recusal' explanation (i had misspelled as recluse), what can I do. I had already read the explanations given in the thread before and I do not agree.