Indian Army: News and Discussions 15 Apr 2012

Bob V · Post by **Bob V** » 11 May 2012 23:46

Finally some good news.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_in ... us_1687512

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 12 May 2012 00:26

peter wrote:
I find something very strange.
1) Jawans and not a single jawan getting into fight. In general there is a sense of propriety and logic amongst men and I fail to see how jawans rallied for someone who had molested an officers wife. This obviously says that the jawans heard a different tale from the fellow jawan and they believed him.

2) To assault officers is in some sense a "finality" for these jawans. What would cause them to take so much risk?

You would be very surprised how quickly a match can set fire to a tinderbox. A few days of adverse happenings, and tensions can boil over very, very fast, regardless of finalities or anything else.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 12 May 2012 00:53

ASPuar wrote:
4. The jawans who mutinied will be charged with that offence, which carries a sentence of death.

5. The CO will likely be charged with dereliction of duty, and conduct unbecoming an officer, and chucked out of the army.

How is the CO guilty of dereliction of duty? He rushed to the scene as soon as he realized there was something going on, and rightfully reprimanded the Major who was stopping the sahayak from being taken to the hospital. For which he was assaulted by multiple junior officers. Unless I'm missing something the CO did not do anything wrong.

Did the jawans really mutiny? It was the officers who assaulted the CO after all. And if they were stopping the jawans from taking someone to the hospital, should the jawans have listened to them?

anjan · Post by **anjan** » 12 May 2012 02:24

nachiket wrote:How is the CO guilty of dereliction of duty?

Things don't come to fists over nothing. There must have been undercurrents exposed by this incident. And if as CO you find yourself being beaten by your own men then something has gone really, really awry. The CO is a father figure. At the least the man is not fit for command.

aditya · Post by **aditya** » 12 May 2012 02:37

Discussion with Lt. Gen. RS Kadyan, Col. RSN Singh, Lt. Gen. SV Thapliyal and Praveen Swami.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 12 May 2012 10:50

@Merlin: Note the last para of this article. Told you the unit would be disbanded. Impossible to allow a unit that has mutinied to continue in service.

@Nachiket: If a situation has arisen in a unit where officers and jawans are in such a state that they could conceive of coming to blows, the CO has already messed up bigtime. Its not a question of what happens on the spot, but such a situation should never arise in the first place. It needs a lot of buildup of steam for things to reach such a point. The CO will probably be fired, and rightly so.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 102508.cms

Army officers, jawans battle it out in Ladakh

Rajat Pandit, TNN | May 12, 2012, 02.17AM IST

NEW DELHI: In a shocking breach of discipline in the Army, officers and jawans of an artillery regiment deployed in the Nyoma sector of eastern Ladakh violently clashed with each other on Thursday evening. The ugly brawl ended with the commanding officer (CO) of the 226 Field Regiment deployed in Durbuk, Colonel Prasad Kadam, a Major, S K Sharma, and two jawans being admitted to the military hospital at Leh with multiple injuries.

The entire artillery unit of around 550 soldiers, which was at the high-altitude Mahe range in Nyoma to practise firing of their 105mm guns, was subsequently "disarmed" by additional forces rushed to the spot.

The incident sent ripples down the 1.13 million-strong Army, justifiably proud of its disciplined ethos and esprit de corps, and the entire defence establishment in South Block. Even as Karu-based 3 Division commander Major General A L Chavan rushed to the spot, Army chief General V K Singh briefed defence minister A K Antony on Friday morning after talking to Northern Army commander Lt-Gen K T Parnaik.

The artillery regiment will "eventually be disbanded", much like a few Sikh regiments were in the aftermath of Operation Bluestar in the mid-1980s, after the court of inquiry ordered into the incident establishes the chain of events and identifies the guilty. "It's an isolated act of indiscipline. The situation is under control...the accused will face court martial,'' said a senior officer.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 May 2012 10:56

I have a feeling the major's wife treated like sahayak like dirt and hence the undercurrent of resentment which might have boiled over into the sahayak hitting back. but lets wait and see, we have discussed the ongoing plans to do away with sahayaks the sooner the better.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/how- ... 88444.html

why the unit deploying for a firing drill was allowed to take along family members for a picnic is also going to be investigated for sure.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 May 2012 12:31

Sachin wrote:<SNIP>The concept of Sahayak may also need a relook here. <SNIP>

Can we stop bringing in tangential arguments here? What has all this got to do with Sahayak system? doe the report say anything about Sahayak misbehaving or anything of the sort? There is no need to flame a discussion with unrelated arguments.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 May 2012 12:37

nachiket wrote: How is the CO guilty of dereliction of duty? He rushed to the scene as soon as he realized there was something going on, and rightfully reprimanded the Major who was stopping the sahayak from being taken to the hospital. For which he was assaulted by multiple junior officers. Unless I'm missing something the CO did not do anything wrong.

Did the jawans really mutiny? It was the officers who assaulted the CO after all. And if they were stopping the jawans from taking someone to the hospital, should the jawans have listened to them?

As they say, "You're in the army now".

The fact that all this happened itself means complete lack of control on part of the CO of the unit. How come the officers felt emboldened to stop evacuation and then attack the CO? If the CO cannot ensure the discipline among the rank and file, then he has no duty being a CO. You'll be surprised to know of instances when careers of COs have been compromised for far-2 lesser. This is a mutiny for god's sake. Rest assured, each and every man will be Court Marshaled and cashiered from service. No matter what the provocation, there is simply no room for mutiny in the IA. That is how the Army Act works.

ticky · Post by **ticky** » 12 May 2012 12:47

Newbie pooch ASpuar Saab

What happens to the officers and other ranks not involved and innocent of any charge if the unit is disbanded. Are they to be absorbed/accomodated in other units or do they have to go as well.

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 May 2012 12:52

Actually to be very honest this talk about mutiny and disbanding the whole unit over a squabble is actually plain and simple British era baggage.
But then that is how we roll all in the name of tradition.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 12 May 2012 13:04

ASPuar, rohit et al, thanks for clarifying that. Still think sacking the CO is a bit unfair, but if those are the rules, then it has to be done I suppose.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 May 2012 13:36

negi wrote:Actually to be very honest this talk about mutiny and disbanding the whole unit over a squabble is actually plain and simple British era baggage.
But then that is how we roll all in the name of tradition.

Sorry, but there is nothing about British era baggage here....this has to do with cohesion of the said regiment as a fighting unit. Let me elaborate:

1. The men and officers have come to blow in a unit. Even if the trouble makers on both side are weeded out, including the CO, the the bonding and trust between the officers and men will never be the same.

2. There will always be a underlying current of mistrust and anger/resentment in both officers and men - each would have seen the careers and lives of their friends/colleagues/fellow officer or soldier being ruined. Because no matter what the provocation, both the parties will be held guilty to stepping outside of army law with guilty being punished a bit more than the other.

3. In such a situation, the unit will never remain the same. The basic building block of any unit - and that too, a fighting unit - is the trust between Officers and its men. With that gone, no one knows how the dice will roll when yellow matter hits the fan. As a Arty Bde Commander, I'd not be sure if the said unit will be able to deliver in times of crises.

4. It will be extremely difficult to build the regiment - the stigma will always be there.

So, rest assured, IMO the days of the regiment are numbered - the men will be dispersed far and wide, as will be officers. But if I understand army a bit, the stigma of being from the said regiment will stick with officers and men all their lives and wherever they go.

Having said that - IMO, the officers have led the regiment and men down. It is their responsibility to rise above the everything and handle the situation. It is not that men have not misbehaved with officers and in times of war have shown tendency to duck in face of crisis, it is the officers which have risen to the occasion and steered the ship.

While many celebrate the battle of Assal Uttar as a fine example of triumph of IA, not many know that even senior infantry regiments in the battle had initially lost cohesion with desertions and general loss of command and control - with even some CO's shirking responsibility. It took the steel of senior officers at Commanding Officer/Brigade level/ GOC (4 Dvision) to put together the fine defense that finally checkmated the PA offensive. The GOC 4 Division went into the battle area with all three stars displayed on his jeep (against the SOP in battle area) to make sure that men saw their officer (and senior most at that) in the battle area and took courage from him.

There is a deep meaning to the oath that an officer takes (of the Chetwood fame) as he passes out of the academy.

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 May 2012 13:45

^ Boss I know what qualifies as mutiny in fauj , if you form a group and question something which you think is not right will be considered as insubordination and can lead to court martial , from there on the Army act or the law is open to interpretation. All these were devised during the British era because the officers (English) did not trust the Indians (sepoys) the British might have left but the underlying structure and practices are still upheld till date.

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 12 May 2012 13:57

rohitvats wrote:What has all this got to do with Sahayak system? doe the report say anything about Sahayak misbehaving or anything of the sort? There is no need to flame a discussion with unrelated arguments.

Sir, request you to see scan all the posts on this topic. The reason which was given for the Major bashing up a jawan was that the jawan was his Sahayak and he had misbehaved with the Major's wife. So either the Sahayak was a rogue person who did not know how to behave with women, or there was some thing more on that. I would echo Singha when he says that there could be a case that this woman may have treated the Sahayak as dirt.

In my humble opinion a Sahayak getting a chance to either misbehave or get into an argument with an officer's wife only happens if there are chances that all the parties have some common point of interaction. Why should a Sahayak just helping out the officer, even get into an argument with (or attempt to molest) the officer's wife? So as I said earlier the Army really needs to see if the Sahayak is acting as a helper for the Officer, or he also becomes a servant to the Officer's family (where he has a chance to interact with the officer's family, and also leading to other issues like ill-treatment, ego-clashes etc. etc).

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 12 May 2012 14:14

Sachin wrote:....

good point.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 12 May 2012 14:16

Sachin wrote: <SNIP> Sir, request you to see scan all the posts on this topic. The reason which was given for the Major bashing up a jawan was that the jawan was his Sahayak and he had misbehaved with the Major's wife. So either the Sahayak was a rogue person who did not know how to behave with women, or there was some thing more on that. I would echo Singha when he says that there could be a case that this woman may have treated the Sahayak as dirt.

In my humble opinion a Sahayak getting a chance to either misbehave or get into an argument with an officer's wife only happens if there are chances that all the parties have some common point of interaction. Why should a Sahayak just helping out the officer, even get into an argument with (or attempt to molest) the officer's wife? So as I said earlier the Army really needs to see if the Sahayak is acting as a helper for the Officer, or he also becomes a servant to the Officer's family (where he has a chance to interact with the officer's family, and also leading to other issues like ill-treatment, ego-clashes etc. etc).

Sachin, it is not a 0-1 system where either Sahayak assists only the officer or he becomes servant to the family.

While [1] is completely possible and even happens, you cannot generalize the situation. Even if the Sahayak comes to officers house to assist the officer, he will interact with his family. If someone is inclined to misbehave - or molest - as the story goes in this case, he can very well do so. After all a Sahayak will come to officers home when the said officer has gone to officer and manage his uniform and dress.

As for IA looking into the Sahayak system - well, what you see now is a complete break being proposed by the IA itself. Internally, IA (through AWWA) had instituted guidelines for officer's families good 15 years back in terms of how to talk and behave with Sahayak(s). As for ego-clashes, well, you have men with ego-clashes if they are sent to undertake a mundane task. One does have to grin and bear it in many cases - men and officers alike.

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 12 May 2012 15:22

negi wrote:^ Boss I know what qualifies as mutiny in fauj , if you form a group and question something which you think is not right will be considered as insubordination and can lead to court martial , from there on the Army act or the law is open to interpretation. All these were devised during the British era because the officers (English) did not trust the Indians (sepoys) the British might have left but the underlying structure and practices are still upheld till date.

The Army Act worked and still works for IA. I see a pattern these days wherein its fashionable to state that everything British is not good. And I am not an Anglo-phile.

Perhaps these were devised during British era, so what...? It works

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 12 May 2012 16:25

As per the Army/Navy/Air Force act, if two or more jawans/officers/cadets/trainees together refuse to have one or more meals, it is a mutiny. In this case, they have bashed up the CO. If it was done by an individual jawan, only he will be tried. This was done collectively, hence it is mutiny. The incident will be treated as mutiny and most probably the regiment will be disbanded.

The Commanding officer is already relieved of his duties. Now those involved will be arrested and put behind bars till the court martial verdict is pronounced.

Ashutosh Malik · Post by **Ashutosh Malik** » 12 May 2012 16:39

rohitvats wrote:
nachiket wrote: How is the CO guilty of dereliction of duty? He rushed to the scene as soon as he realized there was something going on, and rightfully reprimanded the Major who was stopping the sahayak from being taken to the hospital. For which he was assaulted by multiple junior officers. Unless I'm missing something the CO did not do anything wrong.

Did the jawans really mutiny? It was the officers who assaulted the CO after all. And if they were stopping the jawans from taking someone to the hospital, should the jawans have listened to them?

As they say, "You're in the army now".

The fact that all this happened itself means complete lack of control on part of the CO of the unit. How come the officers felt emboldened to stop evacuation and then attack the CO? If the CO cannot ensure the discipline among the rank and file, then he has no duty being a CO. You'll be surprised to know of instances when careers of COs have been compromised for far-2 lesser. This is a mutiny for god's sake. Rest assured, each and every man will be Court Marshaled and cashiered from service. No matter what the provocation, there is simply no room for mutiny in the IA. That is how the Army Act works.

Rohit,

+1

And that is the way it should be. This is a complete failure of leadership and has to be dealt with severly. One is not running a bloody sunday school, but an army where on command people have to kill and get killed.

Best.
Ashutosh

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 12 May 2012 16:58

^^
+1

This is not a management case where you work on Theory Y etc etc etc

When you are trained to kill and be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, you also need to be very strict and clear about accountabilities, to ensure that things don't fail in crunch time

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 12 May 2012 19:01

Had inputs about Uri infiltration: Army

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 12 May 2012 20:13

not only will they be CMed and cashiered but will be treated severely till that point

my friends father was punished the same way

The whole lot were in chains

long ago in the NE

The IA treats this very seriously and the CO faces the ramifications of letting things reach this point

strangely enough my friend and his brother still joined.. the Air Force

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 May 2012 20:14

negi, Its pure case of command failure from CO down and mutiny from the jawans level. Where is the sahayak system might be a trigger but the underlaying cause is the command failure.

All,
First of all beating up any one is taking law into hands when there are other means.
Second refusing medical aid after the beating is callous and ungentlemanly. Even enemy gets medical attention.
Third CO dressing down the major in public undermines command.
Fourth the brother officers beating up the CO is even worse.

Discharging them from the forces is mild punishment.

No option but to disband the unit and disburse the innocent.

The unit's history is now repugnant.

Reforming the sahayak system is now critical.

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 12 May 2012 20:35

In TOI there is an article about the incident that occurred in Ladakh,it said that the unit would be disbanded like some units after Op Bluestar.
2 questions- If it disbanded, will there be another artillery unit which is acclimatised and ready for duty almost immediately ?
Which other units were disbanded after Op Bluestar ?

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 12 May 2012 20:41

rohitvats wrote:Even if the Sahayak comes to officers house to assist the officer, he will interact with his family. If someone is inclined to misbehave - or molest - as the story goes in this case, he can very well do so.

I have two questions here.
1. The Sahayak very well knows the strict discipline in the Army. And here, it is very easy to identify who tried to molest a woman. He should be a total fool to try this out, as the punishments are much more worse.
2. I would like to point that in this case, the jawans pretty much turned against the officers. So looks like the jawans sympathised with the Sahayak rather than the officers. Honestly, I dont believe army men would support a woman-molestor in thier midst, just because he picked up a woman who was an Officer's wife.

As for IA looking into the Sahayak system - well, what you see now is a complete break being proposed by the IA itself.

Yes, I know. And I feel that IA is going in the right direction. The current system of Sahayak needs to be redefined. To put it honestly, I have seen how women (in general, and not specific to IA alone) treat folks who join as domestic servants. Some treat them well, but some are literally slave-masters who make the maximum out of the poor situation the other man/woman is facing. If I am not mistaken, Officer candidates are selected after an analysis of their psychology. They Officer-Sahayak system may gel well with them. But an Army officer's wife is just another woman, who happened to be an Army officer's wife.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 May 2012 20:53

I suppose old institutions change quickly only under some explosive triggers like these.
after this specific case is disposed of, I am sure there will be high level thinking about reforms whose time has come to reflect changing nature of society more aptly.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 12 May 2012 21:07

Disbandment does not mean that XYZ Arty Regt ceases to exist. Disbandment is a part of the solution to stem collective insubordination/ breach of soldierly conduct. The unit/ squadron undergoing disbandment without reduction in strength of the Field Army, would normally be dissolved into the the Corps/ Regiment that it belongs to. A new and equivalent unit/ squadron will be raised preferably somewhere else. The new unit may or may not carry the same name XYZ as the old one, but the composition would certainly be different.

The disbandment and re-raising can take place in a matter weeks without actually calling it so. IMO that is what will happen if sanity is regained and not lost thereafter.

A body of 1.3 million strong men is an entity that is alive and must be. Such happenings are not a rarity but is definitely not the rule, so the punishment to the erring will also be beyond exceptional terms.

We must avoid generalising things beyond certain extent.

ManjaM · Post by **ManjaM** » 12 May 2012 21:22

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/249 ... -only.html

some additional details and names.
We are taking the word "molestation" as being correct where it well could have been "misbehaved" which may not imply "molest". That will also explain why the jawans sided with the Sahayak.

In a statement issued here, the army headquarters also called some media reports as "misinterpretation and mischievous reporting to sensationalise the incident".

Officers and soldiers of the 226 Field Artillery Regiment, which was going through a month-long field training camp, had come to blows at the firing rage in Mahi near Nyoma.

The unit, based in Durbok in Ladakh, was conducting practice-firing at the range on the night of May 10/11 when the violence broke out, resulting in injuries to the regiment's commanding officer Col. P. Kadam, another officer Major A.K. Sharma and Sepoy Suman Ghosh.

The three were identified in an army statement here.

Though the army headquarters did not come out with the reasons for the violence, speculation was rife on two possible scenarios for the officers and the soldiers coming to blows, resulting in minor injuries to some of them.

One account held that three majors in the unit had brought their wives to the field firing range and a soldier had misbehaved with one of the women. This resulted in the officer beating up the soldier.

When other personnel tried to help the injured sepoy, the officers prevented them from doing so, resulting in tempers running high and the two sides coming to blows.

The second claimed that one of the three majors insulted a soldier as their wives were watching. This enraged the soldiers and the scuffle ensued.

However, the army's clarification Saturday said: "The entire episode can at worst be seen as an isolated act of indiscipline."

"It can in no way be termed as mutiny," the army said.

Some reports also claimed that the angry soldiers took control of the armoury for a few hours. The fisticuffs led to three officers running away from the scene. However the army denied any such thing had happened.

"No arms and ammunition have been used by anybody. The armoury has not been captured by the troops as is being wrongly reported."

The reports also claimed that the commanding officer, who tried to intervene on behalf of
an injured soldiers, was attacked by the other officers.

"Col. P. Kadam, the commanding officer, was not assaulted by other officers, as has been wrongly reported. The commanding officer, as well as Maj. A.K. Sharma and Sepoy Suman Ghosh, who suffered superficial injuries, have been given medical treatment," the army statement said.

The army also noted that the commander of the artillery brigade and the division's general officer commanding reached the Mahi firing range and interacted with the troops on Friday and the situation was brought under control.

"The situation is well under control," it said, noting that the regiment is being moved back from ranges to its location from Saturday.

The army has instituted a court of inquiry to investigate the circumstances under which the incident took place.

"The inquiry has commenced," it added.

After the information about the violence came out in the open Friday, the army headquarters had said in a three-line statement that a "minor scuffle" took place between officers and troops of the unit.

"Few minor injuries were suffered by personnel. The situation is under control and a court of inquiry has been ordered into the incident," it had said.

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 May 2012 22:46

Ramana sir I never even mentioned the term Sahayak, that is a different issue .

My point is very simple what has happened here can happen in any place or insititution for that matter, humans make mistakes in this case whoever started the scuffle needs to be made to fall in line . I simply don't see how this qualifies as Mutiny or even calls for disbanding the whole unit.

People who are saying that are doing only so because a precedent has been set by the British which we follow to the T.

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 12 May 2012 22:53

^^
Because those precedents work, thats why there is no harm in following them

negi · Post by **negi** » 12 May 2012 23:06

Ajay Sharma wrote:^^
Because those precedents work, thats why there is no harm in following them

Boss everything works at the end of the day so long as you are not the one affected. You cannot throw the baby along with bath water. You seem to forget that while this minor scuffle might have been initiated by just one guy/lady others might have to pay heavily for this .
If a court martial is due then all is lost for that individual he will be let go DRY, no pension nothing and moreover he will have to live with a stigma of being thrown out of the IA for rest of his life. Btw court martial proceedings are one sided once it's initiated against a person unlike court hearings there is only one verdict i.e. found guilty.

Now it is clear that in this case what DDM first reported was not true as details emerge , however some here were quick to call for disbanding the unit and asking for CO's head.

One can argue that CO deserves to be pulled up for allowing family members to join a firing drill, however we all know how these things work in fauj at times even if it is not an official family day officers and even jawans at times do get their family members along with them in the field.

member_22906 · Post by **member_22906** » 13 May 2012 00:08

negi wrote:
Ajay Sharma wrote:^^
Because those precedents work, thats why there is no harm in following them
Boss everything works at the end of the day so long as you are not the one affected. You cannot throw the baby along with bath water. You seem to forget that while this minor scuffle might have been initiated by just one guy/lady others might have to pay heavily for this .
If a court martial is due then all is lost for that individual he will be let go DRY, no pension nothing and moreover he will have to live with a stigma of being thrown out of the IA for rest of his life. Btw court martial proceedings are one sided once it's initiated against a person unlike court hearings there is only one verdict i.e. found guilty.

Now it is clear that in this case what DDM first reported was not true as details emerge , however some here were quick to call for disbanding the unit and asking for CO's head.

One can argue that CO deserves to be pulled up for allowing family members to join a firing drill, however we all know how these things work in fauj at times even if it is not an official family day officers and even jawans at times do get their family members along with them in the field.

Sir, I am not commenting about what happened or not, in terms of whether it was a case of molestation or a sahayak issue or something else. If there is one thing certain from whatever news we have read or heard from the same sources/media reports, it is that there was a breakdown of command and control. Typically, if it came to this situation, 9 out of 10 instances things were brewing and perhaps were waiting for a spark for things to blow up. Either ways, when these unfortunate situations do come up, the counter measures that need to be taken are deliberately drastic to send a very stern message to one and all.

So, draconian (and archaic) it may look to us all, it still needs to be done to ensure that the right and consistent precedent is followed.

anjan · Post by **anjan** » 13 May 2012 00:41

Sachin wrote:
rohitvats wrote:Even if the Sahayak comes to officers house to assist the officer, he will interact with his family. If someone is inclined to misbehave - or molest - as the story goes in this case, he can very well do so.
I have two questions here.
1. The Sahayak very well knows the strict discipline in the Army. And here, it is very easy to identify who tried to molest a woman. He should be a total fool to try this out, as the punishments are much more worse.
2. I would like to point that in this case, the jawans pretty much turned against the officers. So looks like the jawans sympathised with the Sahayak rather than the officers. Honestly, I dont believe army men would support a woman-molestor in thier midst, just because he picked up a woman who was an Officer's wife.

I don't think you actually understand the sahayak system at all. He doesn't travel with the family or even the officer in peace stations. It's not like you go to a picnic and the sahayak will come along. Given the setting, whoever the soldier was, the chances are he wasn't anyone's sahayak.

Then again I don't suppose you're actually interested in an explanation.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 13 May 2012 02:00

There is every chance that this 'sahayak' business is just media masala. Might just have been an ordinary jawan.

Wives and families are authorised to occasionally visit in (non active) field areas, per a policy put in place in the 1970s, and followed now also, to lower stress levels, as far as I know.

I dont think everyone should be so terribly shocked. These things happen, and this wasnt even a full blown mutiny. People here have never heard of such a thing, but persons who know a little about the army are aware that indiscipline isnt a world ending event, it is dealt with.

The scale of this incident (allegedly- we hardly know any thing about it) is greater, so it has had more attention. But much worse incidents have happened in the army, and no one has ever come to know.

Media will not have been allowed into the field area. Possibly they got their info from police sources, or someone else, and it may be dud info in the end!

If there actually was a mutiny, then disbandment is inevitable, CO will get the sack (he already has AFAIK, he has been replaced with another officer), and the Majors, if guilty, will be severely punished. Any jawans who took part in the indiscipline will also be severely dealt with. And that is the natural order of things.

Anyway, whatever really happened, think of the tragedy this is, on so many levels, for so many people. For the jawans who will be booted out of the army, this is the end of a livelihood, a career. For the officers, whose wives had come to visit, how could they ever imagine that what started as an innocent and fun summer holiday, would end in such complete disaster. Apart from the terror the officers, and their wives must have felt when the men attacked them.

For the CO himself, this means the end of his career. He will likely not hold another important command again, and effectively his future is bleak in the army. Incidentally, this India Today report states that the injuries of the Colonel were inflicted by the jawans themselves, and certainly not by any officers. (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/how- ... 88444.html). His injuries are quite severe, with fractures of the limbs it seems.

Its a heartbreaking event, for not just the men involved, but for so many families, who were sustained off the bread earned by these soldiers, officers and jawans alike. The pride that they felt in their sons who served in uniform.. destroyed. How will they hold up their heads? Old parents, wives, children, who depended on that paycheque... all have been let down by a momentary loss of everyones heads.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 13 May 2012 02:16

^^^And dishonorable discharge (not the exact word) under court martial is the worst thing to happen to anyone - officer or jawans. The spectacle of rank badges being torn off the uniform ans service belt being taken that you see in the movies is actually true - though not as dramatic.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 13 May 2012 02:24

Media is also having a field day. In the absence of any other info, they are reporting as per their wish. Here is a more nuanced report. Its hardly any surprise these days to discover that major news media outlets have simply been lying, in order to report whatever they feel like.

http://www.indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsP ... 20512q.php

Officers-jawans clash in Ladakh not mutiny: Army

Ladakh, May 12 (IBNS):

Army officers and jawans of an artillery unit clashed at the Mahe Field Ranges in Ladakh Region during the field firing exercise of Field Regiment on Thursday.

"The entire episode can at worst be seen as an isolated act of indiscipline. It can in no way be termed as mutiny," read a media statement issued by Amy spokesperson Colonel Jagdeep Dahiya on Saturday.

"No arms and ammunition have been used by anybody. The armoury has not been captured by the troops as is being wrongly reported."

"Misinterpretation and mischievous reporting to sensationalise the incident by some sections of print and electronic media need to be dispelled," he said.

Dahiya said the Brigade Commander of the Artillery Brigade and General Officer Commanding of the Division interacted with the troops on Friday.

"The situation was brought well under control and the Regiment is being moved back from ranges to its location with effect from 12 May 2012," said the spokesperson.

"A Court of Inquiry to investigate into the circumstances under which the incident took place has commenced," he said.

"The Court of Inquiry will identify the complicity of the officers and men. However, nobody has been removed, dismissed or suspended," said Dahiya.

"Col P Kadam, the Commanding Officer was not assaulted by other officers, as has been wrongly reported. The CO as well as Maj AK Sharma and Sepoy Suman Ghosh who suffered superficial injuries, have been given medical treatment," he said.

"The situation is well under control," said the Army spokesperson.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 13 May 2012 03:53

Video - रेगिस्तान में जंग का अभ्यास Exercise Shoorveer

सूरतगढ़ के रेगिस्तान में सैन्याभ्यास में करीब 50 हजार सैनिक शामिल हुए। इसे शूरवीर नाम दिया गया।

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 13 May 2012 04:23

So as per the Army's own statement about the incident, pretty much everything the media reported earlier was made up, misrepresented or blown out of proportion. Knowing our media, I guess we couldn't have expected anything less.

milindc · Post by **milindc** » 13 May 2012 04:31

rohitvats wrote:
Sachin wrote:<SNIP>The concept of Sahayak may also need a relook here. <SNIP>
Can we stop bringing in tangential arguments here? What has all this got to do with Sahayak system? doe the report say anything about Sahayak misbehaving or anything of the sort? There is no need to flame a discussion with unrelated arguments.

Per Swami's article the officer's wife claims the Sahayak came to her room not knocking while she was having a shower. Really? And the officers decided to treat this Sahayak as dirt and beat him up.

I fail to understand how the Sahayak system is tangential argument.