Indian Army: News & Discussion

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 03 Jul 2011 23:41

anjan wrote:Maybe you know if soldiers are actually equipped with live fire in residential compound? I know for a fact that civilian 'guards' with lathis are all the security that place has. Perhaps you know differently? Who is this mythical "army-man" whose actions you seem to know so much about? And how?

You don't need a Live bullet to kill a 13 yr old boy...
1) Rubber bullets could have hit him at the wrong place
2) couple of blows on his head with a lathi could have killed him
3) a high pitched whistle could have made him fall from a high place or on to a hard ground and have a head injury,
4) Just being comforted by a burly security guard would have made him croak.

Why are we even assuming that the Defence people caused it, this could be a gang hit, a case of ragging gone wrong, plain mugging, a kidnapping or just plain murder!!!

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 03 Jul 2011 23:58

it is all politics... the victim is a 13 year old MUSLIM boy named Dilshan, hence the huge hue&cry. Already TN CM has announced 5 Lakhs of compensation to the family... dunno what compensation TN govt gave to victims of Veerappan or Coimbator Blast!!!

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 04 Jul 2011 00:07

How do you know he is Muslim? (I am not from TN, so Im not aware of the local naming conventions)

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Jul 2011 00:11

Shiv, I disagree a little bit on the trespass. One can't define a juvenile trespass equivalent to a defined youth or older entering. It is proven that an age limit is required to be considered as non-juvenile, now I am not sure what that age is.

yes, trespass is a mistake for the boy, and could be a crime for a youth. But unless armed and dangerous in a civil society, and especially in a non-gun culture society, firing at a fellow citizen (assumption) is a wrong attitude. I withdraw my views ahead, for the responsibilities of firing has happened inside a zone that is more secured than other places [assumptions here of course].

I know we are analyzing without facts.. but then we would have no posts here at all to discuss with true facts available.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 04 Jul 2011 00:15

The first question is how did the boy die? The army utterly denies any armed sentries in the colony. And if the Delhi Cantt is anything to go bye, it is true, because there are only civilian security guards. I am sure the police will look into it in the coming days.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 04 Jul 2011 00:18

Correct.. was a bullet that done him? the bullets should have the marks?

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 04 Jul 2011 00:22

It is really sad how media is handling the whole situation. Of all the news reports that I have come across, only the one that I have posted gives the account of both sides. The rest just give a one sided account and mention in just 2 lines how Army is denying the whole thing (like to show how the guilty will always say I didn't do it.). I guess it would be too much to hope that media would avoid sensationalism for once and give a balanced report.

ASPuar wrote:The first question is how did the boy die? The army utterly denies any armed sentries in the colony. And if the Delhi Cantt is anything to go bye, it is true, because there are only civilian security guards.

It is not only Delhi Cantt. It is becoming the norm in all old (of British period) cannts which are big, open (practically without any boundary), highly dispersed and fluidly merging with the civilian area. Even in Pune you get civilian guards armed with only a danda guarding residential areas. Nowadays, it is only relatively new and closed cantts where you get to see MPs all over the places. So the whole allegation really makes no sense.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 04 Jul 2011 00:39

I have been to this colony, it is adjacent to the secretariat near Island grounds.. there is also a huge services gold course. during vacation time, there would be a huge exhibition in the grounds. It is home to many anti-Social elements and gang wars are a common sight here.. why did the boy go mango plucking in the night?
also this area has a good TN police presence too (proximity to secretariat and assembly etc) so it could have been anyone who did the deed.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 04 Jul 2011 00:39

I have been to this colony, it is adjacent to the secretariat near Island grounds.. there is also a huge services gold course. during vacation time, there would be a huge exhibition in the grounds. It is home to many anti-Social elements and gang wars are a common sight here.. why did the boy go mango plucking in the night?
also this area has a good TN police presence too (proximity to secretariat and assembly etc) so it could have been anyone who did the deed.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 04 Jul 2011 00:40

Another report:
http://zeenews.india.com/news/state-new ... 17104.html

However there are conflicting versions about who killed the boy. One report says the boy was shot at by a police man whereas an another report says the boy was shot at by an Army jawan.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jul 2011 06:57

SaiK wrote:Shiv, I disagree a little bit on the trespass. One can't define a juvenile trespass equivalent to a defined youth or older entering. It is proven that an age limit is required to be considered as non-juvenile, now I am not sure what that age is.

SaiK - a man armed with a gun tasked to shoot trespassers will hardly be able to waste time judging the age of a trespasser. If an area is a no go area it is a no go area. Period. If someone enters, and worse, tries to run or hide in a secure military establishment - he will get shot. The TV news in this case was that this chap was among trees. In the Bangalore case the intruder was on a rooftop at 1 AM.

All outcomes are possible from events such as these and we have discussed them all at great length here

1. Intruder is armed and cannot be stopped - you get a Kaluchak or a PNS Mehran
2. Intruder is armed and stopped - everyone praises the armed forces
3. Intruder is unarmed and shot - everyone starts whining and complaining
4. Intruder is unarmed and escapes - "incompetence, corruption, complicity, poor security"

75% of the outcomes are negative for the armed forces.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Jul 2011 07:03

Shrinivasan wrote:I have been to this colony, it is adjacent to the secretariat near Island grounds.. there is also a huge services gold course. during vacation time, there would be a huge exhibition in the grounds. It is home to many anti-Social elements and gang wars are a common sight here.. why did the boy go mango plucking in the night?
also this area has a good TN police presence too (proximity to secretariat and assembly etc) so it could have been anyone who did the deed.

Playing Golf at an army course in Bangalore old timer caddies have pointed out the stumps of sandalwood trees that have been cut and carted away in the past. The course is part of a range used for training. Clearly if security was high - as it is in this day and age those sandalwood thieves would have been shot, armed or not, juvenile or not.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 04 Jul 2011 08:35

Even if we make the worst assumption here that the boy was indeed shot by an Army sentry, then why would the sentry take a headshot.. I mean a body shot is more likely as the sentry is trying to prevent the entry that is all. If he takes an head shot then either the boy must have been warned earlier on to seize and desist or it was premeditated outside the campus..
JMO.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 04 Jul 2011 14:32

Rohit,
A questions of IA Special Forces... Are all IA Special forces within 50 (I) Para Brigade? or do we have them within other formations? Are Ghatak Commandos considered SF or just Kammandu?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 04 Jul 2011 15:33

Ghataks are quick reaction troops. Not sure Commando would really apply.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 04 Jul 2011 15:39

merlin wrote:Ghataks are quick reaction troops. Not sure Commando would really apply.

Infantry Storm troopers without the SF badge.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 04 Jul 2011 15:58

Ghathak platoons are generally trained to carry out long range recce ahead of the main force of the battalion. They are not trained in tactics for COIN or CT ops, AFAIK.

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 04 Jul 2011 16:40

Rohit,
A questions of IA Special Forces... Are all IA Special forces within 50 (I) Para Brigade? or do we have them within other formations? Are Ghatak Commandos considered SF or just Kammandu?

Dont want to step on RV's toes, but here's what I know..

50 Bde has 3 battalions; sometimes its all three para, and sometimes its 2 para and 1 SF battalion...usually its just three para bns. The other deployments of para bns are in the Sec'bad Divn (upto 2)...plus 1 or two scattered around Jodhpur, Western Command and one in the East. Various permutations are possible, but usually for para bns, its 2-3 in 50 Bde + 1-2 in Secbad + 1 in Desert ..

SF bns are usually aligned to the commands : 1 in North Comm + 1 IN SW Comm + 1 in East + 1 as AHQ reserve + 1 that swings between Punjab/ JK.....

Avik · Post by **Avik** » 04 Jul 2011 16:42

Also, btw the Ghatak platoons are the QRT teams in the infantry bns. They are not SF, just quick reaction, and are typically commanded by the second junior most subaltern...

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 04 Jul 2011 16:43

MHA, MEA oppose Army request to take over control of ITBP in troubled border areas with China.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6-fttsRfjsQ/T ... 738407.jpg

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Jul 2011 16:46

ASPuar wrote:MHA, MEA oppose Army request to take over control of ITBP in troubled border areas with China.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6-fttsRfjsQ/T ... 738407.jpg

Foolish and short sighted view in these troubled times.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 04 Jul 2011 16:47

Why is MEA involved in this, I noticed for everything Missile Tests they have a veto. In which country does a State Department and Foreign Ministry have such a restrictive role.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 04 Jul 2011 16:56

Heading for another 1962 type failure.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 04 Jul 2011 17:29

rajanb wrote:Heading for another 1962 type failure.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream.
It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

- Ronald Reagan

Reagan's words hold equally true for us. But sadly, we seem to be made of less stern stuff. I dont understand the purpose of a "policy" which weakens our armed forces and capitulates to the enemy. To me, it smells of treason.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 04 Jul 2011 23:49

Aditya_V wrote:Why is MEA involved in this, I noticed for everything Missile Tests they have a veto. In which country does a State Department and Foreign Ministry have such a restrictive role.

US of A. State Department has a huge say in defence matters (not operational) but then the President can take the final call (here that is Mr MMS). We have the CCS as the deciding authority, so if AKA pushes for it, it will go to vote with other votaries being PC, SMK, PM and MMS (sort of a decider)... AKA might be using ITBP as a ploy to get something else, this is why periodically this gets a new life and get pursued and the dropped!!!

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 04 Jul 2011 23:50

rajanb wrote:Heading for another 1962 type failure.

Not so fast... In 1962 we had the stable door open, now it is firmly shut and has armed guards around it, what AKA wants is to have guards from his company, currently there are guards from multiple companies...

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 04 Jul 2011 23:57

An interesting picture... see at
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-p ... ost1118536
Here in this picture we can see an Indian Army Platoon after a mission. from the looks of it, I can discern Jawans from multiple units, I don't think they are J&K SOG or SRPF etc and looks like they are all Army jawans. Most carry INSAS but two jawans in the left carry AK (partially visible).
One of them is carrying a Sack, Are IA jawans allowed to collect booty? it is probably some goodies lie fruits or something, but is it not proscribed?
At the back it looks like 1 Jawan has a NVG on?

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 05 Jul 2011 12:20

Please ID the formation Please?
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/308484/Wally/Ar ... aka-07.jpg
I thought it might be 40th Arty, but looks different? is it a Regimental sign?
Thanks In Advance!!!

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 05 Jul 2011 12:39

Shrinivasan wrote:Please ID the formation Please?
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/308484/Wally/Ar ... aka-07.jpg
I thought it might be 40th Arty, but looks different? is it a Regimental sign?
Thanks In Advance!!!

IMO, 41st Arty Division. The blue background is unique to arty divisions as yellow is to armored divisions/(I) armored brigades.

40th Arty Division formation sign is in the pic below:

http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/s ... my_001.jpg

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 05 Jul 2011 13:32

Shrinivasan, the US state dept DOES NOT dictate who does what task.

US Army and US Marine Corps has similar capabilities. US State Dept does not decree that such and such work should be done by one or the other. The Department of Defence, with CJCOSC, decides how these things are done.

Foreign policy is one thing. Interfering in defence matters is another.

And it is not a question of "guards of one company or another". ITBP does not have the same responsilbilities or capabilities as the army. And there is legal provision and past precedent for placing of border guard forces under the Armys control. If the army feels there is a requirement, a VERY careful look should be given to the matter, particularly given the intransigence of the Chinese, and the ridiculous directive to the people of Demchok (From MEA!), banning them from any construction, including repairing their homes, even though the Chinese are moving ahead full steam, building a city on the other end of the border!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 05 Jul 2011 13:44

ASPuar wrote:Shrinivasan, the US state dept DOES NOT dictate who does what task.

US Army and US Marine Corps has similar capabilities. US State Dept does not decree that such and such work should be done by one or the other. The Department of Defence, with CJCOSC, decides how these things are done.

Foreign policy is one thing. Interfering in defence matters is another.

And it is not a question of "guards of one company or another". ITBP does not have the same responsilbilities or capabilities as the army. And there is legal provision and past precedent for placing of border guard forces under the Armys control. If the army feels there is a requirement, a VERY careful look should be given to the matter, particularly given the intransigence of the Chinese, and the ridiculous directive to the people of Demchok (From MEA!), banning them from any construction, including repairing their homes, even though the Chinese are moving ahead full steam, building a city on the other end of the border!

In imminent emergency situations the ITBP and others will come under operational control of the Army anyway.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 05 Jul 2011 15:32

The Defence Minister, Shri A. K. Antony being welcomed on his arrival at the Manas International Airport, in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan on July 04, 2011. Photo

The Defence Minister, Shri A. K. Antony with his Kyrgyz counterpart, Mr. Abibilla Kudaiberdiev, at a banquet hosted in his honour, in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan on July 04, 2011. Photo

The Defence Minister, Shri A. K. Antony with his Kyrgyz counterpart Mr. Abibilla Kudaiberdiev, in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan on July 04, 2011. Photo

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 05 Jul 2011 15:40

abhishek_sharma wrote:The Defence Minister, Shri A. K. Antony being welcomed on his arrival at the Manas International Airport, in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan on July 04, 2011. Photo

The Defence Minister, Shri A. K. Antony with his Kyrgyz counterpart, Mr. Abibilla Kudaiberdiev, at a banquet hosted in his honour, in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan on July 04, 2011. Photo

The Defence Minister, Shri A. K. Antony with his Kyrgyz counterpart Mr. Abibilla Kudaiberdiev, in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan on July 04, 2011. Photo

Is this where he was served raw goat testicles??

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 05 Jul 2011 22:29

rohitvats wrote:
Shrinivasan wrote:Please ID the formation Please?
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/308484/Wally/Ar ... aka-07.jpg
I thought it might be 40th Arty, but looks different? is it a Regimental sign?
Thanks In Advance!!!
IMO, 41st Arty Division. The blue background is unique to arty divisions as yellow is to armored divisions/(I) armored brigades.

Rohit, Are you sure. Isn't the formation sign of the 41st Arty an Eagle? agree that Blue BG is used for Arty though. This doesn't looks like Corps sign or an Army HQ sign. Could it be an independent Arty Brigade?

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 05 Jul 2011 22:54

Shrinivasan wrote: Rohit, Are you sure. Isn't the formation sign of the 41st Arty an Eagle? agree that Blue BG is used for Arty though. This doesn't looks like Corps sign or an Army HQ sign. Could it be an independent Arty Brigade?

Well my understanding on this matter is low, but AFIAW, the sign's painted on the vehicles are the higher HQ signs. Division Signs for assigned units and corps signs for Indep units, as per my paanwala...

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 06 Jul 2011 00:46

why do people need to know exact unit, symbol etc???

Seriously?? what genius thesis is coming out that requires this to be known with an absolute certainty.

There are some things - you should learn to ignore and orbat and details is one of them.

If an article mentions it exactly - be happy else control your inner sherlock holmes and ignore it

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 06 Jul 2011 03:56

Surya wrote:why do people need to know exact unit, symbol etc???

Surya, that formation sign looks new... hence my doubt if this is from a new formation!!! am not going into this further...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 06 Jul 2011 05:44

ASPuar wrote:
rajanb wrote:Heading for another 1962 type failure.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream.
It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

- Ronald Reagan
Reagan's words hold equally true for us. But sadly, we seem to be made of less stern stuff. I dont understand the purpose of a "policy" which weakens our armed forces and capitulates to the enemy. To me, it smells of treason.

Reagan's words apply to the "Freedom fighters" of Kashmir also I suppose, whom he supported. Sorry OT.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Jul 2011 09:36

Shrinivasan wrote: <SNIP> Rohit, Are you sure. Isn't the formation sign of the 41st Arty an Eagle? agree that Blue BG is used for Arty though. This doesn't looks like Corps sign or an Army HQ sign. Could it be an independent Arty Brigade?

These are the only two formations signs for arty formations that I'm aware of. In case you've link to the 'Eagle' thing that you refer to, please share. As for formation sign of (I) Arty Brigade, well, AFAIK, only (I) Armored Brigades have unique formation signs. Other formations like (I) Infantry/Arty brigades take the formation sign of their respective controlling HQ - most often, the Corps formation sign.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Jul 2011 09:40

Surya wrote:why do people need to know exact unit, symbol etc???

Seriously?? what genius thesis is coming out that requires this to be known with an absolute certainty.

There are some things - you should learn to ignore and orbat and details is one of them.

If an article mentions it exactly - be happy else control your inner sherlock holmes and ignore it

Surya, I don't think IA is trying to hide the identity of its Corps or Divisions or (I) Brigades. Heck, there is a section in BR which gives the formation sign of Corps/Divisions/Area HQs of the IA. This is not some secret stuff - other wise, all the vehicles in the IA would not so prominently carry their formation signs for everyone to see and infer. And that pic is from RD Parade....I don't think there is anything secret about this stuff.