An officer in the Indian Army, who is under inquiry or who has been found guilty of certain offences, faces a ban from certain aspects of service including Promotion and Posting to important/ sensitive posts. The ban is enforced by the Discipline and Vigilance section under Adjutant General's branch. Hence the name DV ban or Vigilance ban.PratikDas wrote:What is a "Vigilance ban" in IA?
Thank you, nelson. It helps me understand the gravity of the event!nelson wrote:An officer in the Indian Army, who is under inquiry or who has been found guilty of certain offences, faces a ban from certain aspects of service including Promotion and Posting to important/ sensitive posts. The ban is enforced by the Discipline and Vigilance section under Adjutant General's branch. Hence the name DV ban or Vigilance ban.PratikDas wrote:What is a "Vigilance ban" in IA?
The term may also apply to all govt servants in a broader sense for similar reasons.
The media spin is already happening -The matter pertains to a search operation conducted by the 3 Corps intelligence and surveillance unit at the house of Surajit Gogoi, Jorhat where a pistol, a mobile phone and some items were removed from his house and not declared. The raid was carried out on December 20, 2011. The allegation is that Havildar Sanjay Thapa stole a pistol and a mobile phone during that raid. The Havildar owned up to the theft on December 28, 2011. The civil police initiated an investigation into the matter. The COAS on May 18, 2012 recorded his censure in the form of "severe displeasure" for the commanding officer of the intelligence unit. The COAS also expressed his displeasure with the conduct of Brigadier Abhay Krishna, Brigadier General Staff (Operations) – which have since been stayed by the Armed Forces Tribunal.
On May 19 (12 days before he bids farewell to arms), the army chief issued a notice to Lt Gen Suhag and says: "actions taken by all concerned in the command chain including you as General Officer Commanding 3 Corps were not adequate to deal with the situation."
The Chief goes on to say: "That Brigadier Abhay Krishna BGS Ops, having come to know of the offences did not display adequate urgency to deal with the situation…Various intelligence reports have also indicated complicity of the unit in many earlier acts against military ethos."
Sources say the crux of the army chief’s anger lies in point D of the show cause notice. "That it is also learnt that the CO 3 CISU during his absence from the unit on leave was masquerading in Delhi as CO Army HQ CIU and interacting with the media, giving anti organisation stories. The above chain of circumstances indicate that 3 CISU has been handled in a most unprofessional and lackadaisical manner and the chain of command including the GOC 3 Corps abdicating their responsibility.
http://blogs.intoday.in/index.php?optio ... ntid=62766"The timing of the notice is suspect. The move appears to be an effort to prevent Lt Gen Suhag from taking over as army commander by hook or by crook," says Lt Gen Raj Kadyan, former deputy chief of army staff. "If there was a case of theft of pistol and mobile phone by a Havildar, how can you hold the Corps commander responsible? There is a chain of command – the platoon commander, Commanding Officer and at the most for lapses of supervision at the level of a Brigadier. Under what circumstances can the corps commander be held responsible for failure of command," he adds.
Code: Select all
Course Pass out Total Cadets
122 May 2012 362
121 Nov 2011 318
120 May 2011 362
119 Nov 2010 183
118 May 2010 315
117 Nov 2009 261
116 May 2009 376
115 Nov 2008 250
114 May 2008 286
113 Nov 2007 214
Siachen: Pak banks on PM to deliver after Gen Singh’s exit
by R Jagannathan 51 mins ago
On Friday, Pakistan managed to delay the liberalised visa pact on specious grounds. Even though Home Secretary RK Singh went to Pakistan for the explicit purpose of signing the agreement, the Pakistanis managed to delay it.
According to The Indian Express, Islamabad wanted the visa agreement to be signed by Home Minister P Chidambaram even though it was explicitly agreed during talks between President Asif Ali Zardari and Manmohan Singh in April that the home secretaries would sign it.
Knowing full well that Chidambaram was not going to be part of the visa pact delegation, the Pakistanis still insisted that he should come at least for a few hours to sign the agreement, which the home minister declined. They thus held the visa agreement hostage.
Says the Express quoting Ranjan Mathai on the visa pact delay: “We also have reports that the Pakistani side referred to some delay in its procedure and the Pakistani Interior Minister’s (Rehman Malik’s) desire for political participation in signing of the visa pact.”
Earlier, the Pakistanis decided to postpone talks on Sir Creek – where agreement is at hand – from the 14 May date scheduled earlier.
Nobody in the external affairs ministry should be fooled. All these are Pakistan’s excuses to get India to move out of Siachen – something it has been desperate to achieve since India holds the high ground on that glacier.
The Indian army has been very clear – from Gen VK Singh downwards – that an advantage obtained with so much sacrifice of men and material cannot simply be gifted away through so-called “demilitarisation” for no advantage at all.
However, the weak link in the Indian position is the Prime Minister himself, who seems to be scrounging around for a diplomatic victory to pull off when his reputation is otherwise in tatters.
According to a report in India Today, as early as June 2005, the PM told soldiers at the Siachen base camp: “Siachen is called the highest battlefield, where living is very difficult. Now the time has come that we make efforts that this is converted from a point of conflict to the symbol of peace.”
But the magazine also notes that Siachen is what the PM may be willing to sacrifice for personal achievement. “Demilitarisation is his CBM (confidence building measure) offer to Pakistan. Cynics suggest that he, too, has become a victim of the Nobel Peace Prize syndrome, trapped by the desire of temporary personal applause at the cost of national interests. It is his ticket to history.”
The Sunday Guardian underlines the fact that while Sir Creek is close to a solution, Siachen is not since the Indian army is dead set against it. It says “Indian army chiefs starting from Gen AS Vaidya and continuing to Gen VK Singh have refused to support what they perceive will be a major concession to Pakistan, as it is India which will have to withdraw.”
The Pakistani decision to delay talks on Sir Creek and also the visa agreement could be clearly related to Gen VK Singh’s retirement by end-May, when he will be replaced by Gen Bikram Singh, who, the Sunday Guardian suspects, “is expected to lead the reversal of the army’s position in order to help Dr (Manmohan) Singh achieve his dream of leaving a ‘peace mark’ on Indo-Pak relations.”
The Pakistani reference to “political participation” is probably a veiled reference to get Manmohan Singh to hand them a lolly.
One hopes the government is not foolish enough to not see through the Pakistani ruse. Manmohan should be seeking to leave a legacy of peace based on real trust with Pakistan, not by allowing them to hoodwink us once again. As in Kargil. As on 26/11. As in the Shimla Agreement. As always.
You never know. It could be true. Please see this about Antony and the supreme court from General VKS: SC judge asked me to 'blow with wind', Gen V K Singh saysASPuar wrote:Dear god, I hope there isnt anything to this report. I sincerely hope that there isnt such bankruptcy of thought that this Siachen demilitarisation nonsense is actually under active consideration. Oh dear goodness.
Apparently questioning inaction by Antony then, the General said, "He (Antony) has ordered a CBI inquiry. It could have been done earlier."
On inaction on his own part, he said, "If he (Antony) had asked me to take action, action would have been taken. Be rest assured about it."
great suggestion! he has the confidence of the people after Kalam, but then usually its the saadhu log that get posted thereRamaY wrote:A fitting reply by the opposition to UPA would be to elect VKS for president's post and make him the Supreme Commander of Indian Armed Forces
Disagree. President is a toothless post. It would be a waste of his talent. Now if you were talking about PM .......vasu raya wrote:great suggestion! he has the confidence of the people after Kalam, but then usually its the saadhu log that get posted thereRamaY wrote:A fitting reply by the opposition to UPA would be to elect VKS for president's post and make him the Supreme Commander of Indian Armed Forces
The problem is a president can only return a bill so many times but then he has to sign on the dotted line. Thus he is a figurehead. This is why/how JLN neutralized Rajendra Prasad.RamaY wrote:^ Sir Presidential post is not a symbolic post as it is made out to be by the ruling elite (starting from JLN) and is taught to us. It is a constitutional authority and has a lot of say in constitutional affairs. Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_ ... and_duties
Moreover imagine the so-called LoS having Sri VKS as his symbolic chief
I'm jealous, I feel I should have written this post.Sanku wrote:Gen V K Singh is clearly and exceptional man, he has the raw courage of a PVC winner combined with the steadfastness of a yogi and the strategic mindset of a Chankya.
I cant stop raving over him. For a cynic like me, a hero, after a long long time.
Truly some one to be idolized.
No, not Lt. Gen Avadesh Kumar but Mr. Avadesh Kumar as of today, he has lost his rank and has been dismissed from service.Gaur wrote:Gen VK Singh's interview to ibnlive. Again, this is also a must watch.
....
+1.Sanku wrote:Gen V K Singh is clearly an exceptional man, he has the raw courage of a PVC winner combined with the steadfastness of a yogi and the strategic mindset of a Chankya.
I cant stop raving over him.For a cynic like me,a hero, after a long long time.
Truly some one to be idolized.
V Mahalingam
25 May 2012
One of the leading news papers in its edition of 15 May 2012 reported “government had deliberately withheld a few critical facts in a bid to protect Lt Gen Singh (meaning Lt Gen Bikram Singh) not only during the hearing but also while getting his appointment cleared by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet.” The news paper goes on to state that in response to a PIL in the Supreme Court, “the attorney general and the solicitor general said since Lt Gen Singh was the “deputy force commander” on “the payroll of the UN” and an “international civil servant” he could not be blamed for the incidents of sexual misconduct.”
The fact however is different. Lt Gen Bikram Singh, besides being the deputy force commander, was also the General Officer Commanding (GOC) Eastern Division and was responsible for the North Kivu Brigade. He was indeed in the chain of command of the formation and troops operating under the Brigade.
The point here is not whether General Bikram Singh was responsible for the sexual misconduct by a few Army personnel or not. The accountability and culpability for the wrong doings if any are matters which need to be investigated by a court of inquiry. The convening authority thereafter has the right and the authority to take appropriate administrative or disciplinary action or even dismiss the case.
But the real question is, was it proper on the part of the government to hide facts from the highest court of the land if at all they did so, thereby appearing to be influencing its decision? governments especially in a democracy are not expected to take sides or influence courts. What difference would it make to any government whether A, B or C became the Chief of the Army Staff excepting where some vested interests are involved? If a government presents half truths, hides facts or fabricates evidences what will be its impact on the rest of the government departments and government servants? Can a government be seen as siding someone even remotely?
It is this culture of hiding facts, telling open lies, brushing faults of individuals under the carpet and protecting individuals for no rhyme or reason which is haunting the nation today. In my days as a youngster in the Army, it was considered unofficer-like to scrutinize the monthly pay slip issued by the Controller of Defence Accounts (Officers) as; being a government department they were infallible. They can never make a mistake and if they did, even by mistake, they would correct it. No doubt the organisation never belied the trust of the officer class of the Indian Army. That was the implicit faith that people had on the government and its departments.
Today that very government is seen with suspicion every time they come out with some information or news. The specter of the government owned Public Sector undertakings such as BEML cheating on that very government and probably bribing people has to be viewed in that context. government and those organisations owned by it delaying payment of petty contractors, workers, going back on agreements, twisting words in agreements, imposing taxes with retrospective effect, failing to respect government or courts orders etc fall in the same category. Ask any businessman and he will tell you stories.
Take the issue of a supposed witch – hunt of General Suhag by General VK Singh. When the Chief of the Army Staff in his official capacity receives a written complaint from a member of Parliament, implicating a senior officer of misappropriation or mismanagement, should the Chief brush it under the carpet and behave as if nothing had happened? If indeed he had done so, wouldn’t everyone including the media castigate him for protecting a brother army officer?
Take the case of General VK Singh issuing a show cause notice to a Corps commander for failed military intelligence operation in Assam. The Corps Intelligence and Surveillance Unit which is supposed to have botched up the operation comes directly under the Corps Headquarters. It works under the Intelligence Branch of the Headquarters. The Brigadier General Staff, the Chief of Staff and the Corps Commander are the direct superiors of the unit in the chain of command. In the said operation, items such as pistol, cash worth 1.5 lakhs, a laptop gold ornaments etc were supposedly been lost. Of these items, the local police appear to have detected a havildar who had participated in the operation using one of the lost mobile phones. Shouldn’t the matter have been thoroughly investigated and the guilty punished? Should AFSPA be evoked to circumvent the non-bailable warrant issued by a court? As far as I know, the Army has the option of requesting the civil court to hand over the case to them for trial by a court martial after the individual had responded to the court’s warrant. Why not do that if considered appropriate and necessary?
A theory is being propagated that the intelligence operations had been launched without the knowledge of the Corps Commander. Well this may happen in civil but not in the Army. Even if the incumbent Corps Commander was on leave, such an action cannot take place without the express approval of the officiating incumbent, who happens to be the organizational head.
Every news paper today has pointed an accusing finger at General VK Singh for issuing a show cause notice to General Suhag and placing him on Discipline and Vigilance (DV) ban. This is the procedure followed in all cases where cognizance of an offence has been taken in respect of an officer of the Army irrespective of his rank or appointment. In a number of discipline related cases, the promotion of some have been delayed, some have lost on their promotion depending on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. Should this rule be changed in respect of one individual either because of his rank or appointment? Should the Chief have kept quiet? What do we want? Should AFSPA been evoked to bury the case against the havildar in a bid to save a general becoming an Army Commander? It is this variety of brushing under the carpet which emboldens people to commit improprieties.
When a superior officer takes cognizance of an offence based on an enquiry, the laid down procedure demands the commanding officer to seek the explanation of the officer in the form of a show cause notice. It in actual fact is an opportunity given to the officer to state his position in his defence. Should Gen Suhag be denied an opportunity to put across his side of the story and defend himself?
Let me assure everyone with my experience in the armed forces – if you protect an individual wrongly or save someone who doesn’t deserve to be saved, may be even in the name protecting the good name of the institution, you will not be able to act on any other crime or a misdeed, or anyone else in the unit as that individual is sure to blackmail you into saving him. That will not be in the interest of the Army or its institutional integrity.
The larger point is if India is to recover from its present state of corruption, impropriety and falsehood, we need to respect and act on issues affecting institutional integrity promptly and without any consideration for individuals. The sooner we get this lesson into our heads the better it is for the country.
There's nothing wrong with calling him 'General'. 'Sir' in India is an affectionate mannerism, certainly not a requirement.Jaybhatt wrote:THE TV ANCHOR BUFFOONS NOT KNOWING THEIR PLACE AND POSITION
____________________________________________________________
I am sure other BR members would have noticed the disgraceful lack of courtesy on the part of our TV jockeys when they were interviewing the COAS General V. K. Singh in the last two days.
I refer, specifically, to the interviews on TIMES NOW and CNN-IBN. The insufferable poseur, Arnab Goswami, insulted the Indian Army, the Indian armed forces, the finest soldier this country has seen in many decades, and the country itself, when he persisted in his disrespectful behaviour with the good General. He continued to address the Chief throughout the programme as "General", whereas the correct appellation would have been "Sir" and / or "General Sir". If I recall correctly, he used the proper terminology only once or twice (at the most) during the 58 minute programme. There too, he slurred over the honorific word. I have recorded the programme and am sure of the grievous misconduct on the part of this Goswami upstart.
He badly needs "six of the best" , as we used to call it in our school days. The swish of the cane on his posterior.
CNN-IBN was in the same dismal league. The difference - it was a woman who committed the discourtesy. Anubha Bhosle was as egregious and intolerable as Goswami.
It is high time that our ex-service personnel registered the strongest protest with the TV channels concerned.
Get real, my friend. There is always a certain protocol that one needs to follow, particularly with the head of one of the armed forces. Two people, very much younger than the COAS, persist in using the wrong appellation. These same yahoos would have been "Sirring" the PM or some other functionary continuously if they were to interview them.Nikhil T wrote:There's nothing wrong with calling him 'General'. 'Sir' in India is an affectionate mannerism, certainly not a requirement.Jaybhatt wrote:THE TV ANCHOR BUFFOONS NOT KNOWING THEIR PLACE AND POSITION
____________________________________________________________
I am sure other BR members would have noticed the disgraceful lack of courtesy on the part of our TV jockeys when they were interviewing the COAS General V. K. Singh in the last two days.
I refer, specifically, to the interviews on TIMES NOW and CNN-IBN. The insufferable poseur, Arnab Goswami, insulted the Indian Army, the Indian armed forces, the finest soldier this country has seen in many decades, and the country itself, when he persisted in his disrespectful behaviour with the good General. He continued to address the Chief throughout the programme as "General", whereas the correct appellation would have been "Sir" and / or "General Sir". If I recall correctly, he used the proper terminology only once or twice (at the most) during the 58 minute programme. There too, he slurred over the honorific word. I have recorded the programme and am sure of the grievous misconduct on the part of this Goswami upstart.
He badly needs "six of the best" , as we used to call it in our school days. The swish of the cane on his posterior.
CNN-IBN was in the same dismal league. The difference - it was a woman who committed the discourtesy. Anubha Bhosle was as egregious and intolerable as Goswami.
It is high time that our ex-service personnel registered the strongest protest with the TV channels concerned.