Indian Army News & Discussions - 11 June 2014

[rohitvats]

Everything about this is wrong !

1. It's the word of the officer against the word of the sepoy. Even military courts seem to take the officer's word and aquit them of any responsibility because hey the jawans mutinied. So officer's word takes precedence.

You are making accusations which are contrary to the fact on the ground. First, the officers would have been charged for the mistakes/crimes/errors they've committed. Which was not mutiny. So, their punishment depends on charges slapped against them. The fact that soldiers mutinied does not absolve them of their crimes. In fact, the Commanding Officer would be the most damned person because he would be charged with loss of command and control.

2. Why have batmen in close proximity with wives & girlfriends and do not expect something like this ? Grin & bear it then. Officers have bought this upon themselves and have only themselves to blame. You got a male ayah and want him to be neutered one on top and that too on sarkari kharcha-paani. If the batmen make out with wives then grin and bear it and take it in your stride.

Tell me, do you proceed with the assumption that if female members of your family are working closely with male colleagues, they are definitely going to be adulterous and promiscuous and make out with them?

3. disproportionate punishment, for jawans and light reprimands for officers. It will spoil morale of jawans and in future we will see what consequences it brings to bear.

The act of officers and JCO/OR are different and will invite punishment basis that.

4. It's highly likely that both the sepoy and the officer's wife were equally involved, but she gets away lightly. It isn't easy for such a thing to happen if the woman in picture does nothing to initiate or respond. The sepoy isn't going to force himself on his officers wife. That is called rape. If that happened then he would have been shot and then the entire matter hushed up. No other jawan would have taken sides with the sepoy as well.

The above part is nothing but wild speculation. And slanderous one at that. You're basing everything on the article which has one sided story concocted by the defense counsel. The fact remains that the soldier was reprimanded and given sentence for violating the modesty of the officer's wife.

It's a pack instinct and the officers are one pack against the less empowered pack of jawans. Sadly for jawans the military courts are also manned by officers. Game, Set & Match for officers.

That is a twisted logic simply to further an already twisted line of argument. And it especially in this case where it is not a case of officers versus soldiers. Those 160 men went on collective insubordination aka mutiny and will be treated for this crime.

For centuries, the same men have willingly followed their officers into battle and death...and a million strong army continues to function as a cohesive unit.

It's a situation wherein the govt should interfere and set things straight rather than leave everything to the army to sort out. They are not capable of doing it.

Well, thank god the GOI does not have any such cuckoo ideas!

[Sid]

Whole discrimination / reservation / differentiation between Officer class and soldiers need to questioned and examined

What do you mean by discrimination/reservation/differentiation? Can you please cite an example. In IA officers command by respect, not by mere rank. And well being of their boys is always the first thing in their mind. And these days number of soldiers are applying for officer branch too.

If you actually want to feel these three attributes, please take a loot at other civil services. There you will know what rank means.

Its a reality that Officers and officer's family including their bratty kids treat soldier & sahayak class as cattle class.

And how you know about this reality?

[johneeG]

So, soldiers beat officers - mutiny.
officers beat soldiers - not mutiny.

The point is why did the officers start beating the soldier. He is a soldier BTW even if he is being used as a servant. He joined the army to be a soldier, not to be a servant.

If the soldier did something wrong, officers should have taken the appropriate action. Why beat him? So officers(who are expected to follow and enforce the discipline) exhibited grave indiscipline by starting to beat a solider in front of other soldiers. That is a sort of thing which would create mutiny in any army. The officers are to be blamed if they started beating the soldier regardless of accusations and counter-accusations.

[rohitvats]

160 soldiers believed the sahayak. No one would have supported if he was a guilty molester.

Doesn't matter what they believed. In the Army, you simply don't do what they did. Even if Prabhu Bholenath had made himself visible and asked them to do what they did, they still shouldn't have done it. That is how the Army Act works. And the conduct of these men under Army Act was Mutiny

Rohitvats, as I understand the chain of events:

Sahayak is forced upon by Officer's wife --> Sahayak complains to his JCOs --> they believe but cannot take any action
Parallely Officer's wife accuses Sahayak of outraging her modesty-->Officers believe woman --> Officers beat-up Sahayak-->News spreads that Sahayak has been thrashed badly ---> Officers do not allow treatment -->rest of the soldiers fly off the handle, thrash officers and take over the unit. Even beat up their CO who tried to intervene.

You're basing your argument on the article by The Week magazine. Which has already been thrown out by the court. And rebutted again the by the Army.

However, let us assume that even if the above chain of event holds, still the conduct of soldiers will be termed as mutiny. It is that simple. As I said earlier, it matters not what happened before the event. What matters is the conduct of those soldiers.

Soldiers are paying the price for her perfidy.

Soldiers are paying the price for their conduct. No one asked them to do what they did.

Our army is essentially a British Army Construct.

Well, this 'British Construct' seems have done pretty well and served the Indian state to its fullest.

All the power for Officers continues from British days. Only Indians have replaced Britishers. Its a reality that Officers and officer's family including their bratty kids treat soldier & sahayak class as cattle class. This British culture problem needs a fix. long overdue. Ending sahayak system is one step in this.

Well, it seems that in all other armies as well, the powers rest with Officers. Sure, western armies have strong leadership and responsibilities at NCO level but that is more a function of the education level. But even then, the power and responsibilities vested in an officer is more than the NCO...irrespective of NCOs education or competence.

As for the comment about Sahayak - you're making overarching statement. Sure, there are many cases of abuses and nothing would please me better than to remove the Sahayak. And retain it only it's truest form - as a buddy of the officer. But the situation is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

Whole discrimination / reservation / differentiation between Officer class and soldiers need to questioned and examined.

I don't know what you mean by discrimination but differentiation will remain as long as Officer and Jawan categorization remains. And that holds true for all armies. The degree varies basis the society men come from and general education level.

[rohitvats]

So, soldiers beat officers - mutiny.
officers beat soldiers - not mutiny. <SNIP>

Well, it is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Officers beat soldiers - Correct.
Officers held guilty for this - Correct
Officers mutinied - No.

So, why the Mutiny charge on soldiers? Because not only they did not obey the orders of their Commanding Officer who went in to stop the fight but also thrashed him up. And then took over the unit and went about looking for other officers to thrash them up as well.

That is Mutiny for you. And mind you, there were more than 500 jawans in the unit and I'm assuming more than 160 were present on the firing range. But those who took part in the act were punished with punishment varying basis the degree of their involvement.

And as per one Indian Express report, the appeal by nine convicted Jawans has been dismissed by Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). So, there goes the conspiracy theory as well.

[Karan M]

Forget the heavy punishments the jawans (and junior officers mind you) got, why aren't the officers punished properly when in every explanation the brutal assault of the sahayak and their refusal to send him to hospital is acknowledged. What if that man had died? Is it difficult to imagine that man would have died if the soldiers didn't take action?

One is not even asking for an amnesty for the soldiers, just that they be given the right punishment and the officers ALSO be given the RIGHT punishment.

Is the punishment for brutal, life-threatening assault in the Army so mild? Is it because the victim was of lower rank?

The only person who seems to have received the brutal life threatening assault is the CO, who had 4 skull fractures. That kind of assault will result in jail sentences for the perpetrators.

BTW, on what basis did habal call the officers wife a career slut?

Is he privy to some information rest of us don't have? All on the basis of one article?

[johneeG]

First question: Did officers violate the rules by bringing wives to that particular place?
Second question: Who started the beating business? Officers or soldiers? If Officers started it, is it mutiny?
Third question: If 160 people are beating a handful of people, what are the chances that 160 of them are wrong and handful of them are right? Are all these 160 of them bad guys while a handful of officers are good guys?

The things to note in this incident are:
- These soldiers had no trust or respect for their officers. Why? Is it mistake of the handful of officer or 100+ soldiers?
- These soldiers know that they were taking a serious risk by going against officers? Yet they took the side of the soldier against the officers? So, the level of distrust and disrespect was such that they were ready to beat the hell out of officers and anybody who came to their rescue.
- This is one more instance of how this batman system is not appreciated by the soldiers. If the army wants officers to use soldiers as servants, then how can they expect those officers to respect the same soldiers?

[Rahul M]

in all this I cant quite see that the quantum of punishment for the officers is commensurate with their gross incompetence & breach of professional ethics.
that the officers thought it fit to beat up a jawan under their care like a thug and would still serve in the army is a matter of shame. that the environment of the unit broke down to such a level that a mutiny took place at the slightest provocation in peacetime (!) is proof of the complete incompetence of the commanding officers. at the very least all of them should have been dishonourably discharged from the army.

[rohitvats]

in all this I cant quite see that the quantum of punishment for the officers is commensurate with their gross incompetence & breach of professional ethics. That the officers thought it fit to beat up a jawan under their care like a thug and would still serve in the army is a matter of shame

My sentiments, exactly. The reports say that four officers, including the CO were facing the GCM. In case of CO, he would've been charged with Command & Control failure. But for those involved in physically beating the soldier, it should've been dishonorable discharge from the army. They don't deserve to wear that OG.

That the environment of the unit broke down to such a level that a mutiny took place at the slightest provocation in peacetime (!) is proof of the complete incompetence of the commanding officers. at the very least all of them should have been dishonourably discharged from the army.

There is one report which talks about unit having earlier insistence of insubordination in the unit. Clearly, a case of incompetent leadership in succession. But I doubt any punishment will come to the earlier COs. It will not be legally tenable.

[srin]

From a 6-month old article ...
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nyoma- ... 77420.html

A summary general court martial (SGCM) has convicted 15 Armymen of mutiny in the infamous clash between officers and men of an artillery unit at Nyoma in Ladakh three years ago and awarded them varying terms of rigorous imprisonment.
The accused, all non-commissioned officers (NCOs), were charged under provisions of Section 37 of the Army Act, which deals with inciting, causing, joining or conspiring with other persons to cause mutiny, read with Section 34 of the Ranbir Penal Code (common intention). Seven of them have been awarded 10-year RI, six have been sentenced to seven-year RI and two have been given five years and three years’ RI for their alleged acts.

This is the second batch of NCOs that have been convicted in the case. A few months ago, 10 NCOs were similarly tried and awarded 10 years and seven years RI. As many as 168 personnel from the 226 Field Regiment are facing disciplinary action in the case, which is perhaps the largest collective disciplinary action initiated by the Army. Trials of more NCOs and JCOs are expected to be convened shortly.

The Army has already tried the unit’s Commanding Officer and three other officers by court martial for alleged lack of command and control and assaulting a soldier. They have been reprimanded and awarded varying degrees of loss of service for the purpose of pension.

[Picklu]

+1 RM. The career is over is nothing compared to RI that 160 soldiers are looking at which should not have happened at the first place if the officers followed rule.

Also, if there is a beating up of the jawan by only the concerned officer, I can understand that it is a quarrel between 2 person and ends with punishment of those two commensurate to their own offence. However, when brother officers joined the concerned officer in beating the jawan, that should be treated as serious as mutiny by jawans and those brother officers should get punishment similar to jawans for mutiny.

The concerned officer gets dishonourable discharge, brother officers gets RI like other jawans; that is only fair. The loss of service for pension purpose is a joke.

[A Deshmukh]

+1 RM. The career is over is nothing compared to RI that 160 soldiers are looking at which should not have happened at the first place if the officers followed rule.
The concerned officer gets dishonourable discharge, brother officers gets RI like other jawans; that is only fair. The loss of service for pension purpose is a joke.

+1
Causes of mutiny-like behaviour needs to be seen. 160 jawans acted to protect their colleague.
Officers that started the beating of sahayak acted like goondas. they need to be dishonorably discharged.
Officers deserve higher punishment than jawans.

[member_22539]

^How serious was the injuries of the sahayak? The injuries were certainly serious enough that the officers themselves knew that he needed to be take to the hospital? On top of that he was stripped and exposed to the cold, probably suffering from hypothermia. How is this not life-threatening? If the soldiers got so riled up over getting him to the hospital (which everyone agree is the spark that lit the fire), isn't that a measure of how serious the sahayak's injuries were?

Yea the Col had serious injuries (as bad as the sahayak's), but I think he was just a mob victim, which was what the unit had degenerated into by the time he arrived.

All of this for a WOMAN, disgusting.

[deejay]

Just a clarification - right and wrong may be discussed.

Mutiny is a different offence in the services. Disobedience of orders by one person is disobedience of orders. Disobedience of orders by more than one person at a time for the same cause, is Mutiny. AFAIK, this is something which is stressed very often in the Armed Forces.

Armed Forces will charge even officers for mutiny when more than 01 act together in contravention of a direct order. Armed Forces by the very nature cannot afford group disobedience. At the core of this episode is a major command control issue that is far more critical to IA than the case itself.

Irrespective of whether it was the Officers wife or the Soldier who erred, to beat up the soldier and punish was wrong. However, their was no mutiny here. The Officers should have filed a charge-sheet and proceeded with due diligence on the matter. The response of 160 men acting together to take revenge is Mutiny against command and control in a forward area.

As it happened, this case raised alarm bells across the length and breadth of IA. If this command and control structure breaks down, the IA becomes ineffective completely. Mutiny will be dealt with ruthless punishment always and every time, whatever the cause for the act.

The 'sahayak' system where the 'sahayak' is used by officers family unofficially needs to go - no two opinions about that. Staff attendants in forward areas may be justified based on responsibility handled by the officers.

[A Deshmukh]

All the power for Officers continues from British days. Only Indians have replaced Britishers. Its a reality that Officers and officer's family including their bratty kids treat soldier & sahayak class as cattle class. This British culture problem needs a fix. long overdue. Ending sahayak system is one step in this.

Well, it seems that in all other armies as well, the powers rest with Officers. Sure, western armies have strong leadership and responsibilities at NCO level but that is more a function of the education level. But even then, the power and responsibilities vested in an officer is more than the NCO...irrespective of NCOs education or competence.

Whole discrimination / reservation / differentiation between Officer class and soldiers need to questioned and examined.

I don't know what you mean by discrimination but differentiation will remain as long as Officer and Jawan categorization remains. And that holds true for all armies. The degree varies basis the society men come from and general education level.

Discrimination - Classism - Air of superiority / lordship over jawan class.
being existent in other armies does not make it right.
nothing to do with society or education level.
this discrimination is inside army.
this discrimination is same as what made whites throw out Gandhi from the train.

[A Deshmukh]

Its a reality that Officers and officer's family including their bratty kids treat soldier & sahayak class as cattle class.

And how you know about this reality?

I know and state what I see on a daily basis.
Are you stating that it is not?

[johneeG]

Just a clarification - right and wrong may be discussed.

Mutiny is a different offence in the services. Disobedience of orders by one person is disobedience of orders. Disobedience of orders by more than one person at a time for the same cause, is Mutiny. AFAIK, this is something which is stressed very often in the Armed Forces.

Armed Forces will charge even officers for mutiny when more than 01 act together in contravention of a direct order. Armed Forces by the very nature cannot afford group disobedience. At the core of this episode is a major command control issue that is far more critical to IA than the case itself.

Irrespective of whether it was the Officers wife or the Soldier who erred, to beat up the soldier and punish was wrong. However, their was no mutiny here. The Officers should have filed a charge-sheet and proceeded with due diligence on the matter. The response of 160 men acting together to take revenge is Mutiny against command and control in a forward area.

As it happened, this case raised alarm bells across the length and breadth of IA. If this command and control structure breaks down, the IA becomes ineffective completely. Mutiny will be dealt with ruthless punishment always and every time, whatever the cause for the act.

The 'sahayak' system where the 'sahayak' is used by officers family unofficially needs to go - no two opinions about that. Staff attendants in forward areas may be justified based on responsibility handled by the officers.

So, essentially, if a group of officers beat up a soldier, it cannot be a mutiny because the officers are the highers up. But, if a group of soldiers beat up the officer, it will not just be a disobedience but mutiny. And since it is called mutiny, those soldiers will then be dealt very badly by the army institution. The system is so loaded in the higher up's favour that the higher up can get away with anything. And this is not limited to officer vs soldier. If it were colonel vs officer, the attitude would still be same. The higher up is always right and the lower ling is always wrong.

In this case, the officers were trying to be judge, jury and executioner when they decided to beat up the soldier on whatever claims. If it was just one officer, then atleast it would have been termed as a mistake of one guy. The other officers should have stopped that officer from beating up that soldier. Instead, those officer decided to join up and beat up the soldier. And this incensed the other soldiers to beat up those officers. This looks very bad for the officers who are supposed to stop soldiers from doing such things.

I think it was the officers who mutinied the moment they decided to beat up that soldier. If it was just one officer vs one soldier, it would have been scuffle. But, when other officers joined, it becomes mutiny.

Officers that started the beating of sahayak acted like goondas. they need to be dishonorably discharged.
Officers deserve higher punishment than jawans.

Exactly. See, Officers get higher perks and privileges than soldiers in everything. In that case, their responsibility should also be higher. If something has gone wrong, then the officer's responsibility must be higher because he was pampered compared to the soldier. So, natural justice would dictate that the quantum of punishment be higher for the privileged and lower for lower privileged.

[rohitvats]

Discrimination - Classism - Air of superiority / lordship over jawan class.
being existent in other armies does not make it right.
nothing to do with society or education level.
this discrimination is inside army.
this discrimination is same as what made whites throw out Gandhi from the train.

You're making absolutely idiotic statements.

An officer when he joins his unit as a young Lieutenant stays in the lines with Jawans for some months so that he is familiar with their living conditions. So that he can be accepted by them and this allows him to gel better with the troops.

The perks and privileges come with rank and appointment. If Officer have a separate Officer's Mess where JCOs and Other Rank are not permitted to partake facilities (except when invited), JCOs have their own Mess and Club where Other Ranks are not permitted.

The system has done pretty well and you can drop this 'discrimination' and 'class' nonsense.

[Rahul M]

exactly RV, cant digest such men continuing in IA as afsars.

mutiny is a serious punishable offence, whatever the mitigating circumstances. that a coy worth of soldiers mutinied implies that the NCO's at best allowed and at worst led the mutiny. as leaders who enjoy considerable power & influence in an unit they had the responsibility of reigning in the hot blooded soldiers. they didnt do so & deserve the harshest RI if found guilty of incitement.

the rest of the soldiers, unless they were part of the mob beating up the officers should have been let off lightly. by lightly I mean token jail terms of few months.

p.s comments about the officer's wife is extremely crass. of course the mutineers would say otherwise. that by itself doesn't make it the truth. it is certainly not impossible that the sahayak did indeed try to molest the lady.

people passing judgement on the basis of an article in week, hardly the epitome of unbiased publishing.

[rohitvats]

^How serious was the injuries of the sahayak? The injuries were certainly serious enough that the officers themselves knew that he needed to be take to the hospital? On top of that he was stripped and exposed to the cold, probably suffering from hypothermia. How is this not life-threatening? If the soldiers got so riled up over getting him to the hospital (which everyone agree is the spark that lit the fire), isn't that a measure of how serious the sahayak's injuries were?

As per the rebuttal put out by the Army to the article in the magazine, the soldier had suffered superficial injuries and was discharged the same day.

You're trying the cause and effect angle here - that is not how the Army Act works. Whether you or others like it not, it does not change the ground rules.

[Rahul M]

A deshmukh, the separation of facilities is not primarily due to some class system but because it is essential to maintain an army's command structure.

if an officer drinks out of the same glass with his men, crack bawdy jokes and slap each other on the back, the next day the men would not respond to his commands as promptly because by then, in their minds he is just one of them and has no right to order them about.

if you have ever had the occasion to lead rustic men in whatever capacity, you would understand and appreciate the need to maintain a certain distance with them in a social setting, something you may not do in another situation.

do not compare with corporate experience where teams are made up of people with more or less similar educational standards & job descriptions.

[Sid]

I know and state what I see on a daily basis.
Are you stating that it is not?

Please enlighten us where do you see that on daily basis. What I just stated is based on my own experience.

[rohitvats]

exactly RV, cant digest such men continuing in IA as afsars.

mutiny is a serious punishable offence, whatever the mitigating circumstances. that a coy worth of soldiers mutinied implies that the NCO's at best allowed and at worst led the mutiny. as leaders who enjoy considerable power & influence in an unit they had the responsibility of reigning in the hot blooded soldiers. they didnt do so & deserve the harshest RI if found guilty of incitement.

Only possible explanation for officers staying in service can be that the story about beating up of Sahayak was not exactly what has been published in the media. Could have been a relatively lesser offense. Otherwise, if it exactly same as what has been described, that they ought to be discharged from Service. No two ways about it.

Secondly, not only NCOs but some JCOs are facing court martial.

And I don't think all of the accused will face the same punishment. Even in case of first two batches of 20 odd soldiers, the scale of punishment has been from 3 to 10 years. For those whose involvement was lesser, the scale could be lesser than this.

BTW - this link from Indian Express says that appeal of nine of the accused has been turned down by AFT.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... ndimandir/

The appeals of nine such convicted jawans were dismissed by the Armed Forces Tribunal’s Chandigarh bench recently.

[deejay]

...
So, essentially, if a group of officers beat up a soldier, it cannot be a mutiny because the officers are the highers up. But, if a group of soldiers beat up the officer, it will not just be a disobedience but mutiny. And since it is called mutiny, those soldiers will then be dealt very badly by the army institution. The system is so loaded in the higher up's favour that the higher up can get away with anything. And this is not limited to officer vs soldier. If it were colonel vs officer, the attitude would still be same. The higher up is always right and the lower ling is always wrong.

...

JohneeG Saar,

Please, I never said or implied that. That is your own conclusion. Mutiny or the rules around it are to help maintain command and control. While I do not have links to exact episodes to help as example, try watching the movie 'Crimson Tide'. It is a story of a mutinous situation on a nuclear armed US Submarine. It deals with the issue of mutiny. Mutiny has been a difficult subject for armies and societies the world over.

And no, officers are just as likely to be charged for mutiny.

Specific to this case, I do not think the article being referred to is anything but DDM. Another Indian institution being attacked in our uber honest MSM.

It is up to you, to make your opinions on such pieces. I can't stop you from that, but if you are rational (and others who made some nasty remarks) you would have sought the other side of the story.

BTW: My views can be biased. I was an Officer, though I never had Batmans or Sahayaks.

[A Deshmukh]

A deshmukh, the separation of facilities is not primarily due to some class system but because it is essential to maintain an army's command structure.

if an officer drinks out of the same glass with his men, crack bawdy jokes and slap each other on the back, the next day the men would not respond to his commands as promptly because by then, in their minds he is just one of them and has no right to order them about.

if you have ever had the occasion to lead rustic men in whatever capacity, you would understand and appreciate the need to maintain a certain distance with them in a social setting, something you may not do in another situation.

do not compare with corporate experience where teams are made up of people with more or less similar educational standards & job descriptions.

Rahul,
Such class discrimination exists in all activities inside the army - in messes, in residences, in schools, in sports, even in temples.
You state that this is required to preserve the command structure.
I am questioning this very assumption.
Please tell me why an Officer's son should be treated differently than Jawan's son in army schools?
(And anyone, please dont argue that this does not happen.)

[srin]

I find it hard to see the relevance of distinction between officer vs Other Rank (some countries call enlisted).

It may have made sense when there was military draft. But in an all-volunteer army, does it make sense ? Does it make sense to order a person to do menial tasks because he isn't holding a commission ? Would such a jawan be violating superior's orders if he refused ? That is slavery.

While I get the point about command structure - I don't understand why don't the same "untouchability" apply to between officers ? Do you have separate messes for Colonels who don't want to mix with Majors who don't want to mix with Captains ?

Disobedience so near a disputed border is dangerous. There should also be an implicit contract between jawans and officers based on fairness and not abusing the superiority.

We need to understand that there is a change in our society. We'll have jawans who are well educated and who can also see others outside the army in similar strata but treated with respect.

[deejay]

Rahul,
Such class discrimination exists in all activities inside the army - in messes, in residences, in schools, in sports, even in temples.
You state that this is required to preserve the command structure.
I am questioning this very assumption.
Please tell me why an Officer's son should be treated differently than Jawan's son in army schools?
(And anyone, please dont argue that this does not happen.)

Deshmukh, can you give specific instances of this differential treatment to children in army schools. My son goes to Army School. He uses and all his friends (children of officers, men or civilians) use the same buses, sit in the same classroom have same teachers.

Please be specific with this discrimination - If it is real, I am in a position to get it corrected. As per rules and even otherwise, Children are strictly not subjected to any differential treatment institutionally at school or any other place.

In sports, exactly what discrimination?

And what exactly at temples is discriminatory?

[Hitesh]

I hope that after reading all of this stuff, the DM makes a final decision and tells the Army to get rid of the Sahayaks system or reform it completely to reflect the changing attitudes and times of the day. Not only that, but instruct that there would be more harsher penalties for officers who abuse the batsman or sahayak system. Such paternalistic attitudes need to be stamped out at the earliest opportunity.

I do understand the reason why the Army had to do the mutiny thing but they should have know that there would be a perception problem and take steps to address that perception problem to avoid needless grief and aggravation all across the Army. It won't be appeasement but a measure of confidence in the jawans and the officer structure. So to address the perception problem, the Army should highlight that it has removed "all confidence and faith" in the CO and its subsequent officers for failure to maintain cohesion and leadership. They need to be stripped down to their lowest ranking and dismissed from the service.

Mutiny is a very serious charge and needs to be dealt with harshly but so is the incompetence and failure to maintain cohesion and leadership. An army cannot survive on mutiny nor it can survive on such incompetence leadership.

[johneeG]

deejay saar,
you didn't say that but your logic is leading to that. I just pointed out where the logic is leading to.

Ok, lets be rational and see what we know about this incident:
- we know that the soldiers beat up the officers.
- we know that officers beat up a soldier.
- we know that soldiers went on a rampage.
- we know that its related to a batman and an officer's wife who are accusing each other.

Right, now, the soldiers went on a rampage after beating up the officers. So, once the soldiers were angry and resorted to violence, there was no chance for the officers to beat up the soldier. So, that means officers beat up the soldier first. Right! This is important. So, now the question is: once a group of officers start beating up a soldier, is it a mutiny or not? If it is not a mutiny and just some irregular behaviour. Then do you expect the rest of soldiers to stand aside while their fellow soldier is being beaten up by higher lings? If army allows its officers to beat its soldiers, then fine, say so and be done with it. Then, only those soldiers who don't mind getting beaten up by an officer will join. Similarly, officers also should not complaint if they are beaten up by their higher lings. And the same applies to army brass with respect to political leadership because political leadership is the boss of army. If the army does not allow a higher up to beat their juniors, then as soon as a group of higher ups resort to violence, it is mutiny because it violates the army's code.

Now, we really don't know if the soldier tried to molest the officer's wife or if officer's wife tried to seduce the soldier. We don't know. And perhaps will never know. These soldiers are under 35 males who are staying away from their wives and girl-friends. Now, if you bring wives into this mix, there is always chance that some soldier may misbehave. Or perhaps, there will be some kind of extra-marital affairs or some such thing and it can quickly get out of hand because they are all trained warriors with access to weapons. So, basic common sense tells that one should not mix wives into that equation. This is different from bringing wives to parties. This was not a party. This was a firing practice near LAC. What were wives doing there? That in itself is big failure of army and those officers. Even if Army allows officers to bring their wives to firing practice, officers should have the brains to know that its not a good idea. And I think Army rules wouldn't even allow officers to bring their wives to such sensitive areas. So, I think these officers violated the army rules by bring their wives in the first place. Then, they created a mess by hitting a soldier after accusing him of molesting their wives who should not have been there in the first place. Then, they are so bad that about 160 soldiers beat them up. The officers kept making mistake after mistake and are responsible for this whole mess. And they get away lightly!

[Sid]

Deshmukh, can you give specific instances of this differential treatment to children in army schools. My son goes to Army School. He uses and all his friends (children of officers, men or civilians) use the same buses, sit in the same classroom have same teachers.

Please be specific with this discrimination - If it is real, I am in a position to get it corrected. As per rules and even otherwise, Children are strictly not subjected to any differential treatment institutionally at school or any other place.

In sports, exactly what discrimination?

And what exactly at temples is discriminatory?

I was with him till school and sports, as I thought maybe I missed something during my time in all those APS, but temples?

There are no special temples for officers nor they receive special prasad. What baloney!!

[A Deshmukh]

Deshmukh, can you give specific instances of this differential treatment to children in army schools. My son goes to Army School. He uses and all his friends (children of officers, men or civilians) use the same buses, sit in the same classroom have same teachers.

Please be specific with this discrimination - If it is real, I am in a position to get it corrected. As per rules and even otherwise, Children are strictly not subjected to any differential treatment institutionally at school or any other place.

In sports, exactly what discrimination?

And what exactly at temples is discriminatory?

I was with him till school and sports, as I thought maybe I missed something during my time in all those APS, but temples?

There are no special temples for officers nor they receive special prasad. What baloney!!

I assume you are an officer. Try to visit an army temple as a jawan and see the discrimination yourself.

[Picklu]

I believe people from army background is using the word mutiny as defined by a law and that definition is decidedly one way loaded in favor of the higher up. So, the high ranking officer can get away with a lot of things vis a vis the lower ranking officer or jawan. Someone gave an example recently in 1965 dhaga. All in the name of command and control which has served as well historically or so the saying goes.

However, what I can not clear my mind about is when the brother officers joined in the beating of the jawan. It really does not matter whose fault it was - the jawan or the wife. Till that time - it was the fault of the officer DECIDEDLY for bringing his wife and MAYBE the jawan if the molesting allegation is right. To me the below is what seems fair and if the army act does not help reaching this, it should be modified.

1. The jawan gets RI or even worse - if the molestation is proven
2. The concerned officer looses years in service - for bringing wife in the exercise against regulation
3. The concerned officer gets discharged dishonorably - for assault on the jawan, does not gets RI given the grave provocation if the molestation is proven (it would be worse in civilian case, assault would be punished 99.99% of time irrespective of provocation)
4. The remaining jawans gets punishment for mutiny, NCO and JCOs more severely - no two way about it; everyone understands the importance of command and control in military
5. The brother officers gets dishonorable discharge as well as RI for assault for actually causing the mutiny; had they used their head and restrained the officer the mutiny would not have happened in the first place - they getting away with the slap in hand is what enrages any sane Indian not blinkered by the dogma of the legal meaning of mutiny.

[A Deshmukh]

Deshmukh, can you give specific instances of this differential treatment to children in army schools. My son goes to Army School. He uses and all his friends (children of officers, men or civilians) use the same buses, sit in the same classroom have same teachers.
And what exactly at temples is discriminatory?

My two children were in Army schools and now in civilian schools.
Believe me, discrimination exists.
As an officer you will not experience it.
As an external civilian, I could see the difference of treatment.

Same with army temples.
You will see what you want to see, and you will not see what you don't want to see.

[Sid]

I assume you are an officer. Try to visit an army temple as a jawan and see the discrimination yourself.

Mr Deshmukh, my father was in army and now I am a civilian like you. But none of what you have said can stand any scrutiny.

I had friends from that background but none of us ever acted any differently. I have visited company temples all my life and never saw what you just described. My dad's sahayak back in 2002-2004 was invited to my marriage when I married in 2010. I personally called him in for invite. Such is the relationship between jawans in officers.

So all this BS about widespread discrimination and class system is plain BS to me. Ofcourse there are bad apples, but your generalization is just insulting to say the least.

I am restrained in my responses just because I am curious to what went so wrong that you have such opinion for Army Officers.

[deejay]

Deshmukh, can you give specific instances of this differential treatment to children in army schools. My son goes to Army School. He uses and all his friends (children of officers, men or civilians) use the same buses, sit in the same classroom have same teachers.
And what exactly at temples is discriminatory?

My two children were in Army schools and now in civilian schools.
Believe me, discrimination exists.
As an officer you will not experience it.
As an external civilian, I could see the difference of treatment.

Same with army temples.
You will see what you want to see, and you will not see what you don't want to see.

Boss, as per the bold part such strange arguments just about proves everything, no? If I were to say the same thing about your views finding discrimination in Army Schools because "You will see what you want to see, and you will not see what you don't want to see".

Therefore, can you give me specific examples? If there are specific points I can get them corrected. I am a veteran and in the school my child studies, I don't know anyone. But, I would be able to approach and make suggestions to, be entitled to action taken report, from the AWWA set up that runs these schools.

I may not see them but you have, so let me know. I believe I can work with the system, persist at it and get things corrected if I am right.

I would also appreciate if you could give me the specific branch of the school where you experienced this, if you want I can share my email id, but I would need specifics. Without which these discriminatory charges remain baseless.

[member_23360]

why on earth we still have "sahayak" system, even pakis abolished it more than a decade ago ???

[Karan M]

First question: Did officers violate the rules by bringing wives to that particular place?
Second question: Who started the beating business? Officers or soldiers? If Officers started it, is it mutiny?

To hit and almost kill the commanding officer, who is trying to break up the brawl is mutiny.

Third question: If 160 people are beating a handful of people, what are the chances that 160 of them are wrong and handful of them are right? Are all these 160 of them bad guys while a handful of officers are good guys?

As if mob violence always occurs on the basis of right and wrong.

[Karan M]

+1 RM. The career is over is nothing compared to RI that 160 soldiers are looking at which should not have happened at the first place if the officers followed rule.

Also, if there is a beating up of the jawan by only the concerned officer, I can understand that it is a quarrel between 2 person and ends with punishment of those two commensurate to their own offence. However, when brother officers joined the concerned officer in beating the jawan, that should be treated as serious as mutiny by jawans and those brother officers should get punishment similar to jawans for mutiny.

The concerned officer gets dishonourable discharge, brother officers gets RI like other jawans; that is only fair. The loss of service for pension purpose is a joke.

The basic thing is the court found the soldier to have molested the officers wife. Everything flows from there. Now either we have trust in the IA system or we don't and have it re-examined. Equal punishment is pointless. A bunch of men losing their cool and assaulting a molester? Stupid. The molester getting support and then almost killing the CO? Of a different level of gravity. All this of course dependent on whether the molestation occured and the COI says it has, so it boils down to whether the IA process was fair or not.

[srai]

^^^
From what remember from news reports around that time, the sahayak accidentally walked into the bathroom where the officerr's wife was taking a bath. According to the wife the sahayak was more embarrassed and apologetic that she had a good laugh afterwards when reciting that story at dinner with her friends. But it didn't sit well with her husband (Major) who got his fellow officers and beat that sahayak to a pulp and left him like that. That is when other rank and file rose up to do reverse justice on the officers. The CO came later to try to defuse the situation but was unable to and he too was beaten up (or something like that).

So no idea how that turned out to become "molestation" a few years later through the military court system.

[Kakkaji]

A bunch of men losing their cool and assaulting a molester? Stupid.

Karan:

I am sorry but it was not just 'a bunch of men losing their cool'. These were officers of the Indian Army and the man was under their command. They should have followed army procedure for punishment instead of delivering street justice.

I am surprised that, out of the 4 officers on the scene, not one stood up for following the army procedure for delivering justice. I am sure the army justice system would have adequately punished a rapist. If they had placed the man under arrest and filed a charge sheet, things would not have escalated so muh.

When officers were not disciplined in their behavior, how can the Jawans be expected to maintain discipline?