Indian Army: News & Discussion

[ASPuar]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 512928.cms

Army chief orders court martial of Lt Gen Avadhesh Prakash


IANS, 29 January 2010, 01:42pm IST

NEW DELHI: Acting on the "advice" of defence minister A K Antony, Army chief Gen. Deepak Kapoor on Friday ordered a court martial of his chief aide Lt. Gen. Avadhesh Prakash for his involvement in a land scam in West Bengal's Sukna cantonment, a defence official said on Friday.

The army chief's decision has come two days after the defence minister advised a court martial of the military secretary on the issue.
Lt Gen Prakash is in the in the scam along with two other Lieutenant Generals and a Major General.

Prakash is due to retire on January 31.

Eastern Army Commander Lt Gen V K Singh, the army chief designate, had recommended tough action against Lt Gen Prakash and other accused officials on the basis of a Court of Inquiry which indicted them for issuing a no-objection certificate (NOC) for sale of a 71-acre land adjacent to Sukna military station in West Bengal's Darjeeling.

[ASPuar]

Entering into the bounds of speculation, LtGen Avadesh Prakash is the Military Secretary, head of the personnel and Adm branch of the army.

Last year, doubts and queries arose about the true age of LtGen VK Singh. A topic to be handled by the MS branch.

Coincidence?

Anyway, if the Court of Inquiry is outsides the bounds of law, with Avadesh Prakash not being allowed a chance to defend himself, I will repeat what I have said, and what most of us already know:

This is not about justice, but about "fixing" General Prakash.

I think everyone within the army establishment knows that this case hasnt a pegleg to stand on, once it reaches the civil courts. Once the AFT and the courts have looked at the matter, a few years down the line, they will return the predictable verdict, and that his full pension and arrears be given him, because the case against him was pure BS. But the damage is done. Noone will care what the facts were, only what the media blared for 4 months nonstop in 2009/10. With the media, and the political establishment sufficiently hoodwinked, the purposes of certain parties (whom?), have been served.

Alas, that these parties chose this method of achieving their aims. It betokens a rather reckless and callous disregard for the honour of the service that they chose to serve.

[somnath]

^^^^ ASPuar, none of us have the full facts of the case, unless you know something outside of public domain..Therefore, to conclude that there is "nothing to the case" is premature, as much as at least pronouncing anyone guilty..The fact is that the RM was moved enough to advise the COAS to order a court martial says that at least something might be amiss - for all his faults, AK Antony is known to be scrupulously honest....

As I said earlier, the current COAS leaves a very dodgy legacy...Personality clashes are normal in all organisations, but public bickering, groupism etc reflect poorly on leadership..And above all, too many noxious corruption fumes around his tenure..

[ASPuar]

^^^^ ASPuar, none of us have the full facts of the case, unless you know something outside of public domain..Therefore, to conclude that there is "nothing to the case" is premature, as much as at least pronouncing anyone guilty..The fact is that the RM was moved enough to advise the COAS to order a court martial says that at least something might be amiss - for all his faults, AK Antony is known to be scrupulously honest....

As I said earlier, the current COAS leaves a very dodgy legacy...Personality clashes are normal in all organisations, but public bickering, groupism etc reflect poorly on leadership..And above all, too many noxious corruption fumes around his tenure..

Just a few points.

1. Scrupulous honesty does not mean that a man cannot be misled by those not as scrupulous as himself. If Avadesh Prakash was indicted without a hearing, then the case itself is bad in law.

2. I make no suggestion as to whether the man is guilty or not, and nor do I say that I know more than anyone else (in fact, Ive been saying repeatedly, that the fact that we know so little about the facts of the case despite all the media circus being carried out is fishy in of itself). My remarks above were a reflection of what would happen if the case were found to be bad in law.

3. Mere fumes (noxious as they may be) do not make due process of law inoperative. If the procedures have not been followed in his case, then the case will without a doubt be thrown out on appeal, simply because the law, for all its warts and boils, is very particular about these things, and rightly so.

4. I am simply operating upon the cardinal assumption that a man is innocent until proven guilty, and this sort of media boondoggle is increasingly making him out to be guilty as charged, even before he is charged. This, on principle is wrong.

5. I would add that this affair also reflects poorly on the overall leadership of the Defence Minister. The def min should have made clear, that the office of chief, as professional head of the army is not to be interfered with, and at the same time, the ministry and the army will ensure that corruption, wrong dealing etc will not be tolerated. Feuding would not be possible if the army commanders were aware that the COAS has the full support of his minister. After all, the fact that such a situation has come to pass, obviously suggests that the Chiefs authority is not beyond question for his subordinates.

6. I also fault the minister for not stopping this media trial, and thus dragging the army through unnecessary ignominy, by simply stating that he has things under control, and the matter is under investigation, and further speculation is inappropriate.

[somnath]

ASPuar,

I think we share the same broad sentiments (for once )..But I do have a problem with this..

The def min should have made clear, that the office of chief, as professional head of the army is not to be interfered with, and at the same time, the ministry and the army will ensure that corruption, wrong dealing etc will not be tolerated. Feuding would not be possible if the army commanders were aware that the COAS has the full support of his minister. After all, the fact that such a situation has come to pass, obviously suggests that the Chiefs authority is not beyond question for his subordinates.

One, this COAS has received enough support from the minister - the Gen Panag affair, the VCOAS issue - the RM abided by Gen Kapoor's decisions all the way..At the same time, respect needs to be earned, its almost never given, even in hierarchical govt organisations....Not all service chiefs have their authority questioned by colleagues so repeatedly..It cannot be just this RM, as he has presided over at least 5 different service chiefs now?

Second, I dont think the media leaks are the handiwork of the RM or MoD, else CoI proceedings (or many other such very "internal" stuff) would not have been leaked..It is an internal Army job, in which case it also speaks poorly again of Gen Kapoor's leadership that such media leaks happen ever so often under his charge..

I agree that the RM now needs to take visible charge and cool down the frenzy..A press conference would be the perfect forum to do so...

[chetak]

I congratulate Capt Bharat Verma on the programme who was stopped from explaining the rules. Since Avdesh's military reputation was at stake, as per the rules and law, he should have been present at the C of I. If he was not there, then the C of I is bad in law.

Edited

RayC is right.

Army Rule 180 applies in the incumbent case.

Unless the Board President did not think it right or appreciate that any ones reputation was being sullied.

[ramana]

Folks while its all nice to clear the air and take charge etc., may I remind you this is Bharat Rakshak Forum. No serving chief will be dissed based on imperfect information. Same goes to ex-Chiefs. Cannot let this happen for the forum is viewed by a lot of people.

No argues. If you dont like it you can go eslewhere and do that. Not here and not on this thread.

Thanks for the cooperation,

ramana

[AdityaM]

Jai hind with Rocky and Mayur
This was a good show. Many more good ones in offing

If the video stops while playing and the advert starts, then wait for the advert to finish, press play again and slide the progress bar to the desired time

[RayC]

I congratulate Capt Bharat Verma on the programme who was stopped from explaining the rules. Since Avdesh's military reputation was at stake, as per the rules and law, he should have been present at the C of I. If he was not there, then the C of I is bad in law.

The choice of being present at that C of I was a right that could have been exercised only by avdesh.

If he chose to be present, no one could have stopped him.

If he was not, it was simply because he did not choose to be present.

Not quite.

When the military reputation is called to question it is incumbent that the person be present during the recording of the C of I.

Army Rule 180.

[RayC]

The choice of being present at that C of I was a right that could have been exercised only by avdesh.

If he chose to be present, no one could have stopped him.

If he was not, it was simply because he did not choose to be present.

Not quite.

When the military reputation is called to question it is incumbent that the person be present during the recording of the C of I.

Army Rule 180.

Just to amplify on Army Rule 180, I will quote it verbatim.

Army Rule 180. Procedure when character of a person when subject to the Act is involved. Save in the case of a prisoner of war who is still absent whenever an inquiry affects the character or military reputation of a person subject Act, full opportunity must be afforded to such a person to be present throughout the inquiry and of making any statement, and of giving evidence he may wish to make or give, and of cross examining any witness whose evidence, in his opinion, affects his character or military reputation and producing any witnesses in his defence of his character or military reputation. The presiding officer of the court shall take such steps as maybe necessary to ensure that any such person so affected and not previously notified receives notice of and fully understands his rights under this rule.

**********

Thus, even if a C of I is on and the Presiding Officer then finds the military reputation or character being affected of a person, he is legally and duty bound to notify the person whose military reputation or character is called to question to the Court and be present throughout and allowed all the legal privileges allowed by this Army Rule.

While I have no desire to comment on this case since I do not know the facts and since it is just started and a Court of Inquiry is not a legal document and the process will start with the Summary of Evidence and so on, I surely feel it is too premature to prejudge. I am also not too sure of the libel laws wherein, if these persons are found not guilty can they take legal recourse.

Chetak,

You have some inside info on this case?

And could you tell us what rules of the Army Act or Army Rules support your contention?

If so, good. If not, it is not fair.

What do you gain by sullying the forces without knowing the Rules and Regulations?

[RayC]

It would be interesting to see how the media that has been crying hoarse is now getting what is called 'cute', so to save its bacon:

A source close to Lt General Prakash said the military secretary was “weighing his options” but he and his advisers had concluded that:

(a) There was no land “scam” because there was no evidence of pecuniary benefit and the land itself did not belong to the army; and

(b) There was no evidence that the military secretary had used his position to distribute “government largesse”.

When told that the court of inquiry report had repeatedly referred to the security implications in the Siliguri corridor and near the garrison headquarters, the source asked: “If that is such a security-sensitive area, why had the army not taken over the land in all these years?”

The report notes that the 71 acres in Chumta Tea Estate adjoining the headquarters of the 33 Corps in Sukna was in the process of being acquired by the army.

The Bengal government, says the report, was “favourably disposed” towards transferring the land to the army because of the “security implications”.Saving the bacon

[RayC]

Could all those commenting adversely let me know how this 71 acre of the Tea Estate adds to the security of the Siliguri Corridor?

And how wide is this Corridor and what is this Chumta adding to the juice?

I would also like to state that I have no interest in the issue, except that I am not understanding what is up. As a person who was there having commanded a Brigade there, I would sure like to get educated from those who are 'in the know'. Chetak, any answers?

[chetak]

Chetak,

You have some inside info on this case?

And could you tell us what rules of the Army Act or Army Rules support your contention?

If so, good. If not, it is not fair.

What do you gain by sullying the forces without knowing the Rules and Regulations?

I bow before your superior knowledge.

I stand corrected.

[ramana]

Can you delete the parts you dont stand by?

[chetak]

Could all those commenting adversely let me know how this 71 acre of the Tea Estate adds to the security of the Siliguri Corridor?

And how wide is this Corridor and what is this Chumta adding to the juice?

I would also like to state that I have no interest in the issue, except that I am not understanding what is up. As a person who was there having commanded a Brigade there, I would sure like to get educated from those who are 'in the know'. Chetak, any answers?

I would venture to suggest that such decisions are not made in a spirit of philanthropy. Specially not by the dramatis personae.

Many of this coterie have a "past", sometimes exceedingly colorful.

Mercifully, retirement has a way of stopping many a runaway bus.

[chetak]

Can you delete the parts you dont stand by?

Done saar.

[RayC]

Could all those commenting adversely let me know how this 71 acre of the Tea Estate adds to the security of the Siliguri Corridor?

And how wide is this Corridor and what is this Chumta adding to the juice?

I would also like to state that I have no interest in the issue, except that I am not understanding what is up. As a person who was there having commanded a Brigade there, I would sure like to get educated from those who are 'in the know'. Chetak, any answers?

I would venture to suggest that such decisions are not made in a spirit of philanthropy. Specially not by the dramatis personae.

Many of this coterie have a "past", sometimes exceedingly colorful.

Mercifully, retirement has a way of stopping many a runaway bus.

Good post.

But the legalities?

You have assumed certain provisions that have no room for legal provisions.

I am not contesting you for brownies, but I sure am quoting the legal provision before you damn the man. He has his legal security that you wish to wish away.

Libel to damn him on an open forum that is read the world over?

[ramana]

Thanks,ramana

[RayC]

Chetak,

You have some inside info on this case?

And could you tell us what rules of the Army Act or Army Rules support your contention?

If so, good. If not, it is not fair.

What do you gain by sullying the forces without knowing the Rules and Regulations?

I bow before your superior knowledge.

I stand corrected.

It is not my superior knowledge.

It is just that I worked in the organisation and was equally responsible to apply the law!

I am not privy to the case and I could be totally wrong. But I say, let us wait. Let the case develop and then comment.

If there is some shenanigans, then let them stew in their juice.

Army justice is 'savage' in implementation as Gen Roychowdhury said. Indeed, it is. If Avadesh and others have done something wrong, they will hang (metaphoric).

How many bureaucrats and politicians have 'hanged'? Remember Tehelka?

There is swift justice in the Armed Forces. There are crooks but they are sorted out. My request is before you all make a big scene of it, how about doing it for the bureaucrats and the politicians as Gen Roychowdhury said in the Newsx interview with Jugghhar Singh?

Please be fair.

The Armed Forces MUST be clean. But are they from Mars?

I saw a post here lamenting groupism in the Armed Forces. Grouping is only in the Armed Forces? What is regionalism that is widespread in the country with Maharastrians being open about it, like Bal Tkakersay? Or Laloo preferring Biharis for Railway jobs or Mamata briging Railways to Bengal? Or a non descriptive hotelier of the US, Sant Singh Chatwal getting a Padma award? That is India and even the world! Or the good old last Chief going off as Governor.

Time to smell the coffee.

[RayC]

I would venture to suggest that such decisions are not made in a spirit of philanthropy. Specially not by the dramatis personae.

Many of this coterie have a "past", sometimes exceedingly colorful.

Mercifully, retirement has a way of stopping many a runaway bus.

Could you be more explicit?

Army Act is applicable three years after retirement.

It is time you know the rules and not go off the handle pretending to be a sub janta.

It is time to save your post for posterity!

I am sure Avadesh would love it, though Ramana was kind to ask to you remove the last post.

It is time for you and others to get your act together.

Avadesh is no friend of mine. But IA is where I earned my bread and kept the hearth of my home warm. I will save these post hereafter.

[chetak]

Good post.

But the legalities?

You have assumed certain provisions that have no room for legal provisions.

I am not contesting you for brownies, but I sure am quoting the legal provision before you damn the man. He has his legal security that you wish to wish away.

Libel to damn him on an open forum that is read the world over?

The rank and file in the Armed Forces are sick of such coteries.

These " gentlemen", for the lack of a better word exist and work in packs. They have gleefully torched many a budding career to steamroller opposition.

Serving and Retired flag rank downwards would not be so unhappy and numerous rank and file so vocal in their opposition to these gents if the damage done was not perceived as disastrous. To top it all, we have a Raksha mantri who, to protect his own halo, chose to proceed guns blazing, in the full glare of public limelight.

The COAS should have acted decisively and in the first instance.
He left room for political and babu landmines. In attempting to traverse the mine field he has already lost a leg.


I say again, there are much quieter and more sensible ways to send these dirty blighters home without affecting morale.

The reputation of the Forces has been sullied and at a time of crucial national challenges we can ill afford such shenanigans.

I have not libeled any "him". It was a general statement of extreme disgust and contempt. Off with their heads!!!

But from the bottom of my heart I say this, I spit on such people who sell their honor. They cheapen the tremendous sacrifices of people who have gone before them and those yet to come.

Their ill considered actions have seriously affected the morale and standing in society of all members of the Forces. Serving or retired.

[chetak]

I would venture to suggest that such decisions are not made in a spirit of philanthropy. Specially not by the dramatis personae.

Many of this coterie have a "past", sometimes exceedingly colorful.

Mercifully, retirement has a way of stopping many a runaway bus.

Could you be more explicit?

Army Act is applicable three years after retirement.

It is time you know the rules and not go off the handle pretending to be a sub janta.

It is time to save your post for posterity!

I am sure Avadesh would love it, though Ramana was kind to ask to you remove the last post.

It is time for you and others to get your act together.

Avadesh is no friend of mine. But IA is where I earned my bread and kept the hearth of my home warm. I will save these post hereafter.

RayC,

I meant cessation of shady activities using official resources and not the liabilities arising thereof.

"Army Act is applicable three years after retirement." Thank God.

[RayC]

The rank and file in the Armed Forces are sick of such coteries.

These " gentlemen", for the lack of a better word exist and work in packs. They have gleefully torched many a budding career to steamroller opposition.

Serving and Retired flag rank downwards would not be so unhappy and numerous rank and file so vocal in their opposition to these gents if the damage done was not perceived as disastrous. To top it all, we have a Raksha mantri who, to protect his own halo, chose to proceed guns blazing, in the full glare of public limelight.

The COAS should have acted decisively and in the first instance.
He left room for political and babu landmines. In attempting to traverse the mine field he has already lost a leg.


I say again, there are much quieter and more sensible ways to send these dirty blighters home without affecting morale.

The reputation of the Forces has been sullied and at a time of crucial national challenges we can ill afford such shenanigans.

I have not libeled any "him". It was a general statement of extreme disgust and contempt. Off with their heads!!!

But from the bottom of my heart I say this, I spit on such people who sell their honor. They cheapen the tremendous sacrifices of people who have gone before them and those yet to come.

Their ill considered actions have seriously affected the morale and standing in society of all members of the Forces. Serving or retired.

You have no clue of what the rank and file feels, so spare us the crap.

The whole world acts in 'packs'. Heard of the old school tie net?

The RM is no big deal. He is said to be honest. I wonder if one can win an election being honest. If the RM has won election without any money etc, then my salute to him since I am told one can't win election without huge money. I would then stand for elections!

Please spit on people who are scoundrels, but allow them their defence in law.

Since it appears that you are clueless of the Army Act and the Army Rules, may I advise you to await the military proceedings before you libel him and others?

I assure you that I equally keen that the Armed Forces reputation remains pristine, even if not of the bureaucrats and the politicians.

[RayC]

Chetak

Comments.

Any others?

In fact what Ramana has asked you to remove is also of import! I am sure it is on the hard disk! Therefore, I wonder what that would be in culpability law.

What would be Ramana's and yours would be is the issue!Is he free or are you free?

It does not matter what is the disclaimer. Can they allow nonsense without checking the legalities to be on the net?

[chetak]

Chetak

Comments.

Any others?

In fact what Ramana has asked you to remove is also of import! I am sure it is on the hard disk! Therefore, I wonder what that would be in culpability law.

What would be Ramana's and yours would be is the issue!Is he free or are you free?

It does not matter what is the disclaimer. Can they allow nonsense without checking the legalities to be on the net?

You have no clue of what the rank and file feels, so spare us the crap.

Easily accomplished. News letters, forums, telephone, personal contact etc. A lot of people are agitated.

The whole world acts in 'packs'. Heard of the old school tie net?

This concept has a large element of benevolence associated with it not the malevolence that we see in the incumbent case.

The RM is no big deal. He is said to be honest. I wonder if one can win an election being honest. If the RM has won election without any money etc, then my salute to him since I am told one can't win election without huge money. I would then stand for elections!

His honesty is not in question. The cowboy style is what was not required. A quiet word in the right ear before the contretemps blew up in every ones face would have been a matured way to handle it. Saint Antony could have brought about the same result working behind the scenes. No need to polish a already shining halo. Or was there?

Please spit on people who are scoundrels, but allow them their defence in law.

This is precisely what is happening. The law will take its course. Even kasab is being allowed a defence.

Since it appears that you are clueless of the Army Act and the Army Rules, may I advise you to await the military proceedings before you libel him and others?

The stand could have been taken at the top itself. The "adesh" of the RM is not binding. The changed stance of the COAS is what is generally perceived as damaging. The impression is that St Antony has corrected a great wrong from being committed.


I assure you that I equally keen that the Armed Forces reputation remains pristine, even if not of the buraucrats and the politicians.

So is the view of a vast majority of decent people.

RayC , may we please move on?
I will not carry on this discussion with you further.

[rohitvats]

^^^ A humble request from this unwashed abdul to the RayC Sir and Chetak - Lets stop this blue-on-blue.This forum can do without any further fratricide. Chetak has already removed his post(s) and put in his word to cease this dialouge which has already degenerated into slugfest.RayC Sir, you're point has been taken(at least by me) and import has hit home.

People like me come to this forum to learn something from those(like you) who have seen the things we armchair generals only dream of. We can hardly afford to loose any one of you.

Thank you for the consideration.

[rajeshks]

There is some difference between being corruption free and being honest. Antony is free of corruption but that doesnt mean that he is completely honest. For that matter no politician can be. We have seen too much of his political plays during the infamous congress I-A group politics in Kerala. What he does is more to improve his image and not much real value is in it. So please dont give larger than life image to anyone.

[somnath]

I would submit that both the media and BRF to some extent (though in reverse) is guilty of "fungibilising" (if I may use that term) the individual, his office and the institution..Criticising the actions of an individual incumbent is not denigrating his office, criticising actions of the office is not libelous to the individual and criticising the policies/actions of an institution is not denigrating the institution...As long as personal motives are not being imputed (by that I mean saying things like "that chap is a thief, or is sold out to the yanks" or some such sort), public debate is the sine qua non of a democracy..

I think AK Antony has lost a big opportunity here..Very often in democracies the personal equity of a key individual (like a minister) can be used to navigate tricky waters..A synonymous example can be the Disinvestment Ministry presided over by Arun Shourie during NDA's reign- a ministry which is (was actually) a death trap of scandals was sought to be run purely on the personal honesty quotient of the minister and it actually achieved quite a bit - while there were controversies, Arun Shourie's reputation meant that there was no "corruption mud" that got thrown really seriously..At least not seriously enough to hamper disinvestment mortally..Ditto for MMS's term as Finance Minister in PVNR's time...Despite incidents like the Harshad Mehta scam, MMS used his personal integrity quotient to push through reforms without people being able to stall them on grounds of corruption...AK Antony had the same opportunity with the Defence Ministry..Soemone like him could put his personal equity on line to really take the tough calls, be it on institutional matters like CDS and higher level mismanagement (if any) or on faster procurement..Thanks to his "St Antony" image, a lot could have been done....Unfortunately he failed to provide the leadership, and we are stuck at status quo for most of the issues...

at the same time, I have little sympathy for the current COAS's actions..As I said before in an earlier post, public servants face tricky situations on favouritism etc all the time, and some make genuine mistakes too...However, the number of times Gen Kapoor has been faced with questions from or due to his subordinate officers is a few too many...Gen Panag, Gen Singh as (not) VCOAS, rumours on Gen Singh's age, and now the Sukhna imbroglio.."Groups" exist in the services, as in all organisations..But its not usual for the groups to be working in vicious ways against the organisation itself, or its Chief - when that does happen, something has to be very wrong that needs correction..

The point is not on the merits of the individual cases, of which unfortunately we know little to derive a judgement..the point is on "management"..Is the IA being managed in the best manner possible? Best intentions go only as far as the ability to implement...

I would have liked to see the good General to actually tackle the issue head on even at this later stage..Get on the media, tell them "this is what happened, this was what we thought, this is what we have found out, and this is what we are doing"...Even without divulging too much sensitive info, just be seen to be in charge and on top of the matter..In this media age (and the services know only too well now how to "play" the media game), it is disingenuous for the Chief to simply duck behind things like "Army ACt" etc..

[ASPuar]

While I know that Admins these days like to take the "soft power" route, I sometimes yearn for the old days, where the hard line was taken, and random arguments with admins were not seen.

[chetak]

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... epage=true

Antony’s advice to Army Chief irks ex-servicemen
Friday, Jan 29, 2010

“Armed Forces’ judicial system is most appropriate” Organisation urges Antony to let Army proceed on its own

An organisation of ex-servicemen has criticised Defence Minister A.K. Antony for his “advice” to the Chief of the Army Staff, Gen. Deepak Kapoor, to take strong disciplinary action, which may include court martial, against Military Secretary Lt. Gen. Avadesh Prakash.

Calling upon the Defence Minister not to subvert the procedures, the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement pointed out that there was no need for him to order a court martial when the Army chief was capable of taking action based on the legal advice at his disposal.

“Our [the Armed Forces’] judicial system is the fastest and most appropriate. We can’t afford to tolerate crime because we deal with arms and ammunition and are responsible for the honour of our country,” said the organisation’s Vice-Chairman, Maj. Gen (retd.) Satbir Singh, a gallantry award winner.

“This probably is the first time ever, where the Defence Minister has bypassed all laid down norms of propriety and the well tested judicial system of the defence forces. This is nothing but direct interference in the performance of duties of the Chief of the Army Staff. If appropriate corrective measures are not taken, it will deter commanders from using their discretion and taking bold decisions which are so essential in the battlefield scenario. I would therefore, implore the Chief of the Army Staff to kindly take action as per his own bidding which will enhance the prestige of the office he holds,” Gen. Singh said.

Drawing from his own experience when he was Brigadier Administration of the Unified Command in the North East, Gen. Singh pointed out that there were 2,800 cases against others in 1997 as against 14 against Army personnel. None of the others was disciplined whereas the Army found no case against seven and sentenced the rest, including some to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

[chetak]

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... epage=true

Antony’s advice to Army Chief irks ex-servicemen
Friday, Jan 29, 2010

“Armed Forces’ judicial system is most appropriate” Organisation urges Antony to let Army proceed on its own

An organisation of ex-servicemen has criticised Defence Minister A.K. Antony for his “advice” to the Chief of the Army Staff, Gen. Deepak Kapoor, to take strong disciplinary action, which may include court martial, against Military Secretary Lt. Gen. Avadesh Prakash.

Calling upon the Defence Minister not to subvert the procedures, the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement pointed out that there was no need for him to order a court martial when the Army chief was capable of taking action based on the legal advice at his disposal.

“Our [the Armed Forces’] judicial system is the fastest and most appropriate. We can’t afford to tolerate crime because we deal with arms and ammunition and are responsible for the honour of our country,” said the organisation’s Vice-Chairman, Maj. Gen (retd.) Satbir Singh, a gallantry award winner.

“This probably is the first time ever, where the Defence Minister has bypassed all laid down norms of propriety and the well tested judicial system of the defence forces. This is nothing but direct interference in the performance of duties of the Chief of the Army Staff. If appropriate corrective measures are not taken, it will deter commanders from using their discretion and taking bold decisions which are so essential in the battlefield scenario. I would therefore, implore the Chief of the Army Staff to kindly take action as per his own bidding which will enhance the prestige of the office he holds,” Gen. Singh said.

Drawing from his own experience when he was Brigadier Administration of the Unified Command in the North East, Gen. Singh pointed out that there were 2,800 cases against others in 1997 as against 14 against Army personnel. None of the others was disciplined whereas the Army found no case against seven and sentenced the rest, including some to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

[Surya]

Another wonderful example of picking a battle which you are bound to lose the PR war - no matter what.

[AnimeshP]

Got this in my e-mail today ... from a serving officer .. don't have the link to the original article ...

THE SUKHNA SCANDAL

Lt-Gen Harwant singh ( Retd )

On a piece of private land, adjacent to Army establishment ( Corps HQ ) at Sukhna, an educational institution was being planned. Law does not permit construction of any building within 1000 meters of a military installation. This law has been breached at innumerable places. At Badowal ( near Ludhiana ) marriage palaces and other construction has come up next to an army ammunition depot, objections by the military authorities not withstanding. A number of villas have been constructed next to a very sensitive defence installation at Kasauli, inspite of the IAF taking the issue to Himachal High Court, where nothing came of it. A toll barrier has come up next to ammunition depot at Lalru, inspite of serious of protests by the army. The list is endless.

At Sukhna the concerned builder had approached the military authorities for an NOC ( no objection certificate ) to raise an educational institution close to corps HQ on private piece of land. This was just to make sure that at a later stage the army may not obtain a stay or seek demolition of the buildings, through the courts. This request for NOC was turned down by the army for security reasons. In fact army never issues any such NOC. After some gap, concerned builder once more approached the military authorities, for an NOC and on its brochure had the picture of the present military secretary ( Lt-Gen Avadesh Prakash ) who was shown as the future director of the institute. Being in a key position as MS at army HQ, he pressurized those at Sukhna corps HQ to issue an NOC. Thus it makes a case of gross impropriety and violates the purpose of the law which ensures security of military installations. Equally those who relented to this pressure have become party to this misdemeanour, which included two generals and few other officers. Gen Avadesh Prakash is involved in a similar case at Ranikhet, where in addition there are allegations of misappropriation of regimental funds.

Command Headquarters at Calcutta took a serious view of this impropriety ( gross misconduct ) and ordered a court of inquiry. The army commander at Calcutta has reviewed the inquiry report and recorded his recommendations. It is now for the army chief to examine the details of the inquiry report and the recommendations of the army commander and take further action. Ranikhet case is being dealt with separately by Central Command.

Military draws its manpower from within the country, where moral standards have fallen, corruption is rampant and a climate of loot and plunder prevails right across the national landscape. The difference is that this fall in standards is unacceptable in the military. That is how militarys internal mechanism searches out cases of corruption, misdemeanor and misconduct etc, ( liquor, ketchup, local purchase frauds, moral turpitude and Sukhna like cases, violators of civil rights etc types,) irrespective of the rank of the miscreant and apply to these the rigours of military law. It is not that every crook is caught. Some do manage to hoodwink the system but their number is minimal.

The process of application of Military Law has well defined set of rules and procedures and these cannot be short circuited without prejudicing the legal position. No senior commanders in the chain of command is expected to show undue interest is a case while under investigation and being dealt with at the lower level. Militarys justice system is not only prompt but eminently fair and this is borne by the fact that not more than 4 to 5 % of the militarys cases are reversed by the high courts/supreme court and that percentage is far less than judgments of lower courts reversed by the higher judiciary

The RM and the media ought to be aware of this. Therefore, RMs, summoning the Army Chief and telling him that severe disciplinary action ( in the interest of morale of the army etc ) should be taken against officers involved in Sukhna and Ranikhet cases, tend to subvert the militarys legal system. Eastern Army Commander is known for his sense of propriety, probity and fairness. It was best to have left the case to his judgment at that stage. What, if the President of India was to call upon the Chief Justice of India to dole out severe punishment in a particular case or take a lenient view! Now that the case has comes up before the Army Chief and the RM, they can .do whatever is proper: keeping in focus the evidence on record, nature of the case and army commanders recommendations.

Nor should the RM try to link this need for action against these officers with the morale of troops. Morale is an area and domain entirely the province of the Army Chief and his officers. What one expected the RM to do, if he wanted to make morale of troops and officers his concern as well, was to look carefully at the, distortions and disparities brought about by the Sixth Pay Commission, as these relate to the defence services and which have adversely impacted the morale of troops and veterans and not left this vital issue in the hands of the bureaucrats, who in the first place are the ones to bring about the distortions. In this important area of his direct concern, the RM has singularly failed.

Handing over the case to the CBI will achieve double purpose. One, it will put it on a long drive. Two, it will not be possible to build a legal case against the officer (s) under the civil law, for what they did.

Military does take prompt disciplinary action against offenders, when and where they are detected, irrespective of the rank. But do look at the MoD, which oversees the military. Bhatnagar, as the defence secretary was charge sheeted by the CBI in the Bofors case and instead of taking legal action against him, he was moved as Lt-Governor to Sikkim, placing him beyond the reach of, the palsied arm of the Indian Law. Another defence secretary, Ajit Kumar was indicted by the Delhi high court for tampering with the service record of a senior IAF officer, which had resulted in denial of promotion to him. Instead of taking legal action against him he was merely shifted to another ministry. Yet another defence secretary was involved in a shady deal in the purchase of one lakh rifles for the army when no ammunition for these was available anywhere in the world and for years these rifles remained rotting in the depots. No action was taken against him. (It is only when he moved as chief secretary to Tamil Nadu and tried the old moD tricks that Iron Lady put him behind bars.) Had such misdemeanours been committed by a military officer, the full weight of the military law would have been applied on him.

So it is best to leave the army to deal with such cases. Media, both print and electronic, whatever its compulsions, should refrain from sensationalizing such cases, for they serve no useful purpose except highlight its own naivety. Now that we are on this subject of dealing with such cases, the media may as well tell us what action has been taken against all those officers of the MoD, involved in the Tehelka Sting Operation. Additional secretary who took a gold chain from the Tehelka team was promoted, because, we are told, and hold your breath, he did not take the chain home but kept it in the safe in his office! While all the army officers involved in the case were dealt with without delay, interference by civil courts not with standing. One of then ending up behind bars and others faced various degrees of disciplinary actions. In one case a general officer was merely entertained to a dinner by the Tehlka Team and that was enough to end, his otherwise bright career.

[ramana]

Can we name the civilians in his article?

[somnath]

I am not clear about the system in the servces, but in the civvie bureaucracy there are two different streams of dealing with improprieties - 1) departmental action, which can typically be taken by the resp dept or ministry, and 2) a civil or criminal case..Even a CBI investigation often results in a recommendation to take departmental action against an errant official, it doesnt necessarily go to a court..

I may be wrong, but in this (Sukhna) case, it seems that the CoI found out things that were amiss against Gen Prakash, but the COAS was not willing to take any action as the Gen was due to retire soon..that is when the RM reportedly stepped in and "asked" the COAS to order disciplinary proceedings...Is this the correct interpretation?

What, if the President of India was to call upon the Chief Justice of India to dole out severe punishment in a particular case or take a lenient view! Now that the case has comes up before the Army Chief and the RM, they can .do whatever is proper: keeping in focus the evidence on record, nature of the case and army commanders recommendations.

This is completely disingenuous..The COAS reports to the RM in all executive facets, the Chief Justice of India does not report in that fashion to the President of India...So the cases are not comparable at all..

Morale is an area and domain entirely the province of the Army Chief and his officers. What one expected the RM to do, if he wanted to make morale of troops and officers his concern as well, was to look carefully at the, distortions and disparities brought about by the Sixth Pay Commission, as these relate to the defence services and which have adversely impacted the morale of troops and veterans and not left this vital issue in the hands of the bureaucrats, who in the first place are the ones to bring about the distortions. In this important area of his direct concern, the RM has singularly failed.

the handling of the Pay Commission affair left a lot to be desired, at all levels..But how is "morale" of the men not a responsibility of the RM? And how does it help bringing together two completely unrelated issues?? the mini mutiny in IAF during ACM Sareen's time owed a lot to how the RM did not intervene efectively and until too late, and let things come to a pass...

[ramana]

I dont want any more discussion on the Sukhna case as its under sub-judice after the recommendation from RM to COAS.
Thanks, ramana

[chetak]

I dont want any more discussion on the Sukhna case as its under sub-judice after the recommendation from RM to COAS.
Thanks, ramana

Ramana sir,

Kindly excuse. I received this by email. I thought it important enough to post.

It clarifies a lot of issues that are floating about.

Please delete if you consider this inappropriate.

THE SUKNA EPISODE – THE LEGAL ISSUES

The Sukna episode – it is not a SCAM, irrespective of what the media says - needs to be examined dispassionately, from the legal angle. This is especially so after the Defence Minister’s ‘advice’ to the COAS to court martial the present MS, Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash. Before discussing the issue, let us get some facts right..

Unlike other Class 1 Officers of the central services, officers of the Armed Forces are not government servants. In fact, they are the ‘first’ public servants of the Union. (Their commissions are signed personally by the President).

According to the Defence Services Regulations, Regulations for the Army, Para 4 (b), ‘The Chief of Army Staff is responsible to the President through the Central Government for the command, discipline, recruitment, training, organisation, administration and preparations for war of the Army.’ (Though the COAS is responsible to the President through Government, it is not the same thing as to the Government).

The Defence Minister has no power of command over the COAS. There have been instances in the past when the COAS has disregarded the advice of the Defence Minister. I am giving below an extract from the biography of Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw that forms part of my book Leadership In The Indian Army – Biographies Of Twelve Soldiers:-

Sam was due to retire in June 1972, but was given an extension of six months. He was not keen to continue and had made known his desire to the Prime Minister. However, she wanted him to stay on and told Sam that he would not be allowed to proceed on retirement. When Sam told her that he had no intention of staying on and there was no law under which he could be forced to do so, there was some consternation. Finally someone found a way out. It was reasoned that if Sam received a direct order from the President who was also the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, he would have to obey. The President's consent was obtained and his directions published in the Gazette of India, indicating that Sam would continue to hold the office of Chief of Army Staff till the President was pleased to dispense with his services.

A court martial sometimes benefits the accused officer. In such cases, summary punishments or administrative action is the preferred option. Under Army Act 84, officers of the rank of major and below can be awarded up to one year forfeiture of seniority, subject to the right of the accused to elect to be tried by court martial. In many cases, officers choose this option. Why? Because it difficult secure conviction in a court martial, in the absence of strong evidence. In the case of Gen Avadesh Prakash, all that he is being blamed for is sifarish (recommendation), which will be charged under Section 45 (Unbecoming Conduct). Usually, this section is invoked in cases of moral turpitude, which cannot be proved in the present case. All that he did was make an improper recommendation. There was no element of coercion, since he was not the superior officer of GOC 33 Corps, the latter could have refused to comply with his recommendation.

Coming to General Rath, the charges against him are even more difficult to prove. As the GOC, he was vested with the authority to give the NOC. There was no obligation on him to take the concurrence of the Army Commander, as is being made out. The bogey about National Security is misplaced. Surely, as the senior military officer on the spot, he is best suited to decide on the issue. Is the media more competent to decide this or even the Army Commander or COAS? The Corps HQ is nothing but an office. It is not really a ‘sensitive’ place, like a nuclear establishment or missile facility. In fact, Delhi has several places that are much more sensitive close to civil areas. A high tech facility of the Army is in Anand Parbat. The British High Commissioner lives within a stone’s throw of Sena Bhawan, below the offices of the Military Intelligence and Signal Intelligence Directorates. With the technology available today, even normal conversations can be picked up from window pane vibrations.

It will be extremely to secure convictions through courts martial. Even if the concerned officers are convicted, they will certainly appeal to the Armed Forces Tribunal, or the High/Supreme Court, which is likely to set aside the judgment. According to Para 103 (a) of the Regulations for the Army, the President may call upon any officer to retire or resign his commission at any time without assigning any reason. Why was this option not adopted by the Defence Minister? After the 1962 debacle, the COAS General PN Thapar was reportedly asked to quit as was the Corps Commander, Lt Gen BM Kaul. Surely, their actions, which cost us hundreds of lives and national ignominy, were graver.
Maj Gen VK Singh

[RayC]

Can we name the civilians in his article?

Has he not done so?

I read many a civilian names and quite hot shots at that!

Or are we to prove the Army is full of rotten apples and the govt is pure as the snow of Mt Etna?

[RayC]

One does not have to take the concurrence of a higher authority in taking a decision.

Imagine being asked to check back if it is OK to site an LMG bunker from the RM!

The problem is that all here are 'experts' on defence matters, even more than those who have wore the uniform. No complaints since they do good research theoretically and are a great help. But still.......

An Army officer serves with the 'pleasure' of the President. Many a senior officer have been dismissed on the 'displeasures' of the President as in Gen Rodrigues' time.

Please tell me if such draconian law was applied to the corrupt in other fields of Govt?

So, take it easy, even when trying to look busy!

Army is no pure organisation. It is but a reflection of society at large. Compare and then go gung ho! We sniff out the crooks and 'hang' them. Now cross your heart and let me know if other departments of the Govt does the same?

So, being truthful and honest is also a crime?

Morale of the soldiers is the responsibility of not only teh RM but the Govt. Now, tell me giving the highest award to the Mumbai Police bosses who failed their duty is equal to the sacrifices of those who are up front against the militants and the Pak military?

I am ready for the brickbats, but a Police head honcho not realising that he is wearing a substandard bullet proof vest? And anyway, what was his tactics to enter the hotel and take on the terrorists? As per news reports, the Bombay police had not even fired their weapons to know how to do it. Who is responsible? Is dying the sole criteria for the highest awards? If it were so, the army would be flooded with such awards! Making them cheap like a 10p coin!

And at the same time I will not hesitate to state that there are manipulators and crooks in the Army.

[Prasad]

RayC sir,
Although a personal opinion, I am sure it is that of multitudes of other citizens too that the Army is held to a higher standard than the general bureaucracy that they encounter. The army man is seen as an upright person who defends the country against the barbarians at the gates while the govt official sucks their blood dry so to speak. In such a opinionated pov, although unreasonable, better is expected from the army. It is sad that the rest of the govt is not held to the higher standards but we would rather have the army hold up its high standards than to say (like the rest of the country) 'hey. hes getting away with it. why should you hold me to this high standard and tell me to obey the rules'.