Sanjha Morcha

All posts by webadmin


NEW DELHI/GORAKHPUR: India considered reviewing clearance for Chinese investment in a tit- for- tat response on Monday after Beijing snubbed New Delhi by blocking a move to have Pakistan-based Jaishe-Mohammed militant group chief Masood Azhar on the UN sanctions list.

Official sources said the move to review security clearance for Chinese firms investing in India is meant to send a message to Beijing for its action in the UN four days ago. India has reasons to be upset because Azhar is the lynchpin in the audacious Pathankot airbase attack in January.

“Pakistan has an important place in Chinese diplomacy … China’s intervention in that case must be seen in this context. China will stop supporting Pakistan when it starts being affected by terrorism,” junior foreign minister and former army chief VK Singh said in Gorakhpur.

India and China share an uneasy relationship since the 1962 war between the two Asian giants over longstanding territorial disputes in Arunachal Pradesh and Jam mu and Kashmir’s Ladakh region that the Chinese claim to be theirs. The Chinese intimacy with Pakistan, supplying India’s bitter rival with arms and tipping the regional balance, has been a diplomatic thorny point too.

But the two neighbours tried to mend fences since Narendra Modi rode to power in 2014.

Parrikar raps service HQs for taking action against personnel who complain to him directly

Senior Army officials conversant with the military law said that action has been initiated in many cases against complainants based on rules and regulations mentioned in the Defence Services Rules. – manohar-parrikar1Senior Army officials conversant with the military law said that action has been initiated in many cases against complainants based on rules and regulations mentioned in the Defence Services Rules. (source: PTI)

Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar rapped the headquarters of the three services — Army, Navy and Air Force — for taking action against personnel who make representations to him and whose complaints he forwards to the services for inquiry.

In a letter written to the Vice Chief of Army Staff, Vice Chief of Naval Staff and the Vice Chief of Air Staff, the Ministry of Defence has conveyed the strong reservations of the Defence Minister that instead of informing him about the inquiry held into the complaints, the respective services have been initiating action against the complainants.

The MoD letter, accessed by The Indian Express, says the minister receives representations and complaints from various persons including serving armed forces personnel. Based on the nature and gravity of the complaints, directions of the Defence Minister are communicated to service headquarters for looking into or inquiring into the allegations made in these complaints. “Of late it has been observed that on certain occasions instead of apprising the ministry/RM of the findings of the inquiry conducted, action has been taken against the complaining officials including attachment at other formations/establishments,” the letter states.It goes on to say that, “RM has taken a serious note of the matter and has directed that henceforth service headquarters shall restrain from taking action against complaining officials. If any action needs to be taken as per procedure, the same shall be furnished to the Ministry for seeking approval of the RM when the complaint is addressed to RM and inquiry has been ordered by him”. Compliance of these instructions have been ordered at all levels of the three services. Speaking to The Indian Express, a senior official of the MoD said that Parrikar has also directed that all inquiries in complaints which have been marked by him should be conducted in a time bound manner. The minister has not been satisfied by the slow response to the complaints and the inordinately long time taken by the chain of command to respond to him. Senior Army officials conversant with the military law said that action has been initiated in many cases against complainants based on rules and regulations mentioned in the Defence Services Rules (DSR) which forbid the breaking of chain of command while communicating. “However, many officers as well as jawans have been writing directly to the Defence Minister after finding that their complaints are not being addressed at lower levels,” he said. Recently, an Army officer of the rank of Colonel even met the Defence Minister personally, after seeking time from him, to air his grievance after his repeated complaints to even the Chief of Army Staff did not receive the attention that they deserved.

Ex-servicemen slam Pak team’s visit to Pathankot air base

Tribune News Service

Ambala, March 29

Members of the Ex-Servicemen Welfare Committee today criticised the BJP government for permitting Pakistan’s Joint Investigation Team to visit the Pathankot air base to probe the terrorist attack. They said, by doing so, the government has insulted the martyrs who laid their lives for the country.Subedar Atrar Singh Multani, president, Ex-Servicemen Welfare Committee, said, “It was unfortunate the Government of India has allowed the Pakistan team, including the representatives of ISI, to visit the Pathankot air base. It will bring down the moral of the security forces.”He said it was like asking the culprit to investigate its own crime, adding that any positive outcome from the visit was highly unlikely.JP Mehta, senior president of the committee, said “The government has compromised national security by allowing access to the Air Force base. Pakistan will never punish or hand over Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar or Lakhvi to India, who have been the mastermind behind the terrorist activities in the country.”

Calling Alpha, Bravo, Charlie: We got commands messed up

Dinesh Kumar in Chandigarh

The Indian armed forces are structured across 19 Commands, 17 of which are single service commands. The system of individual Service operational Commands is a legacy of the British. Successive governments haven’t brought about changes in the defence management system. Modern warfare demands unified commands. All three Services will require a unified structure to create an interoperable integrated environment

Should a war break out with China or Pakistan, multiple single Service operational Commands belonging to the Army, Navy and the Air Force will be pressed into service with none of their Command HQ located in the same city. Also, an operational Command of one Service will have overlapping geographical jurisdiction with more than one Command of another Service. And, there will not be a centre-point of tri-Service coordination. For example, a full-fledged conventional war with Pakistan will ensure the involvement of seven different operational Commands: 4 Army Commands, 2 Air Force (IAF) Commands and one Navy Command. The Army will activate the Udhampur-based Northern Command (looking after J&K), the Chandimandir-based Western Command (mainly Punjab), Jaipur-based South Western Command (mainly Rajasthan, part Gujarat) and the Pune-based Southern Command (part Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa).

The IAF will likely activate its New Delhi-based Western Air Command, which incidentally with its area of responsibility spread across J&K, Punjab and part of Rajasthan, has jurisdiction of the equivalent of more than two Army Commands: Northern, Western and part of Southwestern. The second Command the IAF may activate is the Gandhinagar-based Southwestern Air Command (area of responsibility is part of Rajasthan, Gujarat and Maharashtra) while the Navy will engage its Mumbai-based Western Naval Command in the Arabian Sea. Each of these will likely take instructions from respective Service chiefs and coordinate with their respective Operations directorate in the absence of both a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and a Joint Operations Directorate. As is evident, none of the seven operational Commands are co-located which resultantly is expected to adversely impact on coordination in intelligence sharing, planning and execution in the fast-paced technology-intensive battlefield environment of the 21st century. Also, the number of Commands belonging to each service located along the India-Pakistan border differs; the geographical jurisdiction of various Commands of the three Services have little commonality, and in most cases, the Command of one Service either overlaps or is linked with two or more Commands of the other Service.It will be a similar situation in the case of a war with China in which three Army Commands (Udhampur-based Northern Command, Lucknow-based Central and Kolkata-based Eastern) and three Air Force Commands (New Delhi-based Western, Allahabad-based Central and Shillong-based Eastern) will be engaged. In the high probability of a naval dimension to a future Sino-Indian war, also likely to be involved is the Navy’s Vishakapatnam-based Eastern Command and the Port Blair-based Andaman and Nicobar Command, the latter being India’s sole tri-Service Theatre Command, and whose commander-in-chief reports to the Chairman Chief of Staff Committee (COSC). In all, eight operational Commands will be involved.

Compare & contrast

Contrast the response to a Sino-Indian war with that of China, whose armed forces are structured across a total of just five joint theatre Commands. In the event of a conventional war with India, Beijing is expected to employ one theatre Command: the Chengdu-based Western Theatre Command. In case of a naval dimension, Beijing may employ the South China Fleet component of its Guangzhou-based Southern Theatre Command. The system of individual Service operational Commands is a British legacy. India has only made either incremental or cosmetic changes since Independence. As a result, as of today the Indian armed forces are structured across a total 19 Commands, 17 of which are single service commands. (See box).The other two are tri-Service Commands: the Andaman and Nicobar Command, a ‘geography-based’ Theatre Command established in October 2001 with headquarters in Port Blair, comprising a modest force level of an Army brigade, an IAF transport helicopter Unit, Naval patrol vessels and maritime reconnaissance aircraft and Coast Guard patrol vessels for the 572 island archipelago located about 1,200 km from the Indian mainland and barely 45 km and 180 km, respectively, from the southern tip of Myanmar’s Coco islands and the northern tip of Indonesia. They lie astride the western end of the Malacca Strait. The second, the Strategic Forces Command (SFC), with HQ in New Delhi, is an ‘equipment-based’ Functional Command armed with nuclear missiles.

Least integrated

The Kargil Review Committee observed, “India is perhaps the only major democracy where the Armed Forces Headquarters is outside the apex governmental structure.” In contrast to other major countries in the world, where the three Services are coordinated at the top under a CDS or equivalent, the three Services are not coordinated at the top and their respective Chiefs end up wearing three diverse hats: a ‘staff hat’ as the Chief of Staff, an ‘operational hat’ as the Commander-in-Chief and also a ‘ceremonial hat’.Around 70 countries, including major and medium military powers, have a Chief of Defence Staff  or equivalent. India, with the world’s fourth largest armed forces, is the only country of its size that doesn’t have the CDS.The three Services are notionally coordinated in the institution of Chairman COSC, which, however, is a rotational post held by the senior most Service Chief as a mere figurehead with no operational resources and no command authority. He is only a coordinator for most tasks which are administrative and that also by a democratic process of agreement. Considering this, it is unclear how the Chairman COSC will operationally handle the Andaman and Nicobar Command (ANC) in the event of a major military operation if the Commander-in-Chief of the ANC belongs to a Service other than that of the Chairman.

Parallel campaigns

Since Independence, war plans and procurement of equipment have been based on single Service appreciation and have involved overlaying the application of the other Service. Hence plans have been based more on creating a feeling of ‘mutual cooperation’ rather than based on a jointly appreciated integrated course of action. Be it strategic or tactical doctrines, training, equipment, procurement or logistics, each Service tends to operate almost in isolation. The debate in India to appoint a CDS and create joint Services Commands dates back several decades. Politicians, bureaucrats and the armed forces continue to talk even though successive military engagements by India have exposed deficiencies. The Sino-Indian War of 1962 was a disaster as has been recorded by several informed authors, including the still classified Henderson Brooks Report which was posted on the Internet in 2014 by Neville Maxwell, an Australian journalist and author of ‘India’s China War’, a book that revealed the incompetence of India’s key political and Army leadership of that time. It was also a war in which India did not utilise its air power and kept its fighter aircraft grounded despite the latter having the potential to make a difference considering that vintage Chinese aircraft had severe restrictions on payload capacity owing to their air bases being located on altitudes higher than 10,000 feet.The 1965 India-Pak war was a case of utter lack of coordination between the Army and IAF, which again has been recorded in the Official War History and also several books authored by retired defence officers and other writers. The Army saw the role of the IAF more as an air artillery and lack of coordination led to IAF fighters killing Indian soldiers in friendly fire. The 1971 India-Pakistan War appeared relatively better coordinated. Even so, while speaking at the Defence Services Staff College soon after the 1971 War, Field Marshal Sam Hormusji Framji Jamshedji Manekshaw, who led the Army to victory, tellingly remarked that the area Commands in India were dysfunctional and needed to be reduced to joint Commands which would operate under a CDS.

Recent conflicts

During the 1987-89 IPKF or Indian Peace Keeping Operations (named Operation Pawan) in Sri Lanka, an Overall Force Commander (OFC) from the Army was appointment with component commanders subordinated to him from the Eastern Naval Command and the Southern Air Command. However, this worked in theory more than in practice. For, the Navy and IAF Commanders-in-Chief (C-in-C) responsible for providing forces declined to delegate command and instead got the component commanders designated as liaison officers with no role other than act as a via-media in the headquarters of the OFC and the C-in-C. In As for the 1999 Kargil War, the differences between the Army and the IAF are well known. In one of its report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence has noted that it was lack of synergy which caused difficulties to the armed forces. Successive governments in India, irrespective of their political leaning, have rarely been pro-active in making changes in India’s defence management system. Changes have been the consequences of disastrous events and surprises. And even then, the reforms have been reactive and marked more by incrementalism than radical reforms and initiatives to deal with threats.

Cosmetic changes

It took India’s defeat in the 1962 War to make the government embark on modernising the armed forces which included raising 10 Army Mountain Divisions. Some incremental changes in India’s defence management system have followed after the 1999 Kargil War. Drawbacks within the Army during the large scale mobilisation of troops after the December 2001 terror attack on Parliament led the Army to embark on a Cold Start Doctrine. In 2008, soon after the 26/11 terror attacks by Pakistani terrorists in Mumbai, embarrassing revelations of chinks in India’s coastal security led the government to place the Coast Guard under the operational command of the Navy. The 1980s witnessed some major acquisitions and modernisation — some as a pro-active measure and some as reaction to Pakistan’s acquisitions. The 1980s also witnessed the Indian armed forces embarking on unprecedented ‘Out of Area’ tri-service missions — Operation Pawan in Sri Lanka (1987-89) and Operation Cactus in the Maldives (1988). Towards the end of the decade, the Army was fighting an intensive proxy war with Pakistan in J&K after having earlier engaged in Operation Bluestar (1984, Amritsar). India has increased its military ties with the US, Western Europe, nations in Southeast and East Asia and the Middle East. The country has also participaed in UN peace support operations. Clearly, the role of the Indian armed forces has expanded to new realms requiring a hard look at existing structures.


No Indian government has ever conducted a strategic defence review. The only exercise was the report prepared by the Kargil Review Committee  commissioned soon after the 1999 Kargil War. The findings of the committee, which essentially studied the sequence of events and made recommendations for the future, was tabled in Parliament in February 2000. It led the government to constitute a Group of Ministers (GoM) Committee in April 2000 to examine the changes that needed to be made in the national security structure.  The GoM Committee in turn constituted four Task Forces, each of which examined Defence Management, Border Management, Internal Security and Intelligence Reforms.Among the recommendations made by the GoM were three key proposals: (i) Integration of the Services both with each other and with the Ministry of Defence (MoD); (ii) creation of a CDS as a single point military advice to the civil political executive; and (iii) creation of Joint Operational Commands. The government ended up taking measures that were either cosmetic or incomplete. On integrating the Services with the MoD, the government did so with word play by introducing the nomenclature ‘Integrated Headquarters of the Army” (and likewise for the Navy and the IAF). Thus the only integration lay in the word ‘integrated’ — a cosmetic measure, whereas what the recommendation suggested was appointment of officers from the Services to the MoD. Then again, instead of appointing a CDS, the government took the half measure of creating a Headquarters Integrated Defence Staff or HQ IDS in October 2001. This is being headed by a Chief of Integrated Staff (CIS), a three star general, as an interim measure until a CDS was nominated pursuant to the Cabinet Committee on Security partially approving the GoM Committee recommendation. The HQ IDS works as a tri-Service secretariat to a non-existent CDS which remains elusive in the absence of any subsequent decision by three successive union governments formed since the report’s preparation. As for the third recommendation of making Joint Operation Commands, the government simply upgraded the Navy’s Fortress Andaman and Nicobar (FORTAN), established in 1976, to the Andaman and Nicobar Command (ANC) with a full-fledged C-in-C to be headed by a Lieutenant General equivalent belonging to either of the three Services and reporting to the Chairman COSC. Thus, although a Theatre Command was created, it did not involve any major addition of resources; only a change in nomenclature with its C-in-C reporting to the Chairman COSC instead of to the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command as was being done in the past. However, several years later the ANC has still not been fully integrated according to a report prepared by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence and it still remains dependent on the Eastern Naval Command for vessels and other weapon platforms and systems.


Veer. Nari. In my view widow of martyr, so called better half is the real and legal claimant of all the benefits accrue on the death of a martyr. All other claimants come after her. If martyr was unmarried, mother becomes the first claimant to draw all benefits

Not looking after and cooperating with in laws. Moreover, if widow

of martyr marries outside the family, she looses certain benefits, even the status of veer nari. Hence, the widow of the martyr is the real veer nari.


Major Naranjan Singh Multani

OI/C Pension and grievance cell

Sanjha Morcha



Dear veterans
Sanjha Morcha has decided to upload views of veterans on the controversial issues of
The wife of the Martyr or the mother.

Number of cases the mother did not even know that his daughter- in law  is receiving gallantry award and called VEER NARI
A mother who has given birth to the son and may BE the only one but deprived of any praise OR RIGHTS to be called VEER NARI.
On one side we call Bharat Mata Ke jai and say Jannai( WHO GIVES BIRTH) is supreme but in army we call the better half( WIFE)  as veer nARI .she may be newly married or old and gets remarried but still she gets the name and fame.
Post you views and send them at
To be uploaded on the website of Sanjha Morcha

Col Charanjit Singh Khera(Retd)

Gen Secy

Sanjha Morcha

70 border roads in J&K lie incomplete

Ravi Krishnan Khajuria

Tribune News Service

Jammu, March 21

Pakistan and China have been working expeditiously to complete the $ 46-billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), but at least 70 border roads in Jammu and Kashmir remain incomplete. A majority of these roads are in the strategic Ladakh region. In April 2015, China and Pakistan signed an agreement to build the CPEC through Gilgit-Baltistan. It will extend to Gwadar Port in Pakistan and give China access to the Indian Ocean and beyond.An official document on the incomplete Border Roads Organisation (BRO) projects says that 198 roads, which were sanctioned in the last five years, are yet to be completed. Of them, 70 roads await completion in Jammu and Kashmir.“There are certain delays in the execution of road projects mainly due to problems over forest and wildlife clearance, limited working season, difficulties in the availability of construction material and delay in land acquisition,” said the document.However, the Centre in a bid to expedite the pace of road projects had taken up the issue with Chief Secretary BR Sharma requesting him to constitute an empowered panel. Consequently, J&K constituted the panel to resolve the issue.The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests has given an approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, for diversion of forest land required for the construction of roads entrusted with the BRO in area falling within the 100-km aerial distance from the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and for link roads between border roads in the area within the 100-km aerial distance from the LAC, national highways, state highways and other roads.The 3,488-km-long LAC between India and China runs through the Himalayan states of J&K, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh. Ladakh shares with China 955-km-long LAC that includes some portion of the international border and 122-km-long AGPL (Actual Ground Position Line).“In the strategically significant Ladakh where Chinese incursions and India-China stand-offs frequently take place, impediments being faced by the BRO could affect the operational preparedness of the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and the Army,” said an Army source.The Army headquarters in New Delhi have been voicing concern over the matter and the Centre has been urged to remove bottlenecks to pave the way for the BRO to speed up its work and complete some important road projects, Army sources said.While 12 Indo-China Border Roads (ICBRs) in Ladakh need immediate completion, at least 10 of the ITBP posts get cut off every winter for over six months for lack of road connectivity.

Bumpy ride for BRO

  • An official document on the incomplete Border Roads Organisation (BRO) projects says that 198 roads, which were sanctioned in the last five years, are yet to be completed. Of them, 70 roads await completion in J&K
  • The delays in the execution of road projects are due to problems over forest and wildlife clearance, limited working season, difficulties in the availability of construction material and hurdles in land acquisition

From The Tribune archives: ‘Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev executed’

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 23

Indian freedom struggle heroes Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev were executed in Central Jail, Lahore, on this day, March 23, in 1931.An image of Page 1 of The Tribune dated March 25, 1931, carrying the news of the hanging and related issues can be seen below. For a larger image of the page, click here

405 cross-border firings in J&K in 2015: Govt

short by Anupama K / 04:06 pm on 16 Mar 2016,Wednesday
A total of 405 incidents of cross-border firing have taken place in the Indo-Pak border area in Jammu and Kashmir in 2015, said MoS for Home Haribhai Chaudhary. Of the incidents, 253 took place on the International Border and 152 others along the Line of Control. During these incidents, 16 civilians were killed and 72 houses were damaged, added Chaudhary.



A German Type 214 Advanced Diesel Electric Submarine

by Sultan M Hali

And its need to blame others

India raised a hullabaloo over the $700 million sale of eight US F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan. The move was scuttled in the US Senate on March 10, 2016, when the 30 days hold on US financing for the deal expired. Indian lobbyists in the US had raised a hue and cry, citing disparity in the balance of arms in the region if the sale of 8 F-16s went through. US Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Senator Bob Corker, whose committee has jurisdiction over foreign arms sales, Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and one-time presidential candidate as well as Senator John McCain, prodded by India tried to create hurdles for the arms sale to Pakistan but their efforts came to naught. Lawmakers voted 71 to 24 against an attempt introduced by Republican Senator Rand Paul to prevent the sale under legislation known as the Arms Control Act with the understanding that the South Asian state needs to modernise its air force and counter-terrorism activities.
Contrast this with the insatiable Indian appetite for acquiring sophisticated arms. Franz-Stefan Gady, Associate Editor of “The Diplomat”, in his March 1 op-ed titled ‘Russia Remains India’s Largest Arms Supplier (For Now)’, states that over the past three years, Russian defence deals with India exceeded 340 billion rupees (over $5 billion), with the United States coming in at a close second with 300 billion rupees (around $4.4 billion) in deals. He goes on to add that over the last three fiscal years, Russia was also able to claim the majority of signed defence contracts. Quoting India’s defence ministry, Gady reveals that from 2012-2013 to 2014-2015 fiscal years, 162 arms purchase contracts were signed, among them 67 with other countries, including Russia (18 agreements), the United States (13) and France (six).
Russian equipment made up around 75 percent of all of New Delhi’s weapons imports from 2004 to 2014. From 2009 to 2013, India and Russia signed defense deals worth an estimated $30 billion. In comparison, France signed contracts worth $30 billion and the United States contracts worth $11 billion during the same time period.
S-400 is the world’s most advanced Air Defense System
In 2014 the United States supplanted Russia as India’s top weapons supplier, with the total value of US imports increasing from $200 million in 2009 to $2 billion in 2014.
US defence contractor Boeing alone has won bids to supply the Indian military with ten C-17 Globemaster-III strategic airlift aircraft (worth $4.1 billion), eight P-8I maritime patrol aircraft (worth $2.1. billion), 22 AH-64E Apache, and 15 CH-47F Chinook helicopters (both helicopter deals have a combined worth of $2.5 billion).
The French aircraft maker Dassault Aviation is in the final steps of concluding a contract for the sale of 36 Rafale fourth-generation multirole fighter jets to the Indian Air Force at an estimated cost of $9 billion. In addition, European defence contractor EADS has been selected to supply six Airbus A330 Multirole Tanker Transport aircraft for the Indian Air Force in a $1 billion tender.
According to the Russian Military Complex chief, Moscow and New Delhi have also agreed to perform design work in India on what Russia claims would be a “fifth generation” version of the Su-35, an agreement that may lead to an Indian variant of the fighter jet. Russia claims the Su-35S would be a fifth generation fighter, as opposed to the legacy fourth generation Su-35. That implies stealth, but it’s unclear whether the jet would be on par with an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Russian industry sources said the fighter will be priced at $85 million. That could make it competitive with Dassault Aviation’s Rafale, and could have implications for India’s proposed purchase of 126 Rafales.
German daily “Der Spiegel” reports that Germany and India are already in discreet talks over the possible acquisition of six small German Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems (TKMS) diesel-electric submarines, equipped with air-independent propulsion (AIP) systems, for a total cost of $ 11 billion. The subs would be built by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) in Kiel.
While the “Der Spiegel” article does not offer any details over the precise TKMS submarine type offered, some reports surfaced earlier that Germany was going to offer the HDW Type 214, an export variant of the stealthy HDW Type 212. The Type 214 lacks some of the Type 212′s classified technologies such as its non-magnetic steel hull, which makes the sub particularly difficult to detect.
India currently operates four older HDW Type 209 submarines with the first commissioned back in 1986. Two of the four vessels, the INS Shalki and INS Shankul, were produced in India under a technology transfer agreement. “The very fact that INS Shalki and Shankul were made in India by an Indian shipyard under a technology transfer agreement is proof that TKMS has been supporting India’s indigenous defence industry for over a quarter of a century,” according to Gurnad Sodhi, Managing Director of TKMS India.
The Indian government has been deliberating over the purchase of six additional stealth submarines, capable of attacking land targets and equipped with AIP, since 2008 and is expected to make a decision by the year’s end (in a previous deal, India already opted for the purchase of six French Scorpene-class diesel-electric attack submarines the first of which was floated out in April, 2015). According to the original Project 75-I proposal, two submarines would have been directly bought from one selected foreign shipyard with the remaining four built in India. Now, with the Modi government’s ‘Make in India’ program all six vessels are to be built in India.
India is also going to acquire the world’s most advanced anti-ballistic missile system — the S-400. Previously known as S-300PMU-3, S-400 is a new generation anti-aircraft weapon system developed by Russia’s Almaz Central Design Bureau as an upgrade of the S-300 family. It is currently in service with the Russian Armed Forces.
The S-400 is designed to protect nuclear reactors, population centres and government installations. The system can also deflect enemy missile more than 400 km away. India’s voracious lust for arms is ceaseless.

BSNL app to help customers make landline calls via mobile

New Delhi, March 17

State-owned BSNL today unveiled an app through which its customers travelling abroad will be able to connect their landlines through mobile and make calls through them without attracting ISD charges.The Fixed Mobile Telephony service, to be operational from April 2, will, however, attract monthly charge. “Under FMT, we have virtually turned fixed lines into mobiles. Now, BSNL customers will be able to seamlessly connect their fixed line phone and mobile phone through a BSNL mobile application,” said BSNL CMD Anupam Shrivastava.“After installing the app, customers will be able to use their mobile phone to make calls using fixed line connection from anywhere in the world from April 2 onward,” he said. Customers will be able to use landline phones to make calls using mobile network as well.“We are working on tariff for this add-on service. It will be fixed charge on monthly basis for both pre-paid and post-paid customers. However, customers will have to pay call rates as per the network they use,” Shrivastava said. If they use landline network, then landline plan rates will apply and if they use mobile network then they will have to pay as per their mobile phone bill plan, he said.Under this technology, BSNL has plans to introduce SMS facility on landline phones. “In 2-3 months, BSNL will start providing SMS facility on landline phones. Like calling facility under FMT, people will be able to send and receive SMS on landline phones as well,” BSNL CGM Anil Jain said. BSNL’s another facility — fixed mobile convergence — unveiled today, will enable customers to connect up to four devices, mobile and fixed line phones, with each other. — PTI