Sanjha Morcha

Military strategic challenges in India’s relationship with Pakistan By Daily Excelsior -by Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain (Retd)

Foreign policy and military strategy are often considered the two main prongs of external security. Both mutually drive each other particularly when it comes to dealing with an irksome and none too friendly neighbor such as Pakistan. India-Pakistan relations and the challenges therein are therefore largely dependent on foreign policy factors and military strategic issues which are ever prevalent in dealing with Pakistan. India has always to be mindful that Pakistan’s foreign and security policy is controlled by the Pakistan Army and much of the attitude that Pakistan exudes comes from its ‘deeper than the ocean, higher than the sky’ relationship with China. Regionally, its dynamic role in Afghanistan and the uncertain warm and cold relationship it enjoys with the US are themselves major challenges for India. Pakistan’s current economic insecurity drives it to even greater dependence on China and some Islamic countries and has potential of creating large scale internal turbulence. The security of its nuclear assets and its readiness to threaten India with the nuclear option remain areas of concern in our security considerations. Most of all Pakistan’s continuance of the proxy war in J&K without any let up and its propensity towards finding novel ways of keeping India on the defensive is often seen as one of India’s main security challenges.
Pakistan’s strategic aim while executing its India policy is primarily to prevent India achieving its aspirations/ambitions as a nation. It hurts Pakistan to see India progress and achieve respect in the world. In addition, retribution against India for the humiliating military defeat in 1971 and the loss of erstwhile East Pakistan drives its psyche. Keeping India militarily and diplomatically imbalanced and thus creating the conditions to integrate J&K to Pakistan remains one of its prime aims against India.
In order to execute its strategy to achieve its India specific aim it works constantly to prevent decisive military asymmetry in India’s favor. With a population one sixth that of India it maintains an army that is as much as half the size of India’s army. Colluding with China to pose a two front threat to India it is hopeful that in the event of a military standoff it will be able to divide Indian military deployment sufficiently to achieve a degree of advantage in force ratios on the Indo-Pak border and perhaps even in the hinterland areas of J&K. It has created a bogey of first strike in nuclear domain if threatened even conventionally, through a declared nuclear doctrine and actively uses the nuclear card to pose psychological threats. Psychological warfare is its forte to cause dissension, being fully aware of India’s vulnerable fault lines extending into faith, caste, linguistic, regional and ethnic domains. As a doctrinal guideline it prepares itself and remains ready to respond in the conventional conflict domain but employs 4th generation warfare to fight proxy war in J&K and elsewhere. It needs to be especially recognized that Pakistan has constantly managed risk and has mostly avoided crossing the threshold of India’s tolerance although it has made major mistakes as in the case of the Mumbai, Pathankot and Uri terror attacks.
Through the adoption and execution of its strategy against India, Pakistan appears to believe that it has foreclosed all options of Indian response. This belief is reinforced by the introduction of tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) in its nuclear arsenal and continued projection that it will employ these as first strike against any Indian adventurism across the border. For Pakistan pro-active, full spectrum or limited war, none is to its advantage. Only proxy 4th generation war employing irregular proxies gives it an asymmetrical advantage. This combined with many other domains of non-contact warfare forms the hybrid war effort that Pakistan has been indulging in for the last three decades.
India has a range of response options against Pakistan. High end conventional war cannot be totally ruled out although in today’s international security environment it is a reluctant military concept with most nations. While China may be Pakistan’s trusted friend and ally and it may have its differences with India too there are enough mitigating factors prevalent to ensure that China will only assist Pakistan psychologically through projected border threats at the Sino-Indian border. China’s volume of trade with India, maritime vulnerability in the Indian Ocean through which its economy is sustained and the standing in the international community would constrain China from extending all out military support to Pakistan. The purpose of a potential Doklam 2.0 and beyond would be to psychologically bar India from raising its aspirations beyond a threshold from where it could pose a threat to China. If China was to consciously and proactively engage India in conflict Pakistan could be expected to also militarily engage India to support the Chinese and possibly at nearly full conventional level. This could be something akin to a worst case scenario for India but is not expected to present itself. The feasibility of China militarily engaging India on the northern and eastern borders in the event of limited Indo-Pakistan conflict appears even more remote but psychological warfare and posturing could well be options China would play out in support of its strategic partner.
There is no doubt that by doctrinally adopting the first strike nuclear option Pakistan has deterred India to some extent, in the conventional conflict domain. Doctrinally India has had to limit its earlier ambitions of a resounding victory in the conventional conflict domain. However, the limitation that India has had to adopt has also given rise to a proactive strategy in complete contrast to its earlier responsive doctrine. The proactive strategy could well be incident based (to Pakistan sponsored large scale terror strikes) or simply punitive strikes in response to the cumulative effect of a series of smaller Pakistan sponsored strikes.
Analysts have argued in favour of India’s proactive strategy with limited shallow objectives within the window of a nuclear threshold. Dr Nishank Motwani, writing in The Diplomat in Oct 2018, concludes “that small but significant shifts in Indian and Pakistani strategic thinking point to the viability of a limited conventional war under a nuclear threshold”. Indian Army Chief, General Bipin Rawat recently stated “that India would not be restrained from responding to Pakistani aggression and questioned Islamabad’s red lines for nuclear first use”. This was in response to a prevailing broad understanding that Pakistan would employ its TNWs against Indian Integrated Battle Groups (IBGs) at the very outset of a possible Indian limited response. The Indian thinking now revolves around the flexibility that India has chosen to project about its own second strike which could be of the magnitude of massive nuclear response to Pakistan’s employment of TNWs. A level of deterrence against early use of the nuclear option by Pakistan may have been achieved by India making known its intent.
There is an option that exists for India in the form of limited strikes across the LoC in J&K only. This must not be confused with the surgical strikes of Sep 2016 which were never aimed at achieving deterrence but only partial retribution against terrorists. These could be calibrated higher through strikes by Special Forces against Pakistan Army deployment which aids and abets terrorist infiltration. An even higher Indian calibration to progressively mount a series of strikes against selected Pakistan Army deployment could well draw limited Pakistani response. A limited war under such circumstances could well ensue within the nuclear threshold with a decided Indian advantage through the retention of the option to extend the conflict to the international border; something Pakistan would prefer to avoid.
It can be seen that potential military standoff between India and Pakistan is characterized by an ever increasing specter of uncertainty and complexity in which an erroneous assumption could spin the conflict in an uncontrollable direction. From a military strategic point of view this is an ever increasing challenge for the Indian Armed Forces stymied as they are by the non-availability of budgetary support for their optimization to face the increasing complexity of threats.
(This is an essay based upon the speech by the author at the recent seminar of Central University of Jammu on Strategic Challenges in India Pakistan Relations)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com

 


Maj from Doon dies in Rajouri IED explosion

Maj from Doon dies in Rajouri IED explosion

Major Chitresh Singh Bisht

Shyam Sood

Rajouri, February 16

Major Chitresh Singh Bisht, 31, was killed while defusing an improvised explosive device (IED) in Jhangar area of Rajouri district in Nowshera sector today.   He belonged to Dehradun. Sources said his marriage was fixed for March 7.

Sources said four IEDs were detected deep inside the Indian territory. “A team headed by Major Bisht was called. One of the IEDs was neutralised but another got activated. The Major suffered grievous injuries and died,” said defence spokesperson Lt Col Devender Anand.

Major SG Naik and Rifleman Jeevan Gurung were killed in two IED blasts in the same area on January 11. In another incident, Havildar Jagdev Singh was injured in Runglidhar, Babakhori area, also in the Nowshera sector, reportedly in sniper fire across the Line of Control.

With the situation tense following the fidayeen attack on a CRPF convoy in Pulwama on Thursday, “exchange of heavy mortar shelling can’t be ruled out in the coming days”, sources said.

 


42 CRPF JAWANS KILLED IN PULWAMA BLAST ‘Human bomb’ rams SUV into bus, part of 78-vehicle convoy

Majid Jahangir & Suhail A Shah
Tribune News Service

Lethpora (Pulwama), Feb 14

In the deadliest attack of the last 30 years of militancy in Kashmir, a suicide bomber rammed his vehicle into a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) bus at 3.15 pm today, killing 42 jawans and injuring a dozen others along the Srinagar-Jammu National Highway in Pulwama. However, the CRPF officials have confirmed 37 deaths so far.

The lone Kashmiri suicide bomber of Jaish-e-Mohammad drove a vehicle laden with 250-kg explosives into a CRPF convoy which was on way from Jammu to Srinagar.

“A CRPF bus and another vehicle bore the brunt of the blast at Latoomode in Lethpora,” a police officer said.

Such was the impact of the blast that body parts were scattered at least 500 metres from the site of the blast.

Due to the blast, glass panes of several houses in the neighbouring areas were smashed. Other vehicles which were part of the convoy also suffered huge damage. Immediately after the  blast, the CRPF men opened fire. At least 78 vehicles of the CRPF were part of the convoy.

“It was gut wrenching and gruesome. As guns stopped roaring and we peeked outside, we could see body parts strewn around, mixed with the damaged parts of the vehicle,” Abdul Karim, a shopkeeper, said.

Pakistan-based militant group JeM, formed in 2000 by Masood Azhar, claimed responsibility for the attack.

The attack took place despite a Road Opening Party (ROP) being in place. “There was the ROP…  the convoy was coming and there was an explosion. The nature of the explosion, how did it happen are all subjects of investigation,” IGP, Kashmir, SP Pani, said.

A medico said there was utter chaos after the blast.

Today’s attack is the deadliest in the history of Kashmir insurgency till date.

On September 18, 2016,  19 soldiers were killed when a group of fidayeen stormed an Army base close to the LoC in Uri in north Kashmir.

HM visit today; NSG, NIA on way

  • HM Rajnath Singh will hold review meetings with security officials in Srinagar on Friday
  • NSG commandos and NIA sleuths are being sent to the state to join probe
  • A 78-vehicle convoy with 2,500 CRPF men had left Jammu for Srinagar around 3.30 am
  • An explosive-laden SUV rammed into one of the buses triggering a blast at 3.15 pm at Lethpora
  • Gunshots were heard after the explosion as security forces blocked road, diverted traffic

Major terror strikes

  • June 25, 2016: Eight CRPF jawans killed as bus targeted at Pampore on the Srinagar-Jammu NH
  • June 3: Two CRPF men killed in attack on bus at Pampore. Three soldiers die in subsequent encounter
  • June 24, 2013: Eight soldiers killed after an Army bus ambushed at Hyderpora in Srinagar
  • July 19, 2008: Ten soldiers killed in an IED blast at Narbal on Srinagar-Baramulla highway
  • July 20, 2005: Three jawans killed when a car bomber rams into their vehicle
  • June 24: Nine Army men killed in a car bomb blast on Srinagar outskirts
  • April 19, 2000: Two soldiers died in the first ‘human bomb’ attack in the Valley when Army headquarters were targeted at Badamibagh in Srinagar

clip


5 militants killed in encounter with security forces in Kashmir’s Kulgam

5 militants killed in encounter with security forces in Kashmir's Kulgam

Army soldiers near the site of an encounter at Kellam in Kulgam district of south Kashmir on Sunday, February 10, 2019. PTI

Suhail A Shah

Anantnag, February 10

In yet another anti-militancy operation, the security forces on Sunday killed five Hizb militants in Kulgam district of south Kashmir. At least 10 civilians were injured in clashes that erupted at the encounter site.

The slain militants, all locals, were identified as Waseem Bashir Rather of Ashmuji Kulgam, Zahid Parray of DH Pora Kulgam, Idrees Bhat of Arwini in Anantnag, Aqib Nazir of Zangal Pora Kulgam and Parvaiz Bhat of Qaimoh Kulgam. Idrees had joined the Hizbul Mujahideen in 2017 and the rest in 2018.  

The operation was launched by a joint team of the security forces at 5.30 am in Kelam village. “As the area was being cordoned, the militants, who were hiding in a house, opened fire,” a police official said. In the retaliatory fire, three militants were killed. “Even as efforts were on to retrieve the bodies, two more militants hiding in another house opened fire. They too were shot,” he said.

The operation came to an end by noon.

Sources said the house where the first three militants were holed up was set on fire, forcing the militants to come out. “The second house too suffered substantial damage.” Fierce clashes erupted at the encounter site. The forces used tear smoke shells and pellet guns to disperse the protesters. At least 10 persons sustained pellet injuries.

“Six were treated here and two with eye injuries were sent to the SMHS hospital in Srinagar,” a doctor at the Kulgam hospital said.

The bodies of the militants were handed over to the families in the evening.

3 CRPF men, 4 cops injured in grenade attack  

Srinagar: At least seven security men and four civilians, including two women, were injured in a grenade attack in city centre on Sunday evening. Militants hurled a grenade on a security picket near Palladium in Lal Chowk at 6.45 pm, which exploded with a bang, injuring 11 persons. “Three CRPF men and four policemen were injured,” CRPF spokesman Sanjay Sharma said. Four civilians, including two women, were also hit by splinters. TNS

 


Explained: India’s policy shift in sharing Indus waters with Pakistan

Since the terrorist attack in Uri in 2016, India has worked to ensure it utilises its full claim under the Indus Waters Treaty. Several stalled projects have been revived, and many have been put on the fast track.

Explained: India's policy shift in sharing Indus waters with Pakistan

Power project on Kishanganga, a tributary of the Jhelum , in J&K. (Express Photo: Neeraj Priyadarshi/Archive)

Water Resources Minister Nitin Gadkari recently tweeted that the government had decided to stop India’s share of waters in the Indus river system from flowing into Pakistan. Coming amidst noisy calls for a strong retaliation against the Pulwama terror attack, Gadkari’s statement seemed to indicate a new policy direction from the government. That clearly was not the case, as the government also clarified after some time. The policy direction had, in fact, changed more than two years earlier — in the wake of another terrorist attack, on an Army camp in Uri in September 2016.

After the Uri attack, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had said that “blood and water” could not flow together, and India had temporarily suspended regular meetings of the Indus Commissioners of the two countries.

A much bigger shift was signalled a few weeks later, when India decided to exert much greater control over the waters of the Indus basin, while continuing to adhere to the provisions of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty that governs the sharing of these waters with Pakistan. A high-level task force was set up under the stewardship of the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister to ensure that India makes full use of the waters it is entitled to under the Treaty.

Rights to be utilised

India has not been utilising its full claims, and letting much more water flow to Pakistan than has been committed under the Treaty.

The Indus Waters Treaty gives India full control over the waters of the three Eastern rivers, Beas, Ravi and Sutlej — ‘Eastern’ because they flow east of the ‘Western’ rivers — while letting the waters of the three Western rivers of Indus, Jhelum and Chenab flow “unrestricted” to Pakistan. India is allowed to make some use of the waters of the Western rivers as well, including for purposes of navigation, power production and irrigation, but it must do so in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty.

Explained: India's policy shift in sharing Indus waters with Pakistan
Click image to enlarge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Historically, India has never made full use of its rights, neither on the Eastern nor on the Western rivers. On the Western rivers specifically, there has been no pressing demand for creation of new infrastructure on the Indus rivers, either for hydroelectricity or irrigation. With a large proportion of farmers in Jammu and Kashmir having moved to horticulture from traditional crops, the demand for irrigation has gone down over the years. After the devastating floods of 2014, it was argued that storage infrastructure could have been built on these rivers as a flood-control measure.

As a result of India’s under-utilisation of its share of waters, Pakistan has over the years benefited more than it is entitled to under the Treaty. Pakistan’s dependence on the waters of the Indus basin cannot be overstated. More than 95% of Pakistan’s irrigation infrastructure is in the Indus basin — about 15 million hectares of land. It has now become the world’s largest contiguous irrigation system, comprising over 60,000 km of canals. Three of Pakistan’s biggest dams, including Mangla, which is one of the largest in the world, is built on the Jhelum river. These dams produce a substantial proportion of Pakistan’s electricity.

Post Uri, India’s decision to change the status quo and use more waters of the Indus rivers was made with the calculation that it would hurt the interests of Pakistan, which has become used to the excess water and built its infrastructure around it.

What moved after Uri

One that moved quickly was the 800MW Bursar hydroelectric project on the Marusudar river, one of the tributaries of the Chenab, in Kishtwar district of Jammu and Kashmir. Under direct monitoring of the Prime Minister’s Office, a revised detailed project report was finalised, prompt environmental clearance was granted, and an attractive rehabilitation package for affected families was disbursed. Recently, work has also been started. Bursar will be India’s first project on the Western rivers to have storage infrastructure.

The same happened with the Shahpur-Kandi project in Gurdaspur district of Punjab, work on which was stalled for several years because of a dispute between the governments of Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir. In March 2017, the Centre summoned the representatives of the two states, brokered a solution, and directed that work be resumed.

A much bigger project, the 1,856-MW Sawalkot project on the Chenab in Jammu and Kashmir, was also given the final go-ahead in 2017, and work is expected to start soon. Similar is the case of the Ujh project in Jammu and Kashmir.

Officials say more than 30 projects are under various stages of implementation on the Western rivers, having got the final approvals. Many of these were started after the change in policy in 2016. Many of them have been accorded the status of national projects. Another eight projects are said to be in the planning stage.

Pakistan’s claims

Even before India’s shift in policy, Pakistan had often complained that it was being denied its due share of waters, and that India had violated the provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty in the manner it had designed and implemented many of its projects on the Indus rivers. In the last few years, several Pakistani academics have argued that the Treaty has failed to protect the interests of Pakistan, and that India has managed to manipulate the provisions in its favour.

The result has been an increasing number of objections being raised by Pakistan on the projects that are coming up in India. The two countries have permanent Indus Water Commissions that meet regularly not just to share information and data, but also to resolve disputes. Until a few years ago, most of these disputes would be resolved through this bilateral mechanism. The dispute over the Baglihar dam was the first one that Pakistan referred to the World Bank, which had brokered the Indus Waters Treaty.

Baglihar, which was adjudicated upon by a neutral expert, did not go Pakistan’s way. In the case of the Kishanganga project, where the matter was referred to a Court of Arbitration, a higher level of conflict resolution under the Treaty, Pakistan managed to get a partially favourable decision. Some disputes over the Kishanganga have remained unresolved and are currently being addressed.

In recent years, Pakistan has raised objections on many other projects, including the Ratle project, the Pakal Dul dam, and Sawalkot. Officials say the main objective of Pakistan seems to be to delay these projects, thereby forcing a cost escalation and making them economically unviable.

Advertising

Last month, the Indus Commissioner of Pakistan was in India to visit some of these projects, as can be done once in five years in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty.


FIRE POWER

FIRE POWER

he IAF fighter JEt carries out a fire power demonstration at Pokhran on Saturday. PTI

The IAF on Saturday carried out a drill involving 140 jets and attack helicopters in Pokhran, in a fire power demonstration close to the border with Pakistan. At the inauguration of the Vayu Shakti exercise, Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa said, “I wish to assure the nation of the IAF’s capability and commitment in meeting security challenges.”

 


Pregnant woman stuck in snow delivers twins after Army’s Jawan carries her to hospital on their shoulders in kashmir

Pregnant woman stuck in snow delivers twins after Army's Jawan carries her to hospital on their shoulders in kashmir

With the help of the army during the heavy snowfall in Jammu and Kashmir, a pregnant woman has given birth to twins. The Army came to help the woman at the right time and admitted her to Bandipore District Hospital in North Kashmir. Officials said on Sunday that on February 8, a villager called the company commander of the Thana’s Panar camp at Bandipore and asked the army for help to take his pregnant wife Gulshana Begum to the hospital.

It is informed that due to heavy snowfall the weather was very bad. The temperature was minus 7 degree Celsius. Officials said that due to snowfall the roads were completely covered with snow, due to which the movement of vehicle was impossible. But it was necessary for the woman to take her to the hospital immediately.

In such a situation, the soldiers of Bandipore Rashtriya Rifles, after heavy snowfall and difficult conditions on the roads, reached the woman’s house and after crossing the ice frozen on the road, they took pregnant lady on their shoulders with the help of stretcher for two and a half kilometers. After this, the woman was taken to Bandipore District Hospital from an army ambulance. Considering the importance of each moment, the Army had arranged for doctors before meeting the civilian officers before reaching the woman’s hospital.

After the health checkup, the woman was told that she is going to be the mother of twins, for which the operation will be required. After this, he was taken to Srinagar Hospital for the operation. According to the officials, the woman gave birth to twins on the night of February 8.


IAF exercise Vayushakti 2019 to see Mi-35 assault anti-armour helicopter unleash its firepower

IAF exercise Vayushakti 2019 to see Mi-35 assault anti-armour helicopter unleash its firepower

NEW DELHI: Mi-35 – the Russia-made assault anti-armour helicopter – will unleash its firepower in the upcoming Indian Air Force’s (IAF) exercise ‘Vayushakti 2019,’  which is due to begin from February 16..

The Mi-35 is an assault anti-armour helicopter, which can be used in numerous combat roles.

This state-of-the-art helicopter can be used in anti-tank operations, escort to Special Heliborne Operations & destruction of enemy Air Defence missions.

The helicopter can launch attacks with Shtrum missiles and rockets of different caliber, bombs & canon.

The helicopter is made by Russia and it can carry eight troops and four stretchers too.

The Mi-35 can attain a maximum speed of 315km/hr at 1000m.

This helicopter can fly at a maximum height of 4,500m.

The Mi-35 is a modern combat helicopter, which is also operated by the armed forces of Venezuela, Brazil, Azerbaijan, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, and Mali.

The overall length of Mi-35 is 21.6m.

Its wingspan is of 6.5m and height is 6.5m. The take-off weight of this helicopter in ferry configuration is 12,000kg.


All CAPFs ‘organised services’ for promotion, service-related benefits: SC

All CAPFs 'organised services' for promotion, service-related benefits: SC

he top court”s order will benefit thousands of Group A officers of central paramilitary forces like CRPF, BSF, ITBP, SSB and CISF.

New Delhi, February 5

In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that all Central Armed Police Forces-CRPF, BSF, ITBP, CISF, RPF and SSB-be recognised as “organised services”, saying it will remove stagnation, ensuring promotion and other service-related benefits to officers in the same post.

It also held that Group “A” officers of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) should be given all benefits, including non-functional financial upgradation (NFFU) from 2006 in terms of the 6th Pay Commission.

The top court upheld the Delhi High Court’s two verdicts by which it had granted “organised service” status to Railway Protection Force (RPF), CRPF, BSF, ITBP and SSB.NFFU is a concept introduced in the 6th pay commission and was granted to what the government termed as Group “A” organised services.

Under NFFU, if all the officers of a particular batch cannot move up the ladder owing to lack of vacancies but only one does, the others will automatically get financial upgradation like the one promoted. However, it would involve only a financial upgrade but not rank or perks.The top court’s order will benefit thousands of Group A officers of central paramilitary forces like Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) and Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF).

A bench of Justices R F Nariman and M R Shah upheld the orders of the Delhi High Court passed on December 4, 2012 with regard to grant of “organised service” status to Railway Protection Force (RPF) and to CRPF, BSF, ITBP and SSB in its September 3, 2015 verdict.

The bench, while dismissing the appeals of the Centre against the order, said in the monographs published by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) right from 1986 till date, CAPFs have been shown to be a part of the Central Group “A” Services.

“CAPFs have been shown as a part of the Central Group A Services after conducting the exercise of Cadre Review, etc., by the DoPT. Therefore, all throughout from 1986 till date, in the Monographs published by the DoPT, CAPFs have been shown to be a part of Central Group A Services. Therefore, thereafter it would not be open for the DoPT not to consider and/or treat the CAPFs as an Organised Group A Services,” the bench said.

Justice Shah, who penned the verdict for the bench, said considering all facts and circumstances and the material on records “it cannot be said CAPFs do not constitute Organised Group ‘A’ Central Civil Services/ Group A Central Civil Services”.

Dealing with the NFFU, the bench noted that to overcome the stagnation problems, the 6th Pay Commission had recommended NFFU to all Group A Officers in various Organised Group A Services.

“The purpose of granting NFFU was to give relief to Group A Officers facing the problem of stagnation as fallback option when regular promotions do not come into various factors. It has come on record that CPMFs are facing huge problem of stagnation, more particularly, on one hand, they are not being granted the promotion as most of the promotional posts are filled in by deputation and, on the other hand, they are denied NFFU,” the top court said.

It further noted that CRPF was denied the NFFU on the ground that the 6th Central Pay Commission did not grant that.

The bench said the Central Pay Commission, as such, is not authorised to define “Organised Services” or to grant such status to any service.

It said “merely because the 6th Pay Commission did not recommend to grant NFFU to CAPFs  Group A Officers in PBIII and PBIV, the Group A Officers in PBIII and PBIV cannot be denied the NFFU, which otherwise is granted to all the Officers of Group A Central Civil Services”.

The bench said it is in complete agreement with view taken by the High Court and does not call for any interference.

It further clarified that “rights of the IPS, if any, for their appointment on deputation on some of the posts in RPF cannot be said to have been affected and merely because some posts in the RPF might have been required to be filled in by way of deputation also, grant of status of Organized Group A’ Central Services to RPF shall not affect the IPS”.

With regard to RPF, the bench said view of the high court was correct in treating the office memorandum of 2003 as in principle decision/approval of the DoPT to constitute the RPF as an Organised Group A Central Services.

“The RPF is rightly treated and considered as an Organised Group A Central Service,” the bench said.

On September 3, 2015, the High Court had asked the Centre to consider all CAPFs as organised services.

Aggrieved officers of CAPFs have argued that they were facing stagnation not only because of lack of adequate promotional posts, but also because a majority of the posts of the top hierarchy had been filled up by deputationists (IPS officers), affecting the career progression of the cadre officers.

The CAPFs are the country’s largest paramilitary forces which not only guard strategic Indian frontiers but also are deployed for a variety of internal security duties. – PTI


Defence modernisation with meagre allocations

India needs realistic defence planning and war doctrines that fit in with the budget

The defence allocations in the interim budget 2019-20 have again been a disappointment. While the capital outlay has crossed Rs 1 trillion for the first time, it hardly represents any hike over the revised figures for 2018-19 once inflation and rupee depreciation are accounted for. On the other hand, the bill on salaries and pensions has ballooned, thanks to the large size of the Indian armed forces and the implementation of one rank one pension. A simple addition of pay and allowances of serving personnel and pension of retired veterans returns the sum of Rs 2.33 trillion.

Even if this is an election year, the story has been the same for a long time now. The reality is that India is a developing country with multiple competing demands over scarce capital. It is tough to make a case for higher defence allocations without hiving off resources from some other programmes, which, too, require urgent funds. But equally, it is also a reality that India lives in a precarious neighbourhood with two hostile nuclear powers, one of which aims to be a global hegemon and the other is a breeding ground for terrorists. So what can be done?

One, India needs to drastically prune the size of its armed forces. In any case, a large army like ours is more equipped to fight yesterday’s wars and not tomorrow’s, which will require less manpower but greater technological prowess. Two, the armed forces needs to look at its own assets to squeeze in extra resources. Three, the security establishment needs to take a hard look at our war doctrines and defence planning. For instance, one keeps hearing that the IAF needs 42 fighter squadrons to fight a two-front war. If India spends so much money on buying so many aircraft, what will be left for the army and the navy? We need realistic defence planning and war doctrines for the budget we have in real life, not the budget the planners have in their minds.