Monthly Archives: August 2018

Gen. Bipin Rawat issued the direction after visiting the forward locations along the LoC and international border in Jammu and Kashmir and several border posts in Rajasthan.

New Delhi: Army Chief Gen. Bipin Rawat has directed army personnel deployed along the border with Pakistan to remain prepared for all eventualities in close coordination with the Indian Air Force, officials said.

Gen. Rawat issued the direction after visiting the forward locations along the LoC and international border in Jammu and Kashmir and several border posts in Rajasthan.

During the visit, the Army Chief was briefed on the prevailing security scenario and preparedness of the formations to deal with any eventualities.
“The Army Chief expressed his complete confidence in the capabilities of the Indian Army to thwart any nefarious design of Pakistan,” the Army said.

He praised high state of morale of troops and instructed them to remain prepared for all eventualities in close coordination with the Air Force,” it said in a statement.

In Rajasthan, Gen. Rawat visited forward locations like Barmer and Suratgarh to review the operational deployment. Tensions between the two countries escalated after Indian fighters bombed terror group Jaish-e-Mohammed’s biggest training camp near Balakot deep inside Pakistan on February 26.

Pakistan retaliated by attempting to target Indian military installations on February 27. However, the IAF thwarted their plans.

The Indian strike on the JeM camp came 12 days after the terror outfit claimed responsibility for a suicide attack on a CRPF convoy in Kashmir, killing 40 soldiers

Avneet Kaur

Jalandhar, February 27

Hailing the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, for granting permission to the Indian armed forces to decide on time and place for action against the perpetrators of the Pulwama attack, Air Vice-Marshal (retd) Sarvjit Hothi of Jalandhar said, “The Indian armed forces be it the Army, the Navy or Air Force, are always ready for such actions. But doing anything across the border is purely a political decision.”

He said, “An airstrike is always a result of a precise planning, hard intelligence and understanding of the area targeted. The demography and the kind of infrastructure are studied properly before executing an airstrike.”

He said every action was planned based on intelligence information, including the timing of bombing the area.

Taking on terrorists through airstrikes is extremely difficult as one second delay in action could be fatal, he added.

“The pilots hold a great responsibility as during an airstrike, the risk of being shot down is involved. You can be shot down in the air and you can be shot down from the ground. And for fighting aircrafts, even a small shot can mean a lot. If there is a strategic hit, it can be fatal as well,” said Air Vice-Marshal (retd) Hothi, who was part of the 10-member pilot crew selected for flying the elite light fighter aircraft — Gnat — in 1971.

Sharing his wartime experiences of 1971, Hothi said, “We were getting training in Jamnagar and increasing our flying hours to be fully operational when the war came. I was among the select pilots who got picked up for flying Gnats. We were inducted in the 2 Squadron that was then based in Ambala. Amritsar was our forward base just 25 km from the border.”

Narrating his one of the risky encounters, Hothi said, “One day when I had just taken off, I saw a Mirage of Pakistan just passed by on the gun side. My commander gave me orders to shoot it. But since my speed was just 180 mph, which was too less and there was another Gnat following me, I could neither turn back nor was capable of overtaking it. By the time I was in the attack mode, I was already over Lahore.”

On asked about the reason for choosing the Mirage 2000 for the strike, Hothi said, “You have to collect the right weapon to destroy the target and then you decide which aircraft can carry this weapon. And for such a strike, the best capability is the Mirage 2000 and therefore it was chosen.”

Jupinderjit Singh

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 1

While the nation is in a patriotic frenzy over airstrikes against Pakistan, the Haryana-based family of Punjab Police Inspector Hari Ram— who achieved martyrdom in the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war at the Jammu frontier — has been awaiting land compensation for more than five decades.

The trouble in this peculiar case is that none of the three states — Punjab, Haryana and Jammu and Kashmir — owns up the martyr. The Army and the paramilitary forces too have expressed helplessness in the matter as the martyr was not part of their force.

His son Varinder Kumar Saini, who runs an electrical equipment repair shop in Tohana in Fatehabad district of Haryana, is struggling to get the compensation.

He says his father Inspector Hari Ram was posted with the Punjab Police before Haryana came into being. In 1965, he was with the Third Battalion which was called to the Jammu frontier to defend the border against Pakistan invasion. At that time, the Border Security Force (BSF) was yet to be raised and policemen assisted the Army on the border. “My father achieved martyrdom in the Chhamb sector in Jammu. My mother was given pension and compensation by the Punjab Government and monetary compensation by Jammu and Kashmir.”

However, some state governments gave land to the Indian Army soldiers prompting the martyr’s family to apply as well. Saini says their residence fell in Haryana after reorganisation of Punjab. But the Haryana Government refused to acknowledge him as a state resident.

When he moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court, he was asked to approach Punjab too. However, the Punjab Police headquarters gave him a shocking reply that there was no record available about his father’s service with the Punjab Police. A letter written to him by the DGP office said the Third Battalion of Punjab Police was merged with the Central Reserve Battalion Force (CRPF) and the record of all men was handed over to the CRPF. The CRPF in its reply said they don’t have record of the martyr or other men from the Third Battalion.

Meanwhile, the government of J&K said it was the duty of the parent state to provide land in compensation. Saini cited examples of soldiers who were given land by the Haryana or Punjab governments, saying he had been denied the benefit as his father was not a soldier but a policeman. Officials with the police department of Punjab and Haryana said they had replied to Varinder Saini on the status of the case and had nothing more to add.

The case

Inspector Hari Ram achieved martyrdom in the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war at the Jammu frontier. His son says Hari Ram was posted with the Punjab Police before Haryana came into being. In 1965, he was with the Third Battalion which was called to Jammu to defend the border against Pakistan invasion.

It is unlikely that the Balakot air strike will prove to be an effective deterrent

CMDE C Uday Bhaskar (retd)
Director of Society for Policy Studies

The post-Pulwama-Balakot  sequence of events has acquired a complex contour and is playing out on many tracks, including the most visible in the collective Indian consciousness — the status of the IAF pilot, Wg Cdr Abhinandan Varthaman, and his return to India.

It may now be inferred that the  very brief and Twitter-like reference by US President Donald Trump, who indicated that there could be a ‘decent’ and ‘attractive’ development in relation to the tension currently prevailing between India and Pakistan was a hint about what would soon follow in relation to the captive pilot. It merits recall that the closure of the 1999 Kargil war was  enabled by the then US President Bill Clinton and 2019 corresponds to this pattern but less visibly so. The one other strand this time that may sour the US-Pakistan bilateral ties is the use of F-16 aircraft by Pakistan in breach of its contractual obligations but that is an issue that will have to be addressed separately.

The loss of a MiG aircraft and the manner in which Pakistan PM Imran Khan has burnished his profile as a ‘mature’ leader and a man of peace have no doubt occupied media attention — TV particularly — but are more tactical issues that are transient in  nature.

The more abiding challenge to India is the Balakot punctuation in reference to the proxy war being waged against the country,  wherein terrorism, as represented by the Pulwama tragedy, is the manifestation.

Will Balakot and the resolve now being demonstrated by PM Modi make a tangible difference to prevent another attack? The answer is probably not. 

The reason for this less than optimistic outlook stems from the nature of the terrorism challenge that India is seeking to address in the Pulwama-Balakot trajectory. It may be recalled that the Pulwama attack took place after Uri (September 2016) and the question that arises is whether striking a terror camp through the use of air power can be an effective deterrent against the non-state actors in Pakistan.

On the current evidence and past experience, it is unlikely and invalid to expect that one carefully carried out air strike in Balakot will prove to be that effective deterrent. The Pakistani response where it deployed its own air power and the dog-fight that ensued between the MiG and the F-16 are symbolic of the costs that will have to be incurred as the military path acquires its own dynamics.

In the event that the current situation returns to the earlier default orientation of the bilateral relationship and Pakistan convinces itself that India was forced to ‘blink’ first, the strategic objective of Balakot could turn detrimental. The Indian signal is that the decision to use air power to thwart a terror attack is the new median. The sub-text being Modi’s resoluteness.

However, the dominant narrative across the LoC is that the ‘naya Pakistan’ led by PM Imran Khan has stood firm against Indian aggression and the local social media had its fair share of ‘Captain’ Imran bowling the Abhinandan googly and outwitting his Indian counterpart. Triumphalism clearly permeates the subcontinent in a similar manner.

The deeper threat to India is the certitude in the GHQ Rawalpindi that Pakistan can continue to selectively nurture terror groups and that the impunity accorded to Islamabad by the global community will continue.

Thus, the Pakistani response after the Balakot strike is a familiar denial with little or no reference (forget acknowledgement) to the JeM and its leader Masood Azhar. In case Pakistan follows the Mumbai 26/11 path, where even after a decade there has been no tangible progress on identifying and bringing to book the perpetrators, and disparages the Pulwama dossier handed over to  it — the prognosis is bleak.

The Balakot aftermath, which appears to be a tactical closure with the safe return of Wg Cdr Abhinandan, is being referred to as ‘de-escalation’, though there is no signal from Islamabad about the JeM trigger that led to the Indian ‘preemptive’ military action.

The possibility that Balakot will trigger a reprisal by the JeM and/or  its ideologues such as the LeT and other clones remains on the radar. This likelihood stems from the historical symbolism of Balakot and the events of 1831, when the Sikh army of Maharaja Ranjit Singh put the religious ideologue Ismail Dehlvi to the sword, thereby leading to a special resonance for the Islamic jihad movement. Hence my bleak assessment that Pulwama may not be the last terror attack that would be directed against India.

In retrospect whether India should have used a MiG with a pilot or a surface missile to counter the Pakistani fighter aircraft is a debate best left to the professionals. What is noteworthy is the fact that an older MiG of vintage quality got the better of the more advanced F-16 fighter.

But what does need to be acknowledged is that the Indian response to the challenge of jihadi terror, as illustrated by Pulwama, cannot be episodic  and driven in the main by the emotive jingoism noted in large sections of the audio-visual medium and its variants on social media.

The national security debate must return to Parliament and not become the handmaiden of the electoral compulsio

Most of Modi government’s arguments to deny non-functional upgrade to the armed forces won’t stand a layman’s scrutiny let alone legal scrutiny.

The irony is hard to miss. While India celebrates the performance of the armed forces in the recent, short-lived conflict with Pakistan in Balakot and the political class exploits them for electoral gains, the military personnel continue to fight a battle with the government in the Supreme Court.

The case pertains to not granting non-functional upgradation (NFU) to the officers of the armed forces that members of some other central services enjoy. The government has been delaying and dithering on financially compensating India’s armed forces that lack adequate promotional avenues.

What is NFU? How does it work?

Civil services are classified into All India Services – Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS) and Indian Forest Service (IFS) – and Central Civil Services (CCS) – Group A and Group B. Based on cadre review, the CCS Group A have been further sub-divided into Organised (constituted by the Cadre Controlling Authority) and Non-Organised.

Keeping in view the stagnation in promotion of CCS Group A officers, the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommended NFU, linking their pay scales with those of their batch officers in the IAS. So, two years after the IAS officers are promoted, their batchmates in these services are automatically upgraded to the same level on a non-functional basis, irrespective of whether they are actually promoted or not. The usual system of promotion, meanwhile, continues. This upgrading is applicable for all ranks of officers up to the rank of Additional Secretary.

Non-grant of NFU to certain services

The government had initially granted NFU to only CCS Group A (Organised) even though the pay commission made no such distinction. In 2008 it was extended to the All India Services — IPS and IFS. The IAS as such is not entitled to NFU but its promotions are used as a benchmark as these are much faster than the other services.

The officers of the armed forces face maximum stagnation due to the conical pyramidical structure. An IAS officer gets promoted to the rank of Joint Secretary, equivalent to a Major General, after 18 to 20 years in service. An army officer becomes due for promotion to the rank of Major General with 32 to 33 years in service. Most army officers retire in the rank of Colonel at age of 54 years, while all IAS officers retire as Additional Secretary and above, which is equivalent to Lt Gen and above.

Also read: Good intentions, bad HR practice: Inducting civil service aspirants into the armed forces

The government’s stand in not extending the NFU to the armed forces and the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) was that these two forces do not meet the criteria of being ‘Organised’ as per the policy laid down.

A bitter battle has ensued over the last decade between the CAPF and the Ministry of Home Affairs, and between the armed forces and the Ministry of Defence. The CAPF’s case went to the Supreme Court, which upheld the judgment  of the Delhi High Court on 5 February 2019, which granted them NFU.

Case of the armed forces

The armed forces, on the other hand, found hurdle in a government unwilling to extend the NFU to them. Years after first taking up the matter in 2008, the armed forces strongly presented its case before the Seventh Central Pay Commission. While its chairman supportedtheir inclusion in the NFU system, the other two members found the NFU concept flawed. They said it was unmeritorious and must be done away with for all services. The government took advantage of this ambiguity and summarily rejected the case, causing a lot of resentment among both the serving and the retired officers.

After dilly-dallying by the government at subsequent hearings, the case was finally heard on 12 March 2019. The judgement stands reserved.

Government’s arguments – and counter-arguments

Most of the arguments presented by the government would not withstand a layman’s scrutiny let alone legal scrutiny. For instance:

Policy making is government’s exclusive domain.Yes, it is indeed, but all our pay commissions have correlated the pay and allowances of all services, including the armed forces, and tried to maintain parity. The government should be responsible enough to ensure that its policies are on an equal basis and not selective and biased against the armed forces.

Constitutional right to equality enshrined in Article 14 and 16 is not applicable to armed forces.This is untenable. While Article 33 of theConstitution empowers Parliament to restrict or abrogate somefundamental rights of the armed forces, to misinterpret it to include right to equality in salary and status goes against the very spirit of theConstitution.

Also read: Central Armed Police Forces to finally get pay parity with their IPS counterparts

NFU to armed forces will have adverse effect on status, command and control, discipline, efficiency and morale, and reduce the desire to aspire for higher ranks. If anything, the NFU will only provide a greater degree of motivation to super ceded officers. The armed forces have enough safeguards in form of rules, regulations, law and the appraisal system to deal with errant, non-motivated and non performing officers.

NFU will result in additional financial burden on government.On 12 March 2019 the government for the first time gave out the details of the financial burden – ₹1,065 crore for arrears and ₹269 crore as annual recurring cost. If the financial burden is unbearable, then NFU should be scrapped for all services. The arrears can be given in instalments and Rs 269 crore is hardly a burden on the government.

Armed forces enjoy various prerequisites and amenities that are not available to the civil services.Most of the ‘subsidised’ amenities are available at par to the other services in one form or the other. Apart from these, the other facilities are from the armed forces private funds built up over the years through contributions by all ranks. This argument only reflects on the petty mind of the bureaucrats.

The armed forces are entitled to Military Service Pay (MSP).The MSP is based on the erstwhile Special Disturbance Allowance. It is meant to address the intangible constraints and disadvantages unique to military personnel. It is certainly not a compensation for financial loss due to stagnation which is the basis for the NFU.

Also read: If India continues to politicise military, we may not look very different from Pakistan

Either due to ignorance or guided by inappropriate advice, the governments since Independence have discriminated against the armed forces in the matter of pay and allowance. Anomalies of pay commissions are only resolved through prolonged litigation stretching over 10-15 years.

The government should be responsible enough to ensure that its policies are on an equal basis and not selective and biased against the armed forces.

The armed forces are in the hearts and minds of the public and the political parties hope to win elections by exploiting the soldiers, and yet the government is fighting them tooth and nail in courts for a mere Rs 269 crore.

Lt Gen H S Panag PVSM, AVSM (R) served in the Indian Army for 40 years. He was GOC in C Northern Command and Central Command. Post retirement, he was Member of Armed Forces Tribunal.

Separate fact from fiction, the real from the fake going viral on social media, on HoaXposed .

Email 

When a government can boast, years into its rule, that none of its ministers has had to face a corruption case, it can mean one of two things: that the country is led by an exemplarily incorruptible set of politicians; or that the country is populated by inept journalists.

Good investigative journalism should dig out information that the government hopes to hide.When The Hindu accessed government documents and published a series of stories that suggested the Rafale deal was not quite all it was cracked up to be, written by the group’s chairperson N Ram, the Centre initially dismissed the reports.Now, the government has accused The Hindu of “stealing” documents from the Ministry of Defence and has warned that it could use the Official Secret Act, 1923, against the newspaper.The arguments presented by the government to the Supreme Court – which is currently hearing a series of review petitions regarding its December 2018 verdict that there was no need for a Central Bureau of Investigation inquiry into the Rafale deal – appear to acknowledge three things: one, that the report is authentic; two, that it has failed to protect at least one “official secret”; three, that it is willing to use an act enforced by a paranoid colonial power under threat of losing its dominion, in order to gag the press.N Ram has contended that Article 19 (1) of the Constitution, which grants citizens the right to freedom of expression, and Sections 8 (1) and (2) of the Right to Information Act, protect his publication.One would think the reports had endangered the security of the country.What they have in fact pointed out in the series, with evidence, in that the government bypassed mandated procedures, causing a 41 per cent hike in the price; that the government did away with bank guarantees and waived anti-corruption clauses; that parallel negotiations conducted by the prime minister’s office in 2015 and by the national security advisor Ajit Doval in 2016 had prompted the Ministry of Defence to object, citing that this would weaken the position of the Indian Negotiating Team; that the Indian side’s acceptance of pricing based on an escalation formula instead of a fixed benchmark price cost the exchequer 55.6 per cent more; that the delivery schedules were not met, among other things.Does the government believe, then, that it is an “official secret” that taxpayers’ money is being unnecessarily lost?If this is the case, does the government not worry that it couldn’t guard this “secret”, even knowing that there have been demands for information on the deal both from the Parliament and the public?The petitioners have charged that government officials supplied erroneous facts during the Supreme Court’s hearing of the initial case – an extremely serious accusation.A report by the Comptroller and Auditor General was tabled several years after the deal was signed, and its findings have been challenged by the petitioners, based on the reports published by The Hindu.Can the government’s response actually be that the evidence is inadmissible because it was “stolen”?The bench will resume its hearing on March 14.At a time when the public has been growing increasingly disillusioned with the apparatus that constitutes a democracy, the three branches of governance, has the “fourth estate” finally stepped up?For too long, we have been watching talking heads on prime time television shows, debating issues in a manner that makes no real difference except to viewership ratings and in turn advertising revenue.Where were the good, solid investigative stories that have traditionally brought corrupt governments to book? Could it be possible that a government which breaks the promise printed on every bank note and turns currency to paper overnight could actually be corruption-free?There has been the occasional murmur about suspicious business dealings, about the use of political influence for personal gain, but no report has been substantiated indisputably with evidence.The media organisations which have tried to take on the government are fighting a series of defamation cases. When a government that has so far relied on claims of defamation now accuses a publication of breaching a law that was enacted to combat espionage, we know the media is doing something right.With elections round the corner, and unrest along the national borders, this would be a good time to get rid of jingoism in the press.It would be something of a delicious irony if the name “Ram” were to lose some of its resonance among the current lot of government groupies.

Ajay Banerjee
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, March 11

After having cut down on imports of weapons and military equipment, India has dropped down to be the second largest importer of weapons. For more than eight years, New Delhi had held the dubious position of being the largest importer of weapons and has been among the top five importers for decades.

Saudi Arabia is now the largest weapons importer.

These trends have emerged from an annual report released on Monday by the Sweden-based think-tank Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The assessment was done for a five-year period (2014-2018).

Titled ‘Trends in International Arms Transfers-2018’, it says, “India was the world’s second largest importer of major arms in 2014-18 and accounted for 9.5 per cent of the global total.”

Last year (for the period 2013-17), India accounted for 13 per cent of all imports and was the world’s largest importer.

According to the latest report, Russia accounted for 58 per cent of Indian arms imports in 2014-18, said the report, adding that Israel and the US are the other two big suppliers having provided 15 and 12 per cent of supplies, respectively, to India.

SIRPI explains the lowering of imports by India as delayed deliveries. It says “Imports decreased by 24 per cent between 2009-13 and 2014-18 (two five-year blocks), partly due to delays in deliveries of arms produced under licence from foreign suppliers, such as combat aircraft ordered from Russia in 2001 and submarines ordered from France in 2008.”

During the period studied by SIPRI, India procured Mi-17-V5 helicopters from Russia; maritime surveillance planes, the Boeing P8-I from the US, and UAVs and radars from Israel.

The five biggest exporters in five-year block period 2011-2015 were the US, Russia, France, Germany and China. The US and Russia remain by far the largest exporters, accounting for 36 per cent and 21 per cent, respectively, of all global trade.

The China story

The bigger story is, however, China, which, in a sign of an omnipresent threat, has been helping Pakistan and Bangladesh in ramping up military prowess. China is now the fifth largest exporter of weapons ahead of traditional manufacturers like the UK and Israel. Its biggest benefactors are Pakistan and Bangladesh, both sharing a boundary with India and could potentially cause trouble for New Delhi. The two countries accounted for 53 per cent of Beijing’s exports from 2014-2018.

New Delhi sees China’s exports to countries around India as a part of its long-term strategy of having a ‘string of pearls’, a kind of military toe-hold in countries around India.

On the other hand, Beijing is also an importer. “Despite the rapid development of its indigenous arms-producing capabilities in recent years, China was the world’s sixth largest arms importer in 2014-18 and accounted for 4.2 per cent of the global total,” the SIPRI report said. Russia accounted for 70 per cent of Chinese arms imports in 2014-18. China remains reliant on imports for certain arms technologies such as engines for combat aircraft and large ships as well as long-range air and missile defence systems. Its own arms industry has yet to develop the technological capability to match Russian suppliers in these fields.

There is no doubt that the services of our armed forces should be duly recognised and celebrated. However, no constituent of a democratic republic has the right to rob citizens of their fundamental right to think and speak for themselves. Militarism suppresses this right. Militarism is incompatible with the working principles of democracy and its republican ideals.

Swami Agnivesh
Arya Samaj scholar and social activist

HYPE is the order of the day. Hype is created to suppress rational and factual thinking. Without thinking, there is no meaningful exercise of freedom of choice. Without such an exercise of choice, ‘the will of the people’ gets distorted and the temple of democracy is desecrated.

Beginning with the electorally overused ‘surgical strike’ in 2016 to the Pulwama attack and its aftermath, the improvisation of a sinister situation has been in the offing. It is described best as militarism, which involves the projection of the Army as a national cult. Militarism is not merely a matter of having a large Army, armed to the teeth and ready to function as a chillingly efficient killing machine. Militarism implies the fetishisation of the Army — a dogmatic object of worship — that makes it an anti-national offence to not concur readily with what the Army states. It disallows citizens and political parties from examining the factual merits of the versions given to them, which are required to be taken on trust. Pushed to the extreme, this makes the Army, not the will of the people, the decisive element in national affairs.

There is no doubt that the services of our armed forces should be duly recognised and celebrated. However, no constituent of a democratic republic — neither the State nor the Army, neither the judiciary nor Parliament — has the right to rob citizens of their fundamental right to think and speak for themselves. Militarism suppresses this right. Militarism is, therefore, incompatible with the working principles of democracy and its republican ideals. 

The foremost casualty in militarism is ‘equality of opportunity’ that political parties are entitled to in a democracy. In this scenario, spiced up by hysterical patriotism and nationalism, the armed forces cease to be a neutral organ. The forces come to be identified in popular perception with the ruling dispensation. Attempts are made to project this deception. The morale and bravery of the armed forces are attributed to the Prime Minister who, in his own words, is a chowkidar (watchman) who always remains chowkanna (alert). The Army is projected as an extension of the heroic will of the Prime Minister, who is increasingly perceived as its Supreme Commander. That there is the President of the republic who is meant to be seen in this role is forgotten.

In this ambience of militarism, the ruling party enjoys a huge advantage. It is free to craft or project military actions to further its electoral interests. No room is left for neutral citizens or opposition parties to question either the narrative or its partisan intent. Everything is required to be taken on trust, no questions asked. Even asking for evidence — which is the basic right of those who are required to believe what is dished out to them — is decried and stigmatised as ‘insulting the Army’ and as a ‘crime against the nation’, expressed picturesquely as ‘bringing a smile on the face of Pakistan.’ 

It is a cause for concern that the grave peril this holds out to our democratic culture goes unnoticed. In a democracy, the public sphere is envisaged necessarily as a domain of freedom and equality. Configuring the democratic space to favour one player and handicap the rest distorts and undermines democracy. If this is not avoided zealously, democracy could degenerate into dictatorship. The hallmark of dictatorship is that the ‘official version’ is the last word on everything. No dissent or deviation is tolerated.

Democracy mandates that if and when anything is introduced into the public sphere — such as putting out a version of the bombing of terrorist camps in Balakot — citizens and parties are free to examine the reported version factually and rationally, and come to their own conclusions. You cannot project a version of any event into the democratic space and intimidate citizens that unwillingness to lap it up is ‘anti-national’. Yet, this is exactly what the Prime Minister and his war strategists are doing. It is imperative that we recognise the threat this ploy poses to the very survival of democracy.

If something is so sacrosanct that it should not be exposed to the irreverence and raucousness of public discussion, the right thing to do is to withhold it from the public space. This principle is zealously followed vis-a-vis various aspects, say, of the Rafale deal. If is, of course, hard to understand why the price of these fighter jets bought with the taxpayers’ money should be kept a secret from them. It is an insult to democracy to suppress inconvenient questions about the issue.

Ironically, such an ambience is conjured and heightened on the eve of the General Election. It is too much of a coincidence to seem innocently accidental. The Election Commission — if it is to conduct meaningfully a ‘free and fair’ election later this year — needs to take note of this sinister distortion of the democratic space. Even more importantly, the citizens of India need to see through and rebuff such stratagems aimed at vitiating the spirit and integrity of the forthcoming elections. They will let Indian democracy down if, drugged by propaganda psychedelics, they reward those who cozen them into voting in ways that they would not have done otherwise.

he Defence Ministry said that it has taken necessary steps to ensure that women, who were earlier inducted for short service commission (SSC), get permanent commission in the armed forces.

Women will be eligible for branches like army aviation and army air defence among others

NEW DELHI: 

Women officers can now get permanent commissions in 10 branches of the Indian Army, the government announced on Tuesday.

The Defence Ministry said that it has taken necessary steps to ensure that women, who were earlier inducted for short service commission (SSC), get permanent commission in the armed forces.

Permanent commission will be granted to women officers inducted in branches such as Signals, Engineers, Army Aviation, Army Air Defence, Electronics and Mechanical Engineers, Army Service Corps, Army Ordinance Corps and Intelligence.

The Short Service Commission (SSC) women officers will have to give their option for permanent commission before completion of four years of commissioned service and they would be able to choose their specialisation, the Ministry said.

“In Indian Navy, all non-sea going branches/cadre/specialisation have been opened for induction of women officers through Short Service Commission,” the Ministry said.

The Navy is also building three ships for training of women officers after which they can be deployed at sea.

Tribune News Service

Jammu, March 2

Amid heightened tension between India and Pakistan and continuous ceasefire violations by Pakistan Army on the Line of Control (LoC), Army chief General Bipin Rawat today visited the 16 Corps headquarters to review the operational preparedness of his forces in view of the current situation.

Accompanied by northern Army commander Lt-Gen Ranbir Singh, the Army chief was briefed and updated by Lt-Gen Paramjit Singh, GOC, White Knight Corps, about the current operational situation, prevailing security scenario and the preparedness of the formation.

Giving details, a defence spokesman said the chief of the Army staff was briefed on the actions taken to meet the challenges of increased ceasefire violations and measures put in place to thwart the designs of the adversary. “He was also briefed on the measures reinforced in hinterland in the Area of Responsibility towards ensuring peace and stability,” Lt-Col Devender Anand, defence spokesman, added.

During the visit, the Army chief commended all soldiers for their unwavering dedication to duty, selfless devotion and high standards of professionalism. “He was appreciative of the measures and standard operating procedures instituted by the units and formations in the Corps Zone to minimise the casualties due to the ceasefire violations and infiltration bids.

The need to be prepared for effectively meeting current emerging security challenges was also reinforced,” the spokesman said.