Monthly Archives: August 2018

Advertisement

Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr

Senior Journalist

WHEN PM Narendra Modi visited France in April 2015, he made the dramatic statement that India will buy 36 Rafale aircraft off the shelf, ending the protracted negotiations for the purchase of 126 French jet fighters which the Indian Air Force (IAF) needed to replenish its squadron strength. It stands at 31, far less than the authorised requirement of 42.

It took a few years before it was decided that the light combat aircraft (LCA), which had been in the making since the 1980s, would be upgraded and the IAF would fly Tejas fighter jets. Then we have been told on the sidelines that PM Modi, in his latest triumphal Washington trip, had finalised the deal over an American jet engine for the Tejas. But no questions were asked. And the American trip also saw the deal for buying military drones signed. And in Paris as the Guest of Honour at the Bastille Day Parade, PM Modi has carried with him the Defence Ministry requirement for 26 Rafale-Marine jets for the Navy’s two aircraft carriers. And the bureaucratic procedures of request and approvals were made on the eve of the PM’s departure for France. India will also be buying three Scorpene-class submarines to maintain its maritime status afloat. The Rafale purchase is again an off-the-shelf one.

While the Modi government assiduously strives for indigenising defence production, and even dreaming of being an arms exporter — India had done a $375-million sale of BrahMos to the Philippines — there is also the compulsion that India should keep up its arms purchases as part of its diplomatic strategy. The US and France have been pursuing arms sales to India with much vigour. India could not have shut its doors to arms imports even as it builds its own defence production base. In the case of the jet engine for Tejas, it is aimed at building a local production base though there is no talk of transfer of technology. Even the purchase of Rafale-M is seen as a temporary measure because the indigenous maritime jet is in the pipeline, though it is more than a decade away.

For a government that lays stress on security and armaments, PM Modi and his security advisers have adopted an ad hoc approach to their defence production and purchases decisions. There is no long-term vision of India’s military needs and challenges. Indian military experts seem to be undecided about the role of jet fighters. The first Chief of Defence Staff, Gen Bipin Rawat, indicated that India may not need a large fighter jet strength because the mode of war is moving towards missiles. And it can now be seen that it has moved from missiles to drones. And given the financial constraints perhaps, India has to restrict its arms shopping and prioritise purchases. So, it was very essential to buy 36 Rafale jet fighters in 2015, 26 Rafale-M fighters in 2023 and the three submarines. But where is the thinking and planning to stabilise India’s military base?

Major economies such as the US, France and UK — though the economic clout of the last two is uncertain — look to India’s big domestic market and the potential for doing business on a big scale, but they are also keen to sell their arms. India is either buying arms to keep them humoured or it is doing so because that is the only way India can keep its military strength poised in the face of challenges from hostile neighbours such as China and Pakistan. It is indeed the case that there is no immediate prospect of a full-scale war with the two of them combined or either of them separately. But India’s state of military preparedness has to be at the highest level. But the government’s arms shopping shows a dangerous lack of strategic vision. It seems that PM Modi believes in what he told Russian President Vladimir Putin, that this is not the era of war, and it could be a Nehruvian folly on the part of the Prime Minister. The military has to be fully equipped at all times. It cannot wait for indigenous production to catch up with the military’s needs.

What the Modi government should do is to purchase weapon systems not on an ad hoc basis but in order to equip the forces with the maximum weaponry needed at any time. The show of strength cannot depend on future capabilities. And the bid to indigenise defence production in the country should go on, and separately. The two cannot be linked. Fighter jets cannot be purchased on the calculation that soon the country will make its own. That would reflect a rather clumsy thinking, which can be done at the household level but not when national security is at stake.

Shopping for arms is not luxury shopping where you spend on buying the best equipment because you have the money to do so. It is based on real need, and it cannot be linked to anything else, not even Atmanirbhar Bharat. The government has been faltering on this front. Compared to earlier times, India is in a better position to pay for the weapons it needs. So, the purchases should be complete in themselves. And that is the missing element in the arms shopping of Modi government’s nine years. The reason for this tentative approach is the false national pride that India can build its own weapons and it does not have to look outside. India is not self-sufficient, apart from in food production, and even here it is not on a firm ground, which is reflected in decisions to place restrictions on grain exports. And it is not at all self-sufficient in terms of weapons. There is the promise of self-sufficiency and more in making weapons at home, and it is possible. But right now, the forces need weapon systems to man the positions, and these have to be based on state-of-the-art technology. Nothing less would do.

Maj Gen Ashok K Mehta (retd)

Military Commentator

DURING his US visit last month, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that “the sky is not the limit” for India-US relations. Still, a note of caution needs to be attached to the extraordinary optimism, not forgetting that Lt Gen Claude Kicklighter’s 1991 initiative to boost the India-US defence ties became the linchpin of a relationship bereft of political underpinnings. The US guru on India and Pakistan, Stephen Cohen, would say that the turnaround in India-US relations paradoxically followed New Delhi’s nuclear tests till the 2005 India-US nuclear deal became the missing political framework for the Comprehensive Global Partnership. India’s coveted strategic autonomy is intact. India is aligned, not allied, with the US. What can they expect from each other when the chips are down?

Has sufficient mutual trust been created after a history of hesitation and suspicion? In 2004, India signed the Hawk trainer aircraft contract with the UK, stipulating that there be no US parts in it. Carnegie Endowment’s Ashley Tellis, who more than a decade ago advocated that US should help India become ‘strong’, recently called the investment America’s bad bet on India — as it will not involve itself in any confrontation with China that does not threaten its own security. He has semantically changed it this month, saying that the US bet on India is good but has constraints. The US National Defence Strategy states three priorities: Taiwan, Indo-Pacific and Himalayan LAC. As India has not formally articulated its threats, it is safe to assume these are China-Pakistan, Indian Ocean and the Indo-Pacific. Without naming China, Modi said in the US Congress that “dark clouds of coercion and conflict exist in Indo-Pacific”.

For India, China is its most consequential challenge. The US hopes to wean India away from Russia and counter China but it toned down its expectation after the Ukraine war — to deepening the partnership, much less leveraging India as a counterweight to China. The IISS Military Balance 2022 indicates that in India’s arsenal, 90 per cent of armoured vehicles, 69 per cent combat aircraft and 44 per cent submarines and warships (65 per cent armed with Russian missiles) are Russian in origin. Thanks to US generosity, India’s purchase of S400 AD missiles and Russian discounted oil did not attract US sanctions but Turkey, a NATO partner, was penalised for buying S400. Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has strongly defended India-Russia relations after Modi’s visit to the US.

As a prelude to the recalibrated Quad summit at Hiroshima in May, India’s Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and his counterparts from the US, Japan and Australia had met for a security conclave at California. They agreed that for obtaining niche defence technologies and deterrence, effective alliances were needed. The CDS, Gen Anil Chauhan, emphasised effective ‘partnerships’ and self-reliance. On deterrence, the US has moved from joint deterrence to integrated deterrence. Operationalising joint deterrence with India — a partner of first resort and no partner more consequential than India — is key. For deterrence to be effective, it must rest on an agreed view of a geopolitical picture in the Indo-Pacific and Indian Ocean and be credible. India and US defence planners and practitioners have to work this out as there are articulated differences in tackling China. Former Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, in an opinion piece in the Global Times published before Modi’s visit to the US, said it is the US that is pushing India to confront China and undermine China-India economic progress. China’s crucial role in supply chains cannot be replaced by India, he added.

Returning to basics, what precisely are the expectations of the US and India from each other against rival and competitor China? These vary from the US expectation of India as an active partner in collective defence against Chinese aggression to tackling China in countering and containing it. But India will not join the US in countering China unless its own security is directly threatened. The US National Intelligence Agency says that there is a good chance of an LAC border clash escalating but there is no clarity on how far the US will go in that contingency.

According to the Taiwan Relations Act, the US is committed to defending Taipei if attacked. Taiwan is considered the world’s most dangerous flashpoint and part of President Xi Jinping’s China dream. According to former Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale, the impact of a blockade/quarantine of Taiwan on India will be crippling for trade as half of it flows east of the Malacca Strait. Disruption of shipping will affect exports, semi-conductor industry and submarine cables, dislocating data-flow and supply chains. India’s recognition of Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan has not prevented it from expressing concern over Chinese provocations across Taiwan Straits. What affirmative action can and will India take to deter China?

India will do its best in East Indian Ocean, centred around Malacca Strait, but whether it will impact China’s Malacca Dilemma is not known. For India, LAC is its most escalatory threat for which it is inadequately geared. Former Ambassador to China Ashok Kantha recently said that Chinese needling strategy along the LAC is to divert India’s focus away from the Indian Ocean to the LAC. India does not expect active help from the US in fighting PLA except as force-multiplier — as in real-time intelligence (the kind that forewarned about PLA attacks in Tawang last December), and transfer of critical technologies in defence, cyberspace, artificial intelligence and logistics. US transfer of technologies on jet engine, armed drones, micro-chips and AI is rejuvenation of the India dream.

China will make India’s embrace of the US costly; that’s why India and the US need some plain-speaking on what they can do for each other to ward off the “dark clouds of coercion and conflict”. Also, fingers crossed that the transfer of critical technologies does not stumble in the face of severe US defence export controls.

Reuters

Moscow, July 16

President Vladimir Putin said Russia had a “sufficient stockpile” of cluster bombs and reserved the right to use them if such munitions, the use of which he said he regarded as a crime, were deployed against Russian forces in Ukraine.

Ukraine said on Thursday it had received cluster bombs from the United States, its biggest military backer, which says the munitions are needed to compensate for shell shortages faced by Kyiv’s forces at a time when they are mounting a counteroffensive.

Cluster munitions are banned in more than 100 countries because they typically release large numbers of smaller bomblets that can kill indiscriminately over a wide area. Some of them inevitably fail to explode and can pose a danger for decades, particularly to children.

Kyiv has said it will use cluster bombs to dislodge concentrations of enemy soldiers when trying to take back its own territory, but will not use them on Russian territory.

Putin told state TV Moscow would respond in kind if necessary. “I want to note that in the Russian Federation there is a sufficient stockpile of different kinds of cluster bombs. We have not used them yet. But of course if they are used against us, we reserve the right to take reciprocal action.”

Putin said he regarded the use of cluster bombs as a crime and that Russia had so far not needed to use them itself despite having suffered its own ammunition issues in the past.

Human Rights Watch says both Moscow and Kyiv have used cluster munitions. Russia, Ukraine and the U.S. have not signed up to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which bans the production, stockpiling, use and transfer of the weapons.

Putin also told state TV he saw nothing wrong in Russian specialists examining captured Western military equipment and missiles, such as the Storm Shadow missiles Britain supplied to Ukraine, in order to see if there was anything useful that could be used in Russia’s own military hardware.

Ludhiana, July 15

A 32-year-old city resident, Aman Sharma, who along with two of his friends had gone to Manali for vacations on July 7, was found dead. His body was recovered, 50 kilometres away from Manali, near Kullu.

The deceased, who was a Navy engineer, had got married about five months ago only.

Went with two friends in car on july 7

Aman Sharma, a resident of Vikas Nagar, Pakhowal road area, along with his friends Nikhil Saxena (31) of Delhi and Amit Yadav (31) of UP, had gone to Manali in a car on July 7. His family lost contact with him on July 9.

Aman, a resident of Vikas Nagar, Pakhowal road area, along with his friends Nikhil Saxena (31) of Delhi and Amit Yadav (31) of UP, had gone to Manali in KIa Seltos car on July 7. On the night of July 8, Aman made a call to his wife and afterwards, he seemed to have met with the tragedy and could not contact his family after that.

Since July 8, the mobile phone of Aman was switched off. Since Manali was hit by heavy floods, the family was suspecting something wrong might have happened with him. Yesterday, family members had gone to trace Aman and they found his body in Kullu. The body was identified with the help of the black thread and ring he was wearing.

As per sources, Aman, with friends, had booked a hotel on the Manali Mall Road and on July 8 night, they left the hotel and went to a club. After spending a few hours there, when they were returning, they did not reach the hotel as their car seemed to have been swept away in floods. Even the road where their last mobile location was traced was washed away in the floods. The body of Nikhil was already recovered two days ago while Amit is yet to be traced.

Chandigarh, July 16

India on Friday launched its ambitious third lunar mission Chandrayaan 3, eyeing a rare feat in moon exploration so far only accomplished by the likes of the US, China and the former Soviet Union.

Indian Space Research Organisation’s third lunar expedition in 15 years, the hugely anticipated Chandrayaan 3 embarked on its month-long journey towards the moon, piggybacking on ISRO’s latest heavy lift launch vehicle, ‘Fat boy’ LVM3-M4 from the spaceport here.

As the 25 and a half hour countdown concluded, the LVM3-M4 rocket (formerly GSLVMkIII) also dubbed as ‘Fat boy’ for its heavylift capability, soared off majestically from the spaceport at the prefixed time of 2.35 pm from the second launch pad, leaving a trail of thick orange smoke. 

Thousands of spectators, who had assembled at Sriharikota to watch the launch since morning, broke into loud cheers and applauded as the launch vehicle soared into clear skies.

Meanwhile, the launch was also watched by millions of enthusiastic spectators on television and social media.

However, now a unique video of the launch has emerged which was caught on camera from a plane window that was flying from Chennai to Dhaka. The video was shared on Twitter by Dr PV Venkitakrishnan, Director (retired), ISRO Materials, and Rocket Manufacturing Expert

He captioned the visuals as, “Launch of Chandrayan 3 from flight. Sometime after takeoff from Chennai to Dhaka flight, pilot announced to watch this historical event.”

Since being shared, the video has received lakhs of views and countless likes.

About 16 minutes after lift-off, Chandrayaan 3 got separated from the rocket and it would orbit the earth for about 5-6 times in an elliptical cycle with 170 km closest and 36,500 km farthest from earth moving towards the lunar orbit.

The LVM3 rocket is a composite of three modules — propulsion, lander and rover (which is housed inside the lander).

Following the separation from the launch vehicle, the propulsion module along with the lander would proceed for an over a month long journey towards reaching the orbit of the moon until it goes 100 km above the lunar surface. 

After reaching the desired altitude, the lander module would begin its descent for a soft landing on the moon’s south pole region. This key action is expected to take place by August 23 or 24, scientists at ISRO said.

The mission is expected to be supportive to future interplanetary missions. (With Agency Inputs)

He is Brig BS Gill ,VrC (retd) ex 12 JAT. He has donated an ambulance worth Rs.20 lacs to a village of NE state village where he had been a post cdr in late 70s. The donation is in the memory of his wife,who recently left for heavenly abode. His two sons are in Army and serving as Brig and Lt Col respectively.Loved by the villagers.🙏🏽

*_1. The trg duration for the Women Officers ( WO ) batches, which was considered in SB3 of Jan 2023, was Six Months only. Their contemporaries in IMA underwent 18 months trg with different physical stds due to Male Female anatomical differences. Both got commissioned as Lt and are having similar conditions of service now. What is the need of having additional trg of one Year at IMA and additional 4 months at OTA? Isn’t govt exchequer monetarily at loss for this additional trg period to achieve same result???_*

*_2. The trg duration for the WO batches considered in SB3 of Jan 2023 during JC (MLTOC) with reduced professional syllabus was Six Weeks only. Their contemporary Gentlemen Offrs underwent earlier 12 or now 10 weeks trg. And both are being emp for similar duties and are having similar conditions of service now. What is the need of having additional trg of 4-6 weeks? Isn’t govt exchequer monetarily at loss for this additional trg period for Gentlemen Offrs to achieve same result???_*

*_3.The trg duration for the WO batches considered in SB3 of Jan 2023 during proposed SC is again Six Weeks only. Their contemporary Gentlemen offrs underwent earlier minimum 10 weeks trg. Both are emp for similar duties and are having similar conditions of service now as COs. What is the need and logic of having additional trg of 4 weeks for Gentlemen offrs going to Comd similar units now? Isn’t govt exchequer monetarily at loss for this additional trg period for Gentlemen Offrs to achieve same results??? Is ARTRAC a welfare comd or trg comd meant for enforcement of similar rigorous trg for all irrespective of genders. The War College too seems to be diluting it’s professional stds_*.

*_4. SCO offrs are not considered for Comd appts as if they have been trained differently for Adm duties only. They too undergo similar trg and courses as that mandatory for WOs. Infact they have more service and maturity to handle Comd appts because of better EQ and empathy to men. Why then they are unfit for Comd and are employed only on Staff, ERE or Regtl appts?_*

*_5. The course profile of Gentlemen Offrs vis a vis WOs of same batch on comparison reveals that some of the WOs were at the bottom rung in career courses and are now being allotted Comd Criteria appts whereas Gentlemen offrs even with Staff Course Qualifications are superseded due to limited vacancies. There is no comparison on account of CRs too. The cutoff CR gradings of Gentlemen offrs and WOs of same batch is poles apart and Gentlemen offrs with CR gradings close to SB3 cutoff are being appointed for mundane appts like NCC, MCO, Est Offr, Camp Comdts, Edn Offr, etc whereas with lower merit on courses and CR, WOs are being given Comd criteria appts, which will have serious manifestations on the trg and operational preparedness of units and the personnel. Why MS branch has dubious standards and what is the compulsion for making such hasty decisions which will kill the essence of meritocracy in Army? It is further learnt that with one or two AE reports in next year or two, these same WOs will be eligible for screening by SB2 too. And due to the specifically allotted vacancies, they will surely pick up Brig’s rank too._*

*_6. All Gentlemen offrs of similar batches have more wide and prosperous experience of comdg troops as most of the WOs every year have been availing full quota of leave along with Maternity Leaves, Child Care Leaves, Furlough, absenting themselves on some pretext or the other from maximum trg exs and operational discussions. Barring few, all WOs with nearly an average 20 yrs service, none has leave accumulated as an average Gentlemen offr would have. This itself is a testimony of commitment to the appts held by them in past. The staff experience of WOs is equally affected. Also, nearly all of them have availed the MS branch magnanimous clause of Compassionate Postings (even multiple times) on various pretext which if checked deliberately will embarrass the biard of offrs who recommended their CG postings and extant welfare bd @SB-3. Spouse coord postings are as such being made regularly without exceptions to suit their personal requirements only rather than in organisational interests._*

*_7. Most of the WOs being considered for Comd have already achieved the age of 46 years and as per age criteria not fit to be placed as COs of units. Why are exceptions or waivers being given on issues which have direct repercussions on the basic thread and ethos of Unit Comd._*

*_8. Also, some of these WOs are long term LMCs and balance are having severe Obesity, Medical, Surgical, Gynae issues which they have been successfully hiding till now. No SRMB has been done for the WOs, whereas LMC Gentlemen offrs of batches screened after 2012 are suffering the wrath of such boards. To an extent approx 15 offrs of 2003 batch having been declared B FIT in SB3 were not even found Fit even for Staff/ERE/Instructional appts, leave aside Comd Criteria appts. 14 have got redress through AFT recently and one still remains a approved cum superseded Lt Col for posterity. It is requested that all approved WOs must go through Special Medical exam and only those declared Fit for Comd appts be appointed on such appts._*

*_9. In the pretext of honouring the one sided non holistic directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, MS branch is compromising on various extant rules and provns laid down after years of experience and on ground implementation. The basic philosophy of HR management for offrs is under threat and likely to have negative results in near future itself. So many policies, titles, regulations have been ignored to suit the reqmts of WOs. MS branch must inform all offrs about these exceptions, policy changes etc soon less the case becomes a never ending law suits_*.

*_10. At one end govt is taking plea of meritocracy for Agniveer recruitment and at this end it is nearly distributing freebies to the WOs as if they were BPL citizens._*

*_11. Hence, why is MS branch compulsorily giving Comd criteria appts to these early WO batches with limited comd and staff experience, below merit overall performance, limited physical service, and lower physical standarss ? Also, if they have gone through separate and special SB3, then why can’t MS branch have separate employment options and rules for these batches – they be employed in Staff, ERE and Instructional appts. The short cut to success method adopted by bunch of compromised quality WOs and MS branch to save it’s own skin in front of Supreme Court is likely to affect the morale, motivation and professional environment of one of the most professional Armies in the world soon. There is an urgent and inescapable need to stop this unthoughtful act of disservice to the nation and Army as an organisation._*

*_It is once again reiterated that no one is against equality on any account, but giving equal opportunity to ineligible or compulsorily made eligible candidates, that too at the cost of better qualified and eligible superseded offrs, is organised betrayal to the military service, organisation and nation. Further WOs of 2008 onward batches should be considered for Comd appts as they will face same SB3._*

Requests and Regards from,
All Superseeded Lt Cols of IA

PTI

London, July 13

A seaside village in southern England commemorated the contributions and sacrifice of Indian soldiers who fought in World War I, known as the Great War, at a memorial created in honour of the army hospitals that cared for the wounded at the time.

The Friends of the Indian Soldiers Memorial and New Milton Town Council joined hands to organise a commemoration earlier this week at the Indian Memorial Obelisk located in Barton-on-Sea in Hampshire.

The Friends of the Indian Soldiers Memorial, a group formed last year, is keen to promote and share the heritage and history of the memorial – which was originally unveiled over a century ago in July 1917 in honour of the Indian troops who convalesced at Barton-on-Sea during World War 1.

“As we stand here today on the seafront, we can only hope that when they walked here, they would have been greeted by local people who would have thanked them for coming here and fighting their war,” Shrabani Basu, the UK-based author of ‘For King and Another Country: Indian Soldiers on the Western Front, 1914-1918’, said in a keynote address at the event.

“And they would also be happy to know that over a 100 years later we would gather in this spot and remember them. Today there are descendants of the soldiers living in Britain who can be proud of what their ancestors achieved… Let us remember that there is a corner of a British field that is forever India. And it is our shared history that makes our shared future,” she said.

The British Indian historian also spoke of how over 73,000 Indian soldiers gave their lives in foreign fields during the British colonial period and also shared some of the stories of bravery and sacrifice that won many of them royal honours and medals.

The Indian Memorial Obelisk in their memory bears two inscriptions, one side in English and the other side is a translation in Urdu.

“This Memorial is erected to commemorate the establishment at Barton on Sea in 1914 of the Convalescent Depot for Indian Troops who fought in Europe during the Great War and was subscribed for by members of the staff,” it reads.

Harmeet Singh Brar, one of the founding members of the Friends of the Indian Soldiers Memorial, said: “The Obelisk is a symbol of our cultural history, a symbol of courage that binds us together as we remember our ancestors fighting for freedom, that freedom that allows us to be here together today.

“It is the intention of the Friends group to continue to promote that cultural history, nurturing interest for this incredible piece of history, by engaging with the community and encouraging relationships with other heritage groups.”

The Act of Remembrance, to be an annual event, was attended by the Deputy Lieutenant of Hampshire, civic leaders and representatives from local schools as well as members of the public.

“I feel it is so important to remember the close bond between the local people of New Milton and Barton on Sea and the wonderful Indian soldiers who briefly shared our town during those awful days of the Great War,” said Callum Murray, a student at Durlston Court School and an honorary member of the Friends group.

“The continued bond is represented by the soldiers’ Obelisk, and it is always an honour to play my small part to ensure the past is remembered and the future is embraced, as we would not have this opportunity without their sacrifice,” he said.

The Friends of the Indian Soldiers Memorial has a mission to actively promote the history of the Indian Army in the New Forest region of Hampshire to a wide audience, including the Indian communities in the UK, schools and other groups.

The group is also researching the names and background stories of the Indian soldiers who died locally.

Vijay Mohan

Chandigarh, July 11

The Armed Forces Tribunal has, while granting disability benefits to a retired naval officer over 40 years after his discharge from service, struck down provisions of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) regulations that said invalid pension is applicable in only those cases where civilian re-employment is restricted.

“We hold that the words in Clause 2 of the MoD letter dated 16-07-2020, which requires a permanent incapacity for civil re-employment as well, to be wholly unconstitutional,” the Tribunal’s Bench comprising Justice Anu Malhotra and Rear Admiral Dhiren Vig ruled.

The requirement of permanent incapacitation for civil re-employment for invalid pension to armed forces personnel with less than 10 years of qualifying service in cases where personnel are invalided out of service on account of any bodily or mental infirmity, which is neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service, and which permanently incapacitates them from military service is unconstitutional and unreasonable and not based on any intelligible differentia nor reasonable classification and is thus set aside, the bench said.

The petitioner, a Navy Lieutenant, had joined service in January 1977 and was invalided out of service in December 1982 after being placed in low medical category on account of epilepsy.

He contended that the proceedings of the invaliding medical board and other documents were not provided to him and that he could not have been invalided out in the medical category in which he had been placed. A single discharge certificate issued to him simply stated that he was invalided out for being medically unfit for naval service.

He also averred that during his service of five years and 354 days, he was out on the seas most of the time and thus the disability caused to him was attributable to military service. It was only in 1982 that he was first diagnosed with the disease.

He submitted that after being invalided out at the age of 26 years, the only thing on his mind was to find employment and it was on legal advice in the matter that he took up his case with the naval authorities in May 2019. He requested them for the relevant documents but was informed that they had been destroyed after the stipulated period.

Observing that the MoD’s letter was an over reach over an earlier judgement of the Supreme Court in a similar matter, the Bench held that it was also in total violation of the right to equality and right to live with dignity and respect in terms of the Rights of Person with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Stating that Act provides that the government shall take steps to utilise the capacity of persons with disabilities by providing an appropriate environment and that such persons will not be discriminated against, the Bench directed the government to calculate and sanction the officer’s invalid pension and related benefits from the date of his invalidment from service.