Due to API Integration between SBI & PCDA Pensions Prayagraj, Pensioners Migrated to SPARSH but having their Pension Account in SBI, can visit SBI (Any Branch) for Submission of their Life Certificate. Confirmation by Manager SBI Jakhan Dehradun is Posted here for Information please.
Samaan Lateef
Srinagar, September 13
The Commanding Officer and a Major of 19 Rashtriya Rifles and a J&K Police officer were killed during a fierce and ongoing gunfight in south Kashmir, officials said on Wednesday.
News agency PTI, quoting officials, said a jawan also died and the whereabouts of another soldier were not immediately known and it was feared he might have been seriously wounded.
The gunfight erupted during the intervening night of Tuesday and Wednesday after a joint team of the police and Army launched a counter-insurgency operation at Gadool village of the Kokernag area in south Kashmir’s Anantnag district.
Aerial ops launched to hunt down ultras | LeT outfit claims responsibility
The operation was set in motion based on specific intelligence pinpointing the presence of terrorists, said a spokesperson of the Chinar Corps based in Srinagar. As the security forces entered Gadool, they came under intense fire from the concealed positions of militants, strategically hiding in the dense foliage of the forest, officials told The Tribune.
In the initial exchange of fire, Commanding Officer Col Manpreet Singh (41) was killed on the spot while Major Ashish Dhonchak (34) and Deputy Superintendent of Police Himayun Muzamil Bhat received multiple bullet injuries, said police officers.
Both Major Dhonchak and DSP Bhat, son of retired DIG of J&K Police GH Bhat, later succumbed to their injuries. Security forces flew in choppers to evacuate the bodies of the officers.
Col Manpreet Singh belonged to Mullanpur in Mohali district of Punjab while the DSP Bhat was a resident of Srinagar. The Kokernag attack is seen as a major escalation by militants in Kashmir. Over the last few years, militants have changed their tactics, shifting base to the Poonch-Rajouri axis in Jammu province, and carrying out ambushes.
“It looks like the militants have infiltrated into the forest area extending from Poonch, Rajouri to south Kashmir,” said an officer. In May 2020, Col Ashutosh Sharma was among the five security men killed in Handwara. He was the second Commanding Officer of 21 Rashtriya Rifles who lost his life combating terrorism.
Officials said three terrorists were believed to be hiding in the dense forest. A banned terror outfit under the LeT has claimed responsibility for the attack, according to PTI.
One soldier missing
COs killed in encounters
Srinagar, September 13
An Army colonel, a major and a deputy superintendent of JK Police were killed in a gunfight with terrorists in Kokernag area in Anantnag district of Kashmir, officials said here on Wednesday.
The gunfight broke out between the security forces and the terrorists hiding in Gadole area on Wednesday morning, a police official earlier said.
The colonel and the police officer had sustained critical injuries in the initial exchange of fire between the two sides.
The banned Resistance Front, believed to be a shadow group of LeT, has claimed the responsibility.
Chandigarh, September 13
A pall of gloom descended over New Chandigarh and Panchkula as the tragic news of Col Manpreet Singh, Commanding Officer of 19 Rashtriya Rifles (RR), being killed in a gun battle with terrorists in Anantnag came in today.
Related News
Survived by mother, wife, 2 children
The officer belonged to Bharaunjian village near New Chandigarh in Mohali district and his family was at present residing in DLF enclave in the township. Col Manpreet Singh is survived by his mother, wife Jagmeet Grewal and two children — a daughter, aged six, and a son, aged two.
Jagmeet is an economics teacher employed with the Haryana Government and is posted in Panchkula district. According to family associates, she often used to visit her parents, who live in Sector 26, Panchkula.
Col Manpreet Singh was leading his troops from the front when he received critical gunshot wounds. A joint operation had been launched by the RR and the police on specific information in Garol forests in Anantnag district.
As a steady stream of mourners, well-wishers and relatives poured in, they recalled that Col Manpreet Singh was a second-generation soldier, with his later father having served in the Army as a non-commissioned officer. They recalled him as a friendly and amiable person who was friendly with one and all and was deeply dedicated to his profession.
Army sources said Col Manpreet Sinigh had spent almost five years with the same RR battalion, the first three as the second-in-command and then as the Commanding Officer. Commissioned into the infantry’s Sikh Light Infantry, he had put in about 17 years of service.
As a Lieutenant Colonel with the RR, he had been decorated with the Sena Medal for Gallantry in 2021. He had then engaged and neutralised terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir, who had opened indiscriminate firing. Incidentally, 19 RR is the same battalion that had eliminated terrorist Burhan Wani in 2016.
On September 9, Col Manpreet Singh’s battalion had organised a volleyball championship near Anantnag for locals as a confidence-building measure. The programme had been organised by Major Ashish Dhonchak, Company Commander with 19 RR, who was also martyred with Col Manpreet Singh in the same operation.
Army personnel pay last respects to six-year-old Army dog Kent who laid down her life while shielding its handler during an encounter in J&Ks Rajouri district, on Wednesday. PTI Photo
PTI
Jammu, September 13
Kent, the six-year-old Army dog that was killed saving the life of a soldier during an encounter in Jammu and Kashmir, had participated in nine operations before this.
The female Labrador-type dog of 21st Army dog unit was killed on Tuesday while trying to save her handler in the Union Territory’s Rajouri district.
“Kent was leading a column of soldiers pursuing fleeing terrorists. It was shot dead by hostile fire,” a defence official said.
Northern Army Commander Lieutenant General Upendra Dwivedi said, “Our Kent laid down her life to save her handler. She attacked the terrorist by moving ahead first.” Two terrorists and one Army soldier were killed, while three other security personnel – two Army jawans and one special police officer – were injured in the encounter in the district’s Narla village. Kent led the charge in ‘Operation Sujaligala’.
Kent’s body was wrapped in the tricolour, a wreath laid on it as Army personnel paid their last respects to her on Wednesday.
Carrying an Army number 08B2, golden-coloured Kent was a special tracker dog which participated in its first operation on Poonch link up day on November 14 last year, followed by the induction in operation on December 30 last year, a press brief released by the Army said.
Kent took part in search operations on January 27, September 11 and an investigation into a theft case on April 4.
She also took part in refresher courses and several training sessions to refine her skills.
“Kent laid down her life in the best traditions of the Indian Army while shielding its handler,” an official had said on Tuesday.
China has once again released, a few days back, a land-border map targeting our sovereignty and integrity. It has claimed our Ladakh in the north and Arunachal Pradesh in the east as its own. There are two exaggerated lies in this narrative.
Firstly, there has never been a land border between India and China. The two countries that act as buffers between us and China are Tibet and East Turkestan. The Great Ranges of Karakoram and the Himalayas divide us and Tibet and East Turkestan.
Secondly, Tibet and East Turkestan do not belong to China. They have been independent states, which China aggressed and occupied in the previous century. The Indian province of Gilgit-Baltistan, a part of Jammu & Kashmir, under Pakistani occupation, is now located north of our Kashmir Valley. The region to its east is what is called as ‘Xinjiang’ by China but known otherwise as East Turkestan. The Red Chinese army attacked it in c. 1949. Tibet is located south of this state.
Tibet emerged as a strong State which defeated China for two centuries but became a vassal now and then after that (like present-day Vietnam, North & South Koreas), and which was (and continues to be) the spiritual capital of the Mongols who defeated China and ruled over it, was captured by the Chinese Army after killing thousands of Buddhist monks in c. 1951. Dalai Lama, the spiritual and temporal head of Tibet, escaped from the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, in March 1959 and took asylum in India, where he has lived since then with his followers and a Tibetan Government in exile.
Tibetans emerged as a great force in 7 CE. The Chinese Tang Dynasty initially took no notice of them. Tang realised the grave danger when the Tibetans easily captured Chinese territories in the west and the north. Realizing that it is impossible to fight the Tibetans in the Tibet plateau, located at an average of 16000 feet, which is true even today, the Chinese decided to enter into a peace treaty with the Tibetans by paying vassalage and marrying off their princesses to Tibetan Kings.
Ladakh, which is part of our Jammu & Kashmir, is situated between Tibet and East Turkestan states. China is interested in Ladakh because neither Tibet nor East Turkestan have fully integrated with Mainland China, and there are continuing separatist movements in these two places. Other reasons are the invaluable water resources (great rivers like the Indus, Brahmaputra, Mekong, Salween, and Irrawaddy originate in Tibet; the innumerable glaciers make Tibet the third Pole after the North and the South Poles) and the availability of other natural resources (metals, oil and gas).
Therefore, China has unleashed suppression to keep its control there. It built a highway (G-219) to link these two disturbed places through the Aksai-Chin part of Ladakh without our permission as early as c. 1953, even when India-China relations were good. As the relationship deteriorated in c. 1962, it occupied even more of Ladakh. At every opportunity, it incrementally occupies our land there. This is known as salami-slicing. As part of this approach, it entered into an agreement t with Pakistan in c. 1963 and took over our Shaksgam Valley in Gilgit, an area of 5000 sq. km. for its security needs. It continues to aggress our Ladakh. The May 2020 attacks by China at Galwan, Depsang, Pangong Tso and Demchok were part of this strategy.
Tibet is a very vast and aggressed part of China. It alone constitutes one-eighth of the entire land mass of China. Like East Turkestan, it was aggressed and occupied 70 years ago. As we have already seen, its natural resources, like water, which can satisfy one-fourth of the entire water needs of China, are badly needed by China. China can dominate several lower-riparian states by becoming the upper riparian of those big rivers mentioned earlier. These reasons prompted China to occupy Tibet.
In 8 CE, the Abbassid army sent by the Caliph of Baghdad established Islam in China’s northwest, where the Turkic people lived in East Turkestan. Uyghurs, as we know them today, speak Turkish and came from Central Asia. Even though the Qing Emperor captured East Turkestan in the 18th century, his rule in this faraway peripheral land of the Chinese Empire was tenuous. East Turkestan was functioning as an independent state in the early 20th century. After the Communist party took power in China on October 1, 1949, it integrated the peripheral lands such as Yunnan, Tibet, East Turkestan, Mongolia and Manchuria more tightly with the Mainland by aggressing them. Only in c. 1955 East Turkestan was fully integrated, when its name was changed to Sinkiang. The Uyghurs have ever since opposed Chinese rule.
Therefore, in the accompanying map, all these areas have been shown as independent states but under occupation by China. China has border disputes not only with us but with many others. It has land borders with fourteen countries. Even though it settled all the border disputes (except with India and Bhutan) by the 1990s, it continues to chafe that its lands continue to be under illegal occupation by these countries. For example, it claims the entire Siberia of its closest ally, Russia.
Apart from land border disputes, China has maritime boundary disputes with all its maritime neighbours. It claims Indonesia’s Natuna Sea, which is 1500 nautical miles from the nearest Chinese shore, as its own. Historically, China never had a name for itself. Only others call it China. Similarly, China used to notify the seas around it as the East Sea and South Sea. It was the Portuguese who, in the 16th century, renamed the South Sea as ‘South China Sea’. That stuck. Because of that name, China wants to assume total control of that sea by randomly marking nine dashes and claiming possession of that waterway. It uses its powerful Navy, Coast Guard and the unofficial Maritime Militia to enforce its control over other littorals. It has occupied islands, converted reefs into islands, stationed its Navy in these places and built missile launchers and radars. It has junked the 2016 -Award of the UN Arbitral Tribunal under the UN’s UNCLOS.
While so, India has influenced this region for over 2000 years in many ways. Without wars and aggression, India had influenced many Empires that flourished richly in this region through its religion, language, literature, epics, science, sea trade, unique products, and diplomacy. Particular examples of such great Empires are Funan in the Mekong delta of South Vietnam and Cambodia between 1 and 6 CE, the Champa in Central Vietnam between 2 and 18 CE, the Sri Wijaya of Sumatra between 7 and 12 CE, and the Majapahit in neighbouring Java between 13 and 16 CE. These thalassocracies reigned this area for 2000 years as anchors of sea trade and culture. They functioned based on the Hindu and Buddhist precepts, Sanskrit as lingua franca, the Indian Luni-Solar calendar, the ‘Chakravartin’ concept of rulership, Indian philosophical thoughts, architecture, and town planning.
The Indian influence extended up to today’s Papua-New Guinea in the Pacific Ocean. The Indian ports were natural trans-shipment points for traders from the west and the east. The ocean-sailing Indian dhows traded between the Chinese seas and the Indian provinces known today as Bengal, Orissa, Tamilnadu, Kerala, Maharashtra and Gujarat. As Indian sailors were experts in predicting monsoon and trade winds, the sea trade prospered.
On the contrary, only in the 10th CE did the Song Empire allow the Chinese to trade across far seas. But this stopped when the Song Empire fell in the early 12th CE. Even though the Ming Empire allowed Chinese traders to cross oceans once again in the 15th CE, it did not continue for long. The French archaeologists who explored these areas from the 18th CE, aptly named them ‘Indo-Chine’ because of the deep and wide Indian influence. The aggressive and coercive behaviour of China now demands that this area be referred to as ‘Indo-China’.
The sea around Vietnam had been known for a long time as the ‘Champa Sea’. The Filipinos have always referred to the sea to their west as the ‘West Philippines Sea’. The remainder of the sea must, therefore, for the reasons above, be rightly renamed as the ‘Indo-China Sea’. India and China have equally influenced this region for over 2000 years. This should also be a lesson taught to China, which wants to do cartographic aggression by renaming places and then claiming possession of these renamed places.
The accompanying map reflects the changed names for these reasons.
(Inputs from Chennai Centre for China Studies)
ALSO READ: ‘We must unite against China’s expansionism by including Taiwan in the UN’
New Delhi, September 13
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Union government if a change in law is warranted on the legal question of whether a person holding a driving licence for a light motor vehicle is entitled to legally drive a transport vehicle of a particular weight.
Observing that these are policy issues impacting the livelihood of lakhs of people, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud said the government needs to take a “fresh look” at the matter while asserting that it needs to be taken up at the policy level.
The top court asked the Centre to wrap up the exercise within two months and apprise it about the decision taken.
It said any interpretation of the law must duly take into account valid concerns of road safety and the safety of other users of public transport.
The top court had earlier sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani in dealing with a legal question about whether a person holding a driving licence for a light motor vehicle is entitled to legally drive a transport vehicle of a particular weight.
The constitution bench had said knowing the position of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways will be necessary after it was argued that the apex court’s 2017 verdict in the case of Mukund Dewangan versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited was accepted by the Centre and rules were amended to align them with the judgment.
In the Mukund Dewangan case, a three-judge bench of the top court had held that transport vehicles, the gross weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg, are not excluded from the definition of LMV.https://a366a08de612ce9b223d6a0a95bff416.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html
“There may be lakhs of drivers across the country who are working on the basis of Dewangan judgment. This is not a constitutional issue. It is purely a statutory issue,” the bench, also comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P S Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra, said.
“This is just not the question of law but also the social impact of the law… Road safety has to be balanced with the social purpose of the law and you have to see if this causes serious hardships. We cannot decide issues of social policy in a constitution bench,” it said.
The apex court said once the government informs its stand to the court, the hearing in the constitution bench will be taken up thereafter.
The constitution bench is dealing with a legal question which reads: “Whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of ‘light motor vehicle’ could on the strength of that licence, be entitled to drive a ‘transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class’ having unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kg.” On July 18, the constitution bench commenced hearing as many as 76 petitions to deal with the legal question.
It had then heard the arguments of senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for one of the petitioners, on alleged anomalies in the Motor Vehicle Act with regard to regimes for dealing with the grant of driving licenses for different categories of vehicles.
The lead petition was filed by M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co Ltd.
The legal question has given rise to various disputes over payment of claims by insurance companies in accident cases involving transport vehicles being driven by those having licences to drive LMVs.
The Motor Vehicle Act provides for different regimes for the granting of driving licences for different categories of vehicles. The matter was referred to the larger bench on March 8, 2022, by a three-judge bench headed by Justice U U Lalit, since retired.
It was said that certain provisions of the law were not noticed by the apex court in the Mukund Dewangan judgement and “the controversy in question needs to be revisited”.
Neha Shoree was serving as the Zonal Drug Licensing Authority in Kharar, Mohali, when she was shot dead.
Manjeet SehgalPanchkula,UPDATED: Sep 12, 2023 22:38 IST
Four and a half years have passed since the tragic killing of 36-year-old Punjab FDA officer Neha Shoree, yet her family still awaits justice. Her father, Captain (retd) Kailash Kumar Shoree, a 1971 war veteran has been running from pillar to post to seek a fresh probe into the cold-blooded murder.
The family alleges that the Punjab Police mishandled the initial probe and deliberately overlooked critical evidence that could have led to the apprehension of the actual culprits, suspected to be members of the drug mafia responsible for this gruesome murder.ADVERTISEMENT
The police concluded their investigation by filing a closure report, asserting that no evidence implicating anyone other than the assailant, Balwinder Singh, was found. Balwinder Singh had taken his own life on the same fateful day, March 29, 2019, after killing Neha Shoree, who was serving as the Zonal Drug Licensing Authority in Kharar, Mohali.
The police claimed that Balwinder Singh, a resident of Morinda, Rupnagar, owned a chemist shop that had been subjected to an FDA raid in 2009. Neha, who, according to her family, was a probationary officer at the time, was part of the team that discovered Balwinder’s illicit sale of unauthorized drugs. Consequently, the FDA revoked his chemist shop’s license. Sources said that Balwinder had sought a new license in his wife’s name a decade later, only to be denied. The police theory contends that Neha Shoree was murdered out of personal animosity harbored by the accused against her.
Notably, Neha Shoree had filed an internal report on July 14, 2018, to the then Drug Controller, highlighting the misuse of Buprenorphine and other drugs by private drug de-addiction centers.
Her father, Captain Kailash Kumar Shoree, and other family members perceive this as the primary motive behind her murder, as corrupt politicians, police officials, and private drug de-addiction centers were allegedly profiting from the illegal sale of controlled drugs.
Investigations exposed that in 2019 alone, 23 private de-addiction centers in Punjab illicitly sold nearly five crore Buprenorphine tablets, amounting to a staggering Rs 100 crore, without any proper documentation. The drug was being misused for recreational purposes, as Buprenorphine is an opioid agonist with effects similar to opium. The Punjab Health Department’s findings revealed that 17 per cent of individuals enrolled in treatment programs were addicted to this drug.
Allegations had surfaced against the then Congress government, accusing them of attempting to cover up the Buprenorphine misuse case and refusing to cooperate with the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which was conducting its investigation. The state government declined to provide the purchase and dispensation records for Buprenorphine, and it was alleged that drug usage data had been manipulated by authorities and private de-addiction centers to mislead the investigating agency. This controversy even rocked the state assembly.
Neha Shoree’s parents have petitioned the Punjab and Haryana High Court for a CBI probe, alleging that the Punjab Police failed to conduct a thorough investigation. Captain Kailash Kumar Shoree, speaking to India Today, noted that the case had seen 20 to 22 hearings, most of which were adjourned.
“We had told the court that this was a double murder. The accused Balwinder killed Neha and he was killed by somebody else. Evidence shows that two different weapons were used to kill them. I have also offered the evidence,” Captain Shoree said. He also pointed out that the shape of the wounds found on the bodies of the victim and the accused was different.
“The wound found on Neha’s body was round as the revolver spun the bullets. But the wounds found on the assailant’s body were oval, which means a different weapon was used to kill him. The police theory is also suspicious which says the accused fired two bullets to kill himself. How can a person who has already shot himself fire another bullet? There were eight wounds on Neha’s body, how four bullets can create eight wounds is also beyond one’s imagination,” Kailash Shoree said.ADVERTISEMENT
The family further suspects police misconduct, alleging that the bullets used in both murders have disappeared. Additionally, data from Neha’s mobile phone and laptop were found erased, and her SIM card was missing. The police did not share call details from the victim’s and assailant’s mobile phones.
“Why were no arrests made? Why weren’t Neha’s colleagues questioned? Why was the FIR registered by a contractual employee? Why was her security ignored? Why wasn’t a forensic examination conducted? These are questions we posed to the police, but their answers did not satisfy us,” said Neha’s mother, Arun Shoree.
The family recounted the horrific incident, revealing that Neha Shoree was murdered in front of her six-year-old niece. Office staff and other employees were mysteriously absent when the shooting occurred.
“…Bullets were pumped into the chest of my daughter. We also met the then chief minister Captain Amarinder Singh…We had demanded a CBI probe, but Captain Amarinder Singh formed an SIT. We do not trust the Punjab Police. They gave us the false assurances. We asked for the facts when we were called by the police twice. My daughter was killed in broad daylight but not even a single person was arrested,” Arun Shoree said.
Punjab police officials who led the initial investigation and the then Punjab Health Minister Brahm Mohindra were unavailable for comment on allegations made by Neha Shoree’s father.Edited By:Anuja Jha
Vijay Mohan
Chandigarh, September 13
It was in December 1962 that the first Indian Air Force aircraft had touched down on the sandy terrain of Nyoma, close to the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in south eastern Ladakh in the aftermath of the Sino-Indian Conflict.
On September 12, the Defence Minister, Rajnath Singh, had virtually laid the foundation stone for constructing a full-fledged airbase at Nyoma, capable of operating fighter jets and heavy aircraft. At present it is just a dusty, unpaved strip of hardened mud, with basic facilities.
On September 12, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh virtually laid foundation stone for constructing a full-fledged airbase at Nyoma, capable of operating fighter jets and heavy aircraft
Later, some old photographs and statements by veterans cropped up, which suggested that the first landing at Nyoma was by Flight Lieutenant Austin Lester Mendanha, flying a Dakota of No. 43 Squadron, ‘Ibexes’, that was deployed in Ladkah during the conflict.
This was followed by a C-119 Packet flown by Squadron Leader Prabhakar Shankar Dare of No.19 Squadron. A vintage picture captioned “First Trial Landing, Nyoma AF, 22nd December 1962” is available on some defence websites that shows a C-119 parked on a flat strip towards the left and a Dakota on its right and high barren hills in the backdrop.
Wg Cdr Joseph Thomas (retd), who has served with 19 Squadron, was quoted in one of the websites saying that the first landing was done by the Dakota shown in the picture. “One of the Dakota’s engines would not start for the return flight. I don’t recall what exactly was the problem but it required an engine change. The replacement engine and the HAL servicing party were airlifted by a Packet of 19 Squadron who were co-located with 43 Squadron in Srinagar,” he had stated.
Thomas had also written that the Nyoma site was then judged to be unsuitable and no further landings were made. Mendanha was awarded a Vayu Sena Medal for “proving flights to our most difficult and advance landing grounds in this area”.
With growing Chinese activities along the LAC and the need to scale up border infrastructure, Nyoma, located on the Indus 23 km from the LAC, was identified as an Advance Landing Ground in early 2009. The area one of the two access routes for enemy offensives in Ladakh, the other one being the Shyok-Nubra axis to the north.
The task of activating Nyoma fell to No.48 Squadron, ‘Camels’, based at Chandigarh and operating AN-32s on regular air maintenance missions to the northern sector. In 2008, the squadron had reactivated Daulat Beg Oldie, the world’s highest landing strip at 16,700 feet in the Karakorams near the base of the Siachen Glacier.
This was followed by another trial landing by the squadron at Fukche, barely 3 km from the LAC near Demchok and not too far from Nyoma. All three strips, are termed as Advance Landing Grounds as they have unpaved, mud runways and bare minimal operational infrastructure.
It was on September 18, 2009, about 47 years after the first landing, that a fixed-wing aircraft touched down at Nyoma, at 13,500 feet, with then Group Captain SC Chafekar, Commanding Officer of 48 Squadron at the controls of an AN-32.
To begin with, a paradrop of troops over Nyoma was conducted to assess flight parameters and a feasibility study on preparing an airstrip in the soft, sandy soil next to a large river and high mountains around showed that a 7,000 feet strip can be constructed through ground compacting. The Herculean task on the ground was executed by Army engineers.
Flight plans were drawn up, circuit patterns established and emergency procedures were laid out, with every aspect being rehearsed. The challenges were immense due to high altitude and rarified air, with the terrain and mountains leaving lesser space for aircraft manoeuvring. A hillock on the approach added to the difficulty as it required quick last minute adjustments in aligning with the runway’s centre line.
The AN-32 had to come in at higher than the normal airspeed. “When we were touching down at Nyoma, the aircraft ‘floated’ and initially refused to sit on the ground. Those few apprehensive seconds seemed to last a lifetime,” Wg Cdr R Vijendran, the co-pilot of the sortie had then said.
At present, AN-32s and the larger C-130 Super Hercules make regular treks to the base, ferrying in men and material. When Nyoma emerges as a full-fledged base, it will support heavy aircraft like the IL-76 and the C-17, enabling faster induction of troops as well as heavy equipment in south-eastern Ladakh.
AFTER prolonged inter-service confabulations, the Integrated Theatre Command structure for the armed forces appears to be on the anvil. There is speculation about the number of such commands and the service and rank hierarchy. In all likelihood, our major external challenge on the northern border with China will be handled by a single unified command. That would necessarily include the three regional commands of the Army and two of the Air Force, which, at present, share responsibility along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
The principal gain from creating theatre commands would be synergy in operational deployment and administration. A reform of this scale and scope needs a pooling of all existing resources. A very important goal should be to achieve cohesion and synergy with another force which is deployed along the LAC — the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) — which is a Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Having 60-odd battalions, its primary role is to patrol the India-China border along its entirety from the Karakoram Pass in Ladakh to Diphu Pass in Arunachal Pradesh. However, ITBP units are also deployed on a very different type of security duty, which has nothing to do with border policing.
The Kargil Review Committee report had recommended to the government the concept of ‘one border, one force’. Accordingly, the ITBP mans the China border; the Pakistan and Bangladesh borders are the responsibility of the BSF; the Bhutan and Nepal borders are with the Sashastra Seema Bal; and the Myanmar border is with the Assam Rifles. These are all CAPFs, except the Assam Rifles, which is under the operational control of the Army but is financed and administered by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
However, such a responsibility can be viable for police forces only along settled borders, where the primary role is to check illegal immigration and smuggling. Even in the case of the western neighbour, while the international border (IB) has sole deployment of the BSF, the Line of Control in J&K, which is prone to terrorist infiltration, has primarily Army presence at all posts.
The LAC is an altogether different matter, especially since the 2017 Doklam faceoff and the bloody clash at Galwan in eastern Ladakh in 2020. An unsettled and live border with our major adversary, where the threat is not of militant infiltration but of intrusions and encroachments by PLA troops of China, cannot be guarded by the border police. During all recent clashes and standoffs, the Army formations and units have been fully involved from the outset, resulting in their enhanced deployment all year round.
The ITBP has hardy troops who are also deployed on far-flung heights, from Arunachal to Ladakh. However, the present deployment pattern of the ITBP is not conducive to tackling the threat from across the LAC. Battalion headquarters and sector headquarters of the ITBP are located too far away to influence operational situations that may emerge at a short notice, given the tenuous state of affairs along the India-China border. Thus, its potential remains underutilised. Perforce, the Army units and formations, deployed well forward, have to safeguard the LAC. Ironically, the ITBP is not under the operational control of the Army and we have disparate forces under two ministries located in the same area for purportedly the same purpose. In contrast, the Chinese border defence regiments are directly under the PLA formations in the region, resulting in a seamless and homogeneous operational functioning.
The Army appears to be fully stretched at present, not only due to enhanced deployment, but also troop shortage linked to the new recruitment policy. Despite the clamour for downsizing the Army with more reliance on technology, it needs to be clearly understood that the vigil on the borders will remain manpower-intensive in the foreseeable future.
The ITBP has seen rapid expansion despite its handicaps in guarding this border. In February, the Centre sanctioned the hiring of 9,400 recruits for raising seven battalions, which will cover 47 new border outposts and 12 staging camps. The battalions are expected to be raised by 2025-26, increasing the strength of the ITBP from the current 88,000 to 97,000, making it the fourth largest CAPF. However, in its present form, this force may not be best suited for managing the volatile northern borders. In fact, unlike the BSF, which has a regular interaction with its Pakistani counterparts along the IB, the Chinese PLA and border defence regiments refuse to have any truck with the ITBP, probably due to the word ‘Tibetan’ in its name. Flag meetings, at any level, are held only with the Indian Army.
The optimum way ahead would be to transfer ministerial control of the ITBP from the MHA to the Ministry of Defence and designate it as a paramilitary force (PMF) rather than a CAPF. This paramilitary organisation should then be placed under the operational control of the Army for effective deployment along the LAC, in synergy with the formations located there. This transformation would have no financial implications for the government and can be well achieved with a top-down approach by the political leadership — the only way to overcome the turf-guarding by vested interests.
The benefits of the ITBP donning a paramilitary mantle and working under command Army formations on the border with China are more than obvious. It will overcome manpower shortage and provide a more robust and stronger defence matrix, apart from attendant benefits of equipment, training and infrastructure support from the Army. A concomitant change will be required in the officer cadre of the ITBP at higher levels. Currently, the force is primarily officered at range and command levels by IPS officers on deputation from various states and union territories. They may not have had a hands-on experience of serving at the frontline. The ITBP, as a PMF, would need to have its own cadre of officers all the way to the top, akin to the Army.
Dovetailing the ITBP with the integrated restructuring of the armed forces, which is taking shape, would not only be a positive step, but also one that is logically self-evident. It will bring depth and fullness to the theatre command envisaged for the northern border.
