All posts by webadmin

New Delhi, September 18

Enraged over the terror attack on an Army battalion in Uri, former Army officers today sought urgent action against Pakistan, including keeping the “military option open” to deal with terror from its soil. “We must have our military option open, if required to strike at certain places,” Lt Gen BS Jaswal (retd) said here.“Bring pickets, which have launch pad, to the ground, raze them to the ground. The reason is that till the time it does not hurt Pakistan physically, they would not understand our decency,” said Lt Gen Jaswal, who was GOC-in-C of the Northern Command.“Pakistan keeps doing it (terror strikes) time and again knowing that we would not take any action,” Major Gaurav Arya (retd), who has expertise in the security situation in Jammu and Kashmir, said.The problems in Kashmir are “systematically manufactured” at the General Headquarters in Rawalpindi, he alleged, adding “We must take immediate action. Stop trade with Pakistan, downgrade (its) Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status. The world must know we are serious.”Questioning the absence of two service chiefs at the meeting chaired by Home Minister Rajnath Singh, former Army Chief General Shankar Roy Chowdhury said these actions were coming from Pakistan. “We have this meeting chaired by No 2 in the government, that is the Home Minister, where the RAW chief and CRPF chief are present. Who is doing these actions (terror attacks)? It is coming from across the border, from Pakistan,” he said.“Is the CRPF chief going to look at Pakistan? Where are the Chief of Army and Chief of Naval Staff? Why they were not available to give (advice on) strategic action to the Government,” he asked. — PTI

EXPERTVIEW

We must have our military option open, if required to strike at certain places. — Lt Gen BS Jaswal (retd) Preventing a suicide attack is difficult, but damage control is always possible. — Lt Gen SA Hasnain (retd)No defences are foolproof, though we aim to make it so but the essence is reaction. — Gen KJ Singh (retd)Pakistan keeps doing it (terror strikes) time and again knowing that we will not take any action. — Major Gaurav Arya (retd)

ribune News Service

Dehradun, September 10

Governor KK Paul and Chief Minister Harish Rawat have expressed grief over the death of Lance Naik Shiv Shanker Chhetri of Gorkha Rifles, who attained martyrdom in a freak accident while patrolling the Kupwara area of Jammu and Kashmir.The Chief Minister laid a floral wreath on the body of Lance Naik Chhetri. He also met his family members and offered his condolences. He said Chhetri has carried forward the legacy of bravery that had been part of the physic of Uttarakhandi people.Similarly, on behalf of the Governor, the protocol officer laid a floral wreath on the martyr’s body.

References to Baluchistan,

Gilgit-Baltistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK)  on Independence Day by the Prime Minister set the cat among the pigeons. It helps prove just how little the strategic community of India and the world had earlier focused on these contentious aspects, especially Baluchistan. It has created a strategic turbulence of sorts in Pakistan itself, has got exiled Baloch people in the US and elsewhere gingered up, and produced strategic analyses in reams. India fully aware of this Achilles heel of Pakistan has desisted from raising the issue to embarrass Pakistan despite all the intimidation the latter has done in and on Jammu & Kashmir (J&K).

Baluchistan is a complex issue with an emotive, political and strategic connection. It has rarely been discussed in India or elsewhere and knowledge on it is largely deficient. The PM’s remarks have got Pakistan so riled that it has booked a couple of Baloch leaders for having supported the Indian Prime Minister’s remarks. The former Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has come out in support of human rights in Baluchistan. Bangladesh which has an awkward connect to the issue too has supported the call for greater human rights for the Baloch people. However, in India there has been divided opinion with the political opposition questioning the need for raising the issue when India does not even enjoy the benefit of a common boundary with Baluchistan. Others objected to the raising of the issue when India itself had an ongoing internal problem with the turbulence in Kashmir. The Baluchistan issue has also become important because of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) on which China is investing 46 bn USD. A major part of this corridor lies in Baluchistan as does the port of Gwadar which connects the corridor to the sea.

India has no claim over the territory of Baluchistan and does not contest Pakistan’s rights over it. So what is Baluchistan all about and how does it enter into the India-Pakistan equation? Without too much detail it is perhaps suffice to know that much like Hyderabad and  Junagadh’s integration with India, Baluchistan also did not have a smooth integration  with Pakistan in 1947. There have been a series of uprisings at intervals of few years. The Baloch people want greater autonomy, increased royalties from provincial revenue  and natural resources which are in abundance in their region and, and an independent nation-state status. It is Pakistan’s largest state (40 percent of the land mass) but also it’s poorest, with a population of 13 million. The Baloch people exist in a region which is across three countries; Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. The alienation that exists among the people is almost akin to that which existed in East Pakistan, a result of ham handed domination of the Pakistan narrative by the West Punjabis. The one event in recent history which probably raised the Baloch sensitivity by many notches was the killing of their leader Nawab Akbar Bugti by the Pakistan Army on direct orders of Parvez Musharaf.

Pakistan’s geo-strategic importance to nations that matter dictates much of the discourse. It has been a frontline state for the US through much of its history and for China it remains a strategic asset. India’s relationship with Pakistan though thorny has also been about noninterference in its internal affairs. This was especially since the period of former Prime Minister Inder Gujral (1997-8) whose doctrine was all about a benign policy towards the neighbors. Thus, despite Pakistan’s active support for the Punjab terrorists through the Eighties and the switch to even more active interference amounting to proxy war in J&K since 1989, India considered two things as anathema. First was the issue of water; never did it consider using threats relating to Indus Waters Treaty 1960 even when it was subjected to heinous terrorist attacks such as 13/12 and 26/11. Second, it never mentioned a word about Baluchistan even though the potential for exploitation always existed. This strategy placed India on a high horse of morality which has assisted in it attaining much respect in the international community. It is this moral ascendancy which is being referred to by many analysts with the deduction that a carefully crafted international image may receive a hit due to Mr Modi’s sudden turnaround in mentioning the ‘B’ word.

There are other objections from the analyst community which perceives that Iran may be unhappy with India supporting the human rights cause in Baluchistan. Such support is many times taken as backing for separatism. Separatist tendencies of Pakistan’s Baloch province will have its spin off effects on Iran’s people of the same ethnicity. Then there is Kashmir; there is this thought that by raking up Baluchistan we in India were making ourselves vulnerable to international inquisitiveness about our human rights record too.

For many years and more emphatically now, Pakistan has been using every possible propaganda tool to color India black with accusations of our interference in its internal affairs. The home grown terror campaign by the Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the high intensity contestation of the Pakistan security forces by smaller groups is once again placed at the door step of India in the blame game. So with the demonization of India at every stage it had become almost routine, a virtual force of habit to castigate it for imaginary intervention in Pakistan’s affairs. Mr Nawaz Sharif’s recent remarks immediately after the suicide attack on the Quetta lawyers and follow up on Pakistan’s Independence Day did not hold back anything.

So, if Mr Modi decides to mention Baluchistan and focus on the human rights situation there how should this be taken by his domestic constituency? The first thought; it is testing the waters, getting the feel by forcing the adversary to respond, bring irrationality in his utterances and just unnerve him and the entire security establishment. Very used to the customary transactional responses from India, this one which is slightly below the belt nevertheless gets a standing count. It riles the Pakistani psyche which for many years has got used to India’s defensive stance.

 Those who perceive that with Kashmir unstable this wasn’t the time to play quid pro quo also say that our moral standing has taken a beating. They need to consider whether one should instigate when one’s house is stable or when the adversary is pressurizing you. You actually have to do it to force the adversary to pull back from his intent.

India’s routine response to Pakistan’s diatribes against it has been outright denial. It obtains no advantage. However, when a single word is spoken at the right time its effect is electric. Pakistan is already worried about India’s second coming in Afghanistan after Ashraf Ghani’s turnaround. The signing of the Trilateral Chahbahar Agreement opens another avenue for strengthening India Afghanistan relations. It is from that direction that Pakistan fears India’s interference since no physical boundary between Baluchistan and India exists. It is not helpful towards building future India Pakistan relations but the probable intent of Mr Modi was only to signal that two can play this game and that India in future would meet Pakistan’s attempts at interference in Kashmir.

In India’s security domain one of its weakest links is Information Warfare; the ability to play mind games, keeping the adversary on tenterhooks about the next move and taking the battle into the domain of smart warfare. Since for the umpteenth time Pakistan could raise the temperatures in Kashmir, after the recent killing of Burhan Wani, perhaps a little experiment is what the Modi mind is attempting. Remember Pakistan’s chaotic internal security situation and obsession with seeking its space in Afghanistan leaves it little time for Kashmir. Cornering it by imposing caution and giving enough signals about the future intent being in the same domain as that of Pakistan in Kashmir, could force a rethink. However, a one off smart move which has had strategic overtones needs sustenance for continuing effectiveness. We will have to wait and watch how Mr Modi takes this game forward.

(Adapted by the author from his article in Governance Now)

General DS Suhag (centre) during a visit to Kashmir on Friday.

Tribune News Service

Srinagar, September 9

Amid the ongoing unrest, Army Chief General Dalbir Singh Suhag reviewed the security situation in the Kashmir valley today.A defence spokesman said the Army Chief visited defence formations in the north and south of the Valley.“The Army Chief reviewed the security situation and collaborative measures of security forces towards ensuring peace and calm in the region,”  the spokesman said.The Army Chief was briefed by Lt Gen Satish Dua, General Officer Commanding (GOC), Chinar Corps, on the various initiatives undertaken by the Army all across the Valley to bring about peace.“General Suhag reinforced the need to synergise efforts with all other stakeholders and assured all support for bringing normalcy, particularly in south Kashmir,” the spokesman said.General Suhag landed in Srinagar this morning and visited various forward areas on the Line of Control in Kupwara district to review the preparedness of the Army in dealing with infiltration from across the border.The Army Chief was accompanied by Lt Gen DS Hooda, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Northern Command, and the Chinar Corps GOC.This was the Army Chief’s fourth visit to the state since the unrest erupted in July. He commended all ranks of Chinar Corps for their operational preparedness and commitment to the cause of national security. “He directed everyone to ensure strict vigil along the Line of Control,” the spokesman said. 

THE Kargil Army Chief, Gen VP Malik, in his book ‘Kargil: From Surprise to Victory’ says it best when he says that Capt Vikram Batra, after killing four Pakistani soldiers in a hand-to-hand fight and subsequent capture of Point 5140 called his CO exuberantly giving out his pre-arranged success code: Yeh Dil Mange More…This heart seeks more (victory). The recall of a handsome young man (later posthumously awarded PVC) repeating the tag line of a cola campaign became “the stuff of legends” as the General elegantly puts it.This is what a resurgent Army, certainly a resurgent India — a late comer to live drawing room TV coverage — badly needed after the initial setbacks; the ugliness born out of being surprised by a treacherous enemy who had professed peace at Lahore even as Pakistani troops configured as militants were climbing up to cross the LOC into India. Yeh Dil Mange More expressed this resurgence wonderfully and aptly; setting the national mood on fire; certainly it’s young across gender.Militarily, however, it is educative to understand the complexities that go into the formulation of greatness by taking the example of the capture of Point 5140; one of many critical successes that led us to victory during the Kargil War.At 1930 hours on 19 June 1999, tension was perceptible at the base of Point 5140. CO 13 JAK Rif, Lt Col (now Gen) Yogesh Joshi was giving his final briefing to Capts Vikram Batra and Sanjiv Jamwal. His orders were comprehensive, yet terse: The battle cry Durga Mata Ki Jai must be heard before dawn and the success signals fired and narrated on radio. Yeh Dil Mange More… Better orders which left the young officers otherwise free to improvise while conducting their mission could not have been given. Joshi was doubtlessly inspirational, succinct and pithy. At 2030 hrs even as darkness fell, the Gunners opened up, ‘shooting in’ the two attacking companies up to 200 metres short of the objective. The courageous troops, however, came up under murderous automatic fire immediately thereafter and asked to have the artillery fire resumed till they were just a 100m short of the objective. This implied that fratricide losses were acceptable; not failure…An amazing orientation. This is when Durga Mata Ki Jai was yelled out, chilling the shocked enemy. As the fierce close quarter battle progressed at 16,900 feet, many sub tales of heroism came up (a soldier/quality Basketballer continuing to attack with just the stump of his hand left…) Capt Jamwal gave out his success signal shortly thereafter: O Ya Ya Ya…Col Joshi had to wait however for the success of Vikram Batra who was tasked to capture the  daunting peak and before first light at 0430 hours, it did…The radio suddenly crackled with Batra’s euphoric Yeh Dil Mange More one-line narration…Pt 5140 had been taken at 17000 feet and without loss of life. India celebrated; the Army celebrated. Yeh Dil Mange More should be seen as the magic alchemy that converted startup losses into stunning, unprecedented victory…Not just for the resurgent Indian Army but for India as a whole. It was euphoria for our Alpine bravehearts and for India.

article of faith: The autonomy of J&K should not be trifled with.

THE Supreme Court of India, notwithstanding some controversial decisions in the matter of constitutional interpretation, has, by and large, contributed to the upholding of the rights and privileges of the States and individuals. But with a decision in Ajay Kumar Pandey Vs. State of J&K & Anr., decided by the Constitution Bench on July 19, 2016, there has arisen the apprehension of interfering with the autonomy of J&K, guaranteed under Article 370 of the Constitution of India.The Constitution Bench has decided that the Supreme Court has the power to transfer a civil or criminal case pending in any court in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to a court outside that State and vice versa. It was common case that the provisions of Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empower the Supreme Court to direct the transfer of civil and criminal cases, respectively, from one State to the other, do not extend to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and cannot, therefore, be invoked to direct any such transfer. It was also common ground that the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Civil Procedure, 1977, and the Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989, do not contain any provision empowering the Supreme Court to direct the transfer of any case from that State to a court outside the State or vice versa. It was common ground that the provisions of Article 139-A of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to transfer a case pending before one High Court to itself, or to another High Court, also has no application to the cases at hand as the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act, 1977, which inserted the said provision itself, has no application to the State of J&K. Thus while accepting that a litigant has no right to seek the transfer of a civil or a criminal case pending in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to a court outside the State or vice versa,  still the court notwithstanding these formulations, went on to answer the question whether independent of all these provisions contained in the Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure, there is there still a source of power which the Supreme Court can invoke for directing the transfer of a case from the State of Jammu and Kashmir or vice versa. The Supreme Court has held that it has such a power, invoking the principle of “access to justice” being the fundamental right, and secondly, the powers given under Article 142 of the Constitution. The court relied on the principle of our law that every citizen has a right of unimpeded access to a court and referred to Raymond v. Honey 1983 AC 1 (1982 [1] All ER 756) where Lord Wilberforce described it as a ‘basic right’. But with respect, the attention of the Supreme Court was not brought to the specific observations of Lord Wilberforce and its affirmation in this very case; emphasising the exception that; “a citizen’s right to unimpeded access can only be taken away by express enactment… and we accept that such rights can as a matter of legal principle be taken away by necessary implication”. Here, in the present case, the provisions mentioned above specifically negate the right of a litigant to have a case transferred out of J&K, but still the court has held otherwise.The Supreme Court then dealt with the question, namely whether Article 142 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to direct the transfer in a situation where neither the Central Code of Civil Procedure or the Central Code of Criminal Procedure empowers such transfer to/from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The court thereafter concluded that the powers under Article 142 are wide enough to empower the Supreme Court to direct such a transfer in appropriate situations, no matter whether the Central Code of Civil and Criminal Procedures do not extend to the State nor do the J&K State Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure contain any provision that empowers this court to transfer cases. It is unfortunate that the attention of the court was not drawn to a seven-judge Bench case AR Antulay v. RS Nayak 1998 (2) SCC 602 where the court held: “Thirdly, however wide and plenary the language of the article, the directions given by the court should not be inconsistent with, repugnant to or in violation of the specific provisions of any statute. If the provisions of the 1952 Act read with Article 139-A and Section 406-407 of the CrPC do not permit the transfer of the case from a Special Judge to the High Court, that effect cannot be achieved indirectly.” It is also unfortunate that the attention of the Supreme Court was also not drawn to an earlier five-judge judgment of the Supreme Court (1998), wherein the court said: “Article 142, even with the width of its amplitude, cannot be used to build a new edifice where none existed earlier, by ignoring express statutory provisions dealing with a subject and thereby to achieve something indirectly which cannot be achieved directly…. that the court will take note of the express provisions of any substantive statutory law and regulate the exercise of its power and discretion accordingly. It must be remembered that wider the amplitude of its power under Article 142, the greater is the need of care for this court to see that the power is used with restraint without pushing back the limits of the Constitution so as to function within the bounds of its own jurisdiction.”More serious than the concern mentioned above, this judgment has, in an indirect manner, nullified the mandatory provision of Article 370 of the Constitution. The J&K legislature has specifically provided that the court will have no such power to transfer cases from J&K courts outside the State. In such a situation, to invoke the powers of Article 142 to pass orders contrary to J&K legislation is a serious breach of Article 370 having grave consequences. I hope the Union of India and the State of J&K will seek a review of this judgment to avoid serious constitutional and political consequences, so as to ensure the people of J&K that there will be no weakening of their autonomy. — The writer is a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court

NEW DELHI: For the first time, paragliders and drone detectors will watch over Red Fort — from where Prime Minister Narendra Modi will address the nation during the 70th Independence Day celebrations on Monday.

SUSHIL KUMAR/HTSecurity personnel rehearse at Red Fort on Saturday ahead of the Independence Day celebrations.

The national capital’s security has been tightened with over 12,000 policemen and several companies of paramilitary forces deployed on the routes to the monument.

The police will deploy ‘spotters’— special commandos equipped with fully automatic assault rifles and high-tech gadgets.

Over 400 sharpshooters will be positioned on all high-rise buildings around the venue. National Security Guards, Border Security Force and SWAT commandos will be at strategic locations, said police.

Guards will stand at 605 balconies and 104 windows that open towards Red Fort. “The commandos will be spread out within a 500-metre radius around the venue. We will have policemen in plainclothes,” a police source said.

Twenty-five cops at a control room near the venue will monitor the live feed from 600 CCTV cameras. Cameras will take panoramic photos of the venue, said police. “Dog squads are being sent on the venue five times a day for thorough checks. We will have our quick reaction teams on standby,” a senior police officer said.

The city’s borders have been sealed. The area over Red Fort will be a no-fly zone during the celebrations. Crucial spots such as Parliament complex, international airport, railway stations, inter-state bus terminals and Metro stations will be under vigil.

The traffic police have restricted traffic movement. “Detailed traffic deployment will be in place to facilitate the movement of VIP vehicles, invitees and the general public. Public are requested not to touch any suspicious object. They are requested to immediately report about the presence of any suspicious movements…to the nearest policeman,” said joint commissioner of police, Garima Bhatnagar.

Goods vehicles won’t be allowed between Nizamuddin Bridge and Wazirabad bridge. Interstate Buses will not be allowed between Maharana Pratap ISBT and Sarai Kale Khan. Local buses won’t operate on Ring Road and between Hanuman Setu and Bhairon Road ‘T’ Point between 4 am and 11 am on Monday, said police.

SECURITY CHECK AT JAMIA VARSITY

Policemen reportedly conducted a “routine check” at Jamia Millia Islamia University on Saturday ahead of the Independence Day. Students protested against police entering the university and said they raided the boys’ hostel and disrupted classes.

“How can police enter any university without permission from the court or the university? This is clearly yet another attempt by the government to harass the students,” said student and National Students Union of India member, Laraib Ahmed.

Police said the checks were a part of the Independence Day routine. “The checks are a part of the security drill. We have got 1,500 forms filled in the district to ensure that no outsider is living in the area. This is to ensure residents’ safety,” said a senior police officer. The university said it was a routine check. “This is not a raid. Students have misconceived it. This was just to check that everything is fine in terms of security,” said university media co-ordinator, Iftekhar Ahmad.

R Sedhuraman

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi,  August 13

The Centre is against increasing the retirement age of army doctors to 65 years in line with the age limit for their civilian counterparts. “Army always has its own retirement age for its personnel from time immemorial,” Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh pleaded with the Supreme Court on Thursday.

The Centre took the stand before a Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, which was hearing a PIL by some of the doctors who retired last month after being denied the benefit of a recent government notification on the new retirement age for civilian doctors.

The ASG also pleaded that retirement age was a service issue for which the doctors had no right to approach the apex court directly. The proper forum for resolving the controversy was the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), he contended.

Other affected doctors had already approached the AFT, New Delhi, and as such the petitioners in the Supreme Court should be directed to join the litigation pending with the AFT, Singh pleaded.

Accepting the Centre’s plea, the Bench asked the petitioners to approach the AFT. The apex court directed the Tribunal to dispose of the case expeditiously, preferably in three months.

On July 29, the Bench had asked the Centre to respond within two days to army doctors’ plea for enhancing their retirement age to 65.

The petitioners from the Army Medical Corps (AMC) had pleaded that the Centre had enhanced the retirement age of non-teaching civilian doctors to 65 years, but the Defence Ministry was not extending the benefit to the army where doctors retired at 60 or 62, depending upon their rank.

However, other government wings such as paramilitary forces had decided to follow the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) decision to retire doctors at 65 years of age from May 31this year.

If the army was not willing to retain them, they should be transferred to other departments facing shortage of doctors so that they could continue to serve till 65, they pleaded.

The Centre’s move to increase the retirement age has come at the instance of Prime Minister Narendra Modi for making use the services of experienced doctors for the benefit of the poor.