How rapidly the situation changed in Kashmir in the last two months! Burhan Wani’s death, the campaign of mayhem on the streets and the Deep State’s success achieved in paralysing governance has turned on its head all parameters of normalcy that we were examining at one time. Senior army officers were confessing to me in April this year that it was going to be a hot summer; and I was completely in agreement with them. There were straws in the wind but we could not clutch them all to create the proverbial stick, which could give some indication of what was to come. Triggers can hardly be predicted, but once they occur, it’s always good to remain ahead of the adversary’s decision loop.
The Army teaches its students that when stuck with a problem of assessing what may happen just go back to imagining you are on the enemy side. That is what needs to be done more often when dealing with an intractable, wily, unpredictable and irrational adversary such as Pakistan.

With little time on his hands to do something to be remembered by, Sharif created a situation on the lines of Zia-Ul-Haq’s 1977 plan.

Looking at the summer of 2016 unfold, Raheel Sharif’s advisers and the Deep State in Pakistan would have been worried. On two of the three focus areas, things weren’t going well; Afghanistan and Kashmir. On the third front—internal security within Pakistan, there was a hope emerging. Pressure was building from the ‘friendly terrorists’ that they would all soon become unemployed unless the ropes were loosened by the ‘authority’; that a situation crafted right from Zia-Ul-Haq’s diabolic plan, conceived in 1977, would come unstuck. Then there was the issue of Raheel Sharif’s own credibility. He had little time on his hands to do something to be remembered or, better still, create a situation which would cry for his extension. Zia’s plan had been clear; retribution for 1971 with slow painful strikes in India over an elongated time under a nuclear shadow to neutralise asymmetry; this would create conditions for the required build up of sub-nationalist and pan Islamic passion among the Kashmiris, which would lead to the inability of India to hold on to J&K by force or otherwise.

Over a period of time, the Pakistani strategic leadership had succeeded in promoting in the minds of the Indian strategic community that there were red lines which would invite a nuclear response of undetermined proportions to defend Pakistan’s inter­ests, should India ever choose the military opt­ion. To bolster this and blur the lines of potential Indian decision making, acts of irrationality were executed imposing further caution. This created a ‘false’ sense of security within Pakistani decision makers that they had succeeded in limiting India’s response options in terms of escalation. Perhaps Musharraf’s bluff of 1999 and India’s decision not to cross the LoC or expand the ambit of the Kargil War added weight to the perception; in reality Vajpayee achieved much more through his decision than is perceived by many.

Cut back to 2016. Infiltration was becoming a problem with the strong Indian counter infiltration grid and the terrorist strength was insufficient to achieve anything of substance. The political situation wasn’t really progressing in Pakistan’s favour. The perception that the BJP-PDP alliance would fall apart after Mufti Sayeed’s death did not emerge. Mehbooba Mufti came to power on a BJP-PDP combine and there was a general silence on the touchy issues with Jammu politically quiet, as if to give governance a chance. This was dangerous. The parties were supposed to be ideologically poles apart and if this political coalition worked, it could succeed in stabilising the security situation and resume a development agenda; every element of this was dangerous for Raheel Sharif and the deep state. If something was not done quickly, it would get even more dangerous. Raheel, probably a believer in the maxim that fortune favours the brave, could hardly perceive a potential action which could be classified as bravado.

Just then, Burhan Wani was killed in an encounter. Raheel had probably not perceived how passions would be let lose on Kashmir’s streets by this event. The sleeper cells in Kashmir, the selected and identified surrendered terrorists, the other rabble rousers such as the bar council, the innumerable overground workers and the army of agents of the Hurriyat spread all over the Valley in towns and villages, all needed to come back to life. Infusion of finances was the key. It had already been done; more had to follow. However, even more than that, the lessons of 2010 clearly indicated that there were two aspects which prevented the agitation going the whole way; the strong-pro India performance of the J&K Police and the inability to take the agitation to the rural areas. Orders for this went out immediately and the feedback was that both issues were appropriately addressed.

The next issue which was a concern in 2010 was the stamina of the street turbulence; it would again have a finite limit. Thus, it was important to breathe oxygen into it by some high profile terror acts, which were not possible in the hinterland. This trigger could thus be an act such as this near the LoC, with infiltration from an unconventional route. Tangdhar had been twice unsuccessfully attempted. The finger pointed towards multiple targets with at least one being successful. Then the strike on the HQ 93 Brigade, Poonch, was attempted but failed. Uri was the next natural choice and success came unexpectedly due to the circumstances, adding to Raheel’s belief about the ‘brave’, although as a soldier he knew this was a sneaky and deceitful act and not a brave one. The success being greater than anticipated created a problem with nationalism coming to the fore in India and demands for retribution.

Raheel was now worried. The strategy had always been to keep these sub-conventional operations within India’s limits of tolerance. Circumstances beyond his control had created this situation. The Indians were baying for blood and were sounding more coherent in the spelling out of response options. What assured him was the history of India’s lack of response but what equally worried him was the possibility of India’s political and military leadership attempting something completely irrational, outside the purview of known attitude.

The above were some of the thoughts in General Raheel Sharif’s mind on the evening of September 19, 2016. He wasn’t sure he had clarity on anything he considered. One thing however appeared clear—the Indians weren’t calling his bluff any longer. It was time to call for a Corps Commanders Conference to re-evaluate options and perhaps to discreetly tell the Indians through the Americans that the Pakistanis would reconsider. Time for some shuttle diplomacy perhaps, a la Gates. And a prevention of loss of face.

(Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain commanded an The Indian Army’s 15  Corps in J&K.)

Slide show

Raheel Sharif, Pakistan’s chief of army staff is known to see the Taliban within Pakistan as the biggest security threat to his country. He is due for retirement in November this year.

BY ROUNDING OFF, THE PERCENTAGE OF DISABILITY IS ENHANCED; IT MEANS HIGHER PENSION

CHANDIGARH: The Chandigarh bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has extended the benefit of rounding off disability percentage to pre-1996 retirees with less than 20% disability.

Such a benefit was extended to post-1996 retirees but for pre1996 retirees, the rounding off was allowed only for those with a minimum disability of 20%.

The fifth pay commission introduced broad-banding to minimise medical subjectivity and rationalise mistakes of medical boards. It provided those with a disability below 50% to be granted disability element by treating it as 50%, those with 50%-75% were granted the benefit of 75%, and those above 76% were to be considered 100%. By rounding off, the percentage of disability is enhanced, which means higher pension.

Taking up three cases of pre1996 retirees, whose service was cut short as they had been bailed out with a disability percentage less than 20%, Justice Surinder Singh Thakur said, “In contravention to the policy formulated by the government, the defence ministry has consistently taken the stand that if the disability is even 1% in invalided out cases, post-1996 retirees will be entitled to rounding off but for pre-1996 retirees, rounding off will only be applicable if the disability is more than 20%.”

The judgment said, “This differentiation does not exist in the government letter of February 3, 2000. The counsel for the petitioners informed us that there is no such distinction for civilians and this has been introduced only for armed forces personnel.”

The Chandigarh bench said that the principal bench of the AFT in Delhi removed this distinction in a judgment in 2010 but the government ignored it and neither filed any appeal. “In other cases, the defence ministry has taken the plea that it is unable to issue a new policy without concurrence of the finance ministry. We find that at para 7 of the letter, concurrence of the finance ministry has been taken by the ministry of personnel, public grievance and pension.” The central government counsel couldn’t place any material or argument in support of why financial concurrence when already existing is again required.

In this case, disability percentage will be rounded off to 50 % in case of Bharat Kumar, who came to the court after 22 years of his release with disability of 11 to 19 %, Hoshiar Singh, who approached the court after 44 years of his release with disability of 15% to 19% and Jasbir Singh, who approached the court after 22 years with disability of 11% to 14 %.

Former Union minister and BJP leader Satpal Maharaj.

Sandeep Rawat

Tribune News Service

Haridwar, September 20

Former Union Minister of State for Railways Satpal Maharaj Rawat today expressed concern over large scale migration from the hilly region of the state, particularly villages near the Line of Actual Control with China.Maharaj spoke to The Tribune on the sidelines of the Sadbhavna Sammellan at the Prem Nagar ashram here today. He said the recent instances of incursion by Chinese army personnel into Barahoti in Chamoli district was the result of large scale migration of villagers from border areas.“Earlier no such cases of Chinese intrusions into the Indian territory on the 350 km border that Uttarakhand shares with China. But in the past five years, mass exodus of people from hill districts, particularly border areas and higher reaches, had led to a situation where villages are deserted. Local people were a natural deterrent to Chinese and they provided vital information to the Indian Army about any suspicious movement. Both Union and Uttarakhand governments should focus on this aspect and try to provide infrastructure, facilities and boost agriculture, horticulture and floriculture in border areas,” said Maharaj, a two-time MP from Pauri Garhwal district.He praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for launching various initiatives such as Swacch Bharat, Namami Gange, Start Up and Make in India. On the ambitious Rishikesh-Karanprayag railway line project, he said land acquisition was being done and in the coming years the railway line would be laid that was expected to change the economy of Uttarakhand.Maharaj urged people to sow seeds of love, harmony, peace and brotherhood to eradicate social evils and differences in society.

Arti, 14, says Pakistan won’t mend its ways unless India retaliates now

Slain soldier Naik Sunil Kumar Vidyarthi’s sobbing daughter, Arti, 14, demanded that her father’s real killers be punished.

“We should retaliate in the same manner as Pakistan has done. Unless we retaliate, Pakistan will never mend its ways,” said Arti at Boknari village in Gaya, about 117 kms south of Patna.

Her two younger sisters, Anshu and Ashika, were simply inconsolable.

A pall of gloom had also descended at sepoy Rakesh Singh’s native village Badhdha under Nuaon block of Kaimur district, over 200 kms south-west of Patna.

His father, Harihar Singh Kushwaha, 70, a roadside vegetable vendor, who had two bighas of farmland, said: “I had dreamt of a better future after Rakesh joined the Indian Army in 2008. He was our last child and our best hope. Everyone in our family and in the village used to love him because of his sober and helpful nature.”

Proud of his youngest among four sons and two daughters, Kushwaha said, “I am ready to send my other two sons and the two-year-old grandson, Harshit, to the army if the country needs them,” he added.

In Raktu Tola village under Piro sub-division of Ara, nearly 125 kms west of Patna, there was shock and disbelief on the face of Sangeeta Devi.

Less than a fortnight of having celebrated ‘Teej’, a Hindu festival for the wellness of her husband, Havildar Ashok Kumar Singh, was killed in the terror attack.

Her son, Vikas Singh, also in the army, broke the news to her on Monday morning. Ever since, Devi has been fainting intermittently.

Meanwhile, Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar had announced an ex-gratia payment of `5 lakh to the next of kin of e

LOOPHOLES Past attacks, including last year’s ambush at Chandel in Manipur, also point to the army being prone to terror strikes when new units move in to guard strategic points

Attacks are often timed when rotation of units is taking place as there’s a perception that the guard may have been lowered. It can be a dangerous window as sometimes complacency may set in. SENIOR ARMY OFFICER

NEW DELHI: The Uri fidayeen attack in which 17 Indian soldiers were killed is a grim reminder of the army’s vulnerability to terror strikes when new units are moving in to replace older ones.
NITIN KANOTRA/HT
Security personnel guard the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir on Sunday.
Fifteen of the soldiers killed in the pre-dawn attack formed the part of an advance party of 6 Bihar that had come in to relieve 10 Dogra that was deployed along the line of control (LoC). Two Dogra soliders were also killed.
The army said the four terrorists, who were killed, targeted a “rear administrative base” where a large number of soldiers were stationed in tents and temporary shelters as the rotation of units was under way.
Last year’s Chandel ambush in which 18 soldiers were killed also took place when the Dogra unit deployed in Manipur was on its way out to a peace location. An advance part of the unit had already moved to Chandigarh to set up the base there.
The Chandel ambush bears the infamy of having the highest number of army casualties in a single incident in nearly two decades. The Dogra soldiers were part of an administrative convoy. India responded with a cross-border raid, targeting and destroying two insurgent camps in Myanmar. India’s Special Forces killed more than 50 insurgents.

Also, four soldiers from 21 Bihar and one from 14 Maratha Light Infantry (MLI) were shot at close range in an ambush along the LoC in Poonch sector in August 2013. The strike came when 21 Bihar was moving out and 14 MLI was coming in.

“Attacks are often timed when rotation of units is taking place as there’s a perception that the guard may have been lowered. It can be a dangerous window as sometimes complacency may set in,” said a senior army officer.

However, former northern army commander Lieutenant General BS Jaswal told HT that there was a misconception that the guard is down when rotation is taking place.

“It’s true that new units take time to settle down as they are not seized of the ground reality. When a unit moves in, the guard is at a high pitch because they know they are vulnerable. No one wants to get killed,” said Jaswal.

The Uri sector has a geographical disadvantage as it is under direct observation of enemy posts at greater heights, army officers said.

No matter how high intensity the guard is, the attackers have the tool of surprise, said Jaswal. “Whoever takes the initiative first will get favourable results,” he said.

It remains to be seen how the army will re-work its strategy and posture to be more effective.

After the January 2013 beheading of a soldier in Mendhar sector, the then army chief General Bikram Singh said the force reserved its right to retaliate against Pakistan at a time and place of its choosing. After the August 2013 strike in which five soldiers were killed, Singh reprimanded his top commanders in Jammu and Kashmir for not launching a massive retaliatory strike against the Pakistani army along the LoC.

In January 2014, he declared the army avenged the murders of its soldiers along the LoC by the Pakistani by inflicting casualties on the neighbouring army.

Quoting Pakistani news reports that 10 of their soldiers were killed and another 11 injured in recent clashes along the LoC, Singh said, “Our boys have done a stupendous job.”

CHANDIGARH: The Chandigarh bench of Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) has ruled that the court-of-inquiry (CoI) findings, basis of court-martial proceedings or administrative action for dismissal, be made available to the defence personnel whom the conclusions affect.

The tribunal was hearing the application of a soldier, Lekh Raj Raizada, whom the army chief had dismissed in 1981 in an administrative action. Raizada was accused of not taking any action despite being aware of a developing mutiny on the night of October 8, 1979, which ended in the assault on two officers in a 4 Gorkha Rifles unit.

The action against the soldier was based on the CoI findings and opinion that were never supplied to him. He is no more but his wife now pursues the case. “There is no provision under any schedule of the Army Act and rules for releasing the CoI findings,” the central government submitted. “The Col’s purpose is to collect evidence. These are not adversarial proceedings. Even Army Rule 184 doesn’t postulate that the accused is entitled to a copy.” As of now, defence personnel can see only the statements of witnesses and not the findings and opinion.

The bench headed by justice Surinder Singh Thakur said: “What are the proceedings of a CoI? Is it only the statements, questions, counter-questions, and cross examination, or does it also include the opinion and findings? In our considered opinion, the proceedings of the Col also include the findings and opinion. Without these two parts, the inquiry is directionless.”

The judgment reads: “If the very basis of action depends upon the CoI, which includes findings and its opinion… they need to be supplied to the petitioner, as the CoI is subject to judicial review, and without making these documents known to the court and the petitioner, it cannot be referred to while deciding this point in issue.”

Justice Thakur said: “…not only the petitioner but also we (the bench) want to be guided by… the findings and opinion portion of the CoI.”

Dear Mr Defence Minister,

The ESM fraternity is shocked that you have ordered the Chiefs to implement the 7th CPC Award as it is and will sort out our grievances. Sir, we have heard these same words before and have been duped every time. Wonder if someone has told you that the Ajit Kumar Committee sat for five years to sort out anomalies of the 5th CPC and produced zilch! The Cabinet Secretary’s Committee was formed to redress our grievances after 6th CPC and as expected again gave peanuts to the soldiers. Do you think that the soldiers will take your promise of sorting out the issues seriously? We can be fooled once, maybe twice but not every time.

Wonder if you are aware that there is a precedence to the Services refusing to implement a pay Commission award. After the 4th CPC Award the Services were not happy with the scales for JCOs & OR and the bureaucracy had tried to tweak officers’ salaries in their own favour. The Services accepted the award 4 months after it was paid to the civilians. It was the team of the RM, Mr VP Singh and MOS, Mr Arun Singh that fought the case out for us. Are you willing to stand by us or will the the babus’ case of being ‘heaven born’, supported by Mr Jaitley, prevail? After this will the government have the courage to ask the Army to come to its aid eg., in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka? The shocking scenes of total anarchy on our TV screens with the police forces invisible, will surely give confidence to the state and central governments. Luckily, the Centre has its pet CAPFs who will be able to bring the situation under control, like they did in Haryana!

With warm regards

Satish Bahri

A3/502 World Spa East
Sector 30/41
Gurgaon 122001
Tele 0124 4143180/181
Mob +91 981000 2800

Sandeep Joshi

Three weeks after the Americans had elected him as their next President, Barack Obama met a group of reporters and shared his thoughts on pitfalls of decision-making. In the course of that interaction, he made this point: “One of the dangers in the White House, based on my reading of history, is that you get wrapped up in groupthink and everybody agrees with everything, and there is no discussion and there are no dissenting views.” There is no American monopoly on groupthink. It is a universal weakness. Historians can tell us of numerous instances of grave mistakes and gross misjudgements that resulted from groupthink. We in India seem to be on the verge of a new groupthink of our own on Kashmir. In this new thinking it is understood and unquestioningly accepted by all that the woolly-headedness of the past decades must be rolled back, and that it must be replaced by a new muscular approach to men and matters in Kashmir. This new mood is perhaps part of a larger rethink. The other day we got a glimpse of the new theology from a senior military functionary, Air Marshal Arup Raha, Chief of the Indian Air Force. The good Air Marshal was reported to have decried that India had allowed PoK to become “a thorn in our flesh” because the post-Independence leadership allowed itself to be governed by high ideals, rather than following “a very pragmatic approach” to security needs. In the new official wisdom, which the Air Chief unwittingly voiced, there are no strategic or other advantages in taking “a high moral ground.”   In this emerging new groupthink, the ‘separatist’ has been coddled up for too long; he must now be made to feel the rough end of the Indian truncheon. A kind of easy acceptance is being sought for this tough stance, invoking strands of nationalism, patriotism and a kind of anti-Pakistanism. Tactical cleverness is being mistaken for strategic clarity and wisdom.It is being authoritatively whispered in our ears that the separatist leaders, especially those who are associated with the Hurriyat, will no longer be allowed to enjoy the protection of the Indian security forces. Enough is enough. This kind of no-nonsense assertiveness goes down very well with the middle classes back in the ‘mainland’.  Assuming — and this is a very crucial assumption — that we were ‘protecting’ Syed Ali Shah Geelani, we were presumably keeping him away from coming to harm at the hands of Pakistani agents and contract-killers.  Somewhere, sometime there must have been a judgement — and, a mature and considered judgement at that  — that it was probably worth providing protection to the Hurriyat leaders; otherwise, they would be easily eliminated and replaced by more radical, more intractable rabble-rousers. Perhaps we have concluded that we have lost control over the Hurriyat leaders, and that we are prepared to have a known devil displaced by an unknown devil.The only flaw in this seductive groupthink is that the Hurriyat leaders by themselves do not add up to anything; what makes them toxic is their capacity to summon mobs on the streets and to have people of the Valley respond to their calls for hartal.  But a self-assured democracy should be able to ask whether by locking them up or by denying them permission to visit Delhi or Saudi Arabia, are we able to wean the crowds away from the difficult Hurriyat-wallahs?  And, while we are at it, we might as well ask ourselves why it is that suddenly the Hurriyat leaders seem to have acquired a greater traction than, say, two years ago. It is inexplicable that we deny the authenticity of the democratic energy we have witnessed on the streets in the Valley; it is inexcusable that we attribute authorship of the anger to Pakistan.  The Pakistani meddlesomeness is older than the Shankaracharya Hills. But our new rulers in New Delhi seem to be confused. It will be naive to think that just because our Prime Minister allows himself to go and attend a wedding in Nawaz Sharif’s family, the Pakistani military establishment would surrender its assets and advantages in Kashmir.  Just as it was a criminal neglect on the part of our intelligence establishment not to be prepared for an explosion after “Commander” Wani’s death in an encounter. Our policy, army, political and intelligence leadership cannot go on making errors of commission and omission and then blame Pakistan for taking advantage of our mistakes. The separatists were not born separatist. What drove very many Kashmiris over to the other side were our policies, postures and pretensions, and “our” politicians and their arrogance and aberrations. But then from time to time our democracy, too, has produced that magical illusion to induce the alienated and angry Kashmiris to come back to this side.  After the Kargil War it was evident to every Kashmiri — as it was to every Pakistani — that Islamabad would never be able militarily to come to help them with the “struggle”. The so-called “struggle” project was over. All that remained was to enlarge the circle of participation and partnership between the Kashmiris and the Indian democracy, and its enormous capacity for accommodation and adjustment. We seem to have forgotten that an Indian Prime Minister had proclaimed and promised that “short of azadi, sky is the limit.” The only redeeming feature of the new groupthink on Kashmir is that the Chief Minister, Mehbooba Mufti, seems to be a very, very reluctant recruit. She is the only leader who appears to have the courage to contest and challenge the separatists and their arguments. Hers is perhaps the most demanding, most exacting as also the most dangerous job in India. She can, and does, question the Hurriyat’s pretensions precisely because she derives her legitimacy from a democratic mandate. Her efficacy critically hinges on her ability to showcase herself as the voice of the Kashmiris, rather than as New Delhi’s chosen nominee in Srinagar. And, if people in New Delhi and Nagpur cannot appreciate this delicate but absolutely necessary requirement, then we are in for serious trouble. Perhaps just to humour the high priests of the new groupthink, the Chief Minister did allow herself to suggest that if anyone can “solve” the Kashmir problem, it is Narendra Modi. We had heard the same tired mantra during Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s days, as if Kashmir is the personal jagir of this or that Prime Minister.The new groupthink notwithstanding, there is an old contradiction at work: an “imperial” Delhi has the constitutional obligation of the Centre to control, and coerce, if necessary, a recalcitrant periphery; but the “democratic” India flashes its moral badge and flaunts its openness and inclusiveness to blunt the separatist and his secessionist message. Kashmir will continue to test the relative effectiveness of the “imperial” Delhi and the “democratic” India.