Indo-Pak Foreign Secy-level talks unlikely this week; Swaraj discusses issue with Rajnath

New Delhi, January 11

Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar today said any individual or organisation that hurts the country should be given the same pain but how, when and where should be India’s choice, remarks which come in the backdrop of the Pathankot terror attack.Addressing an audience which consisted of top Army brass, including its chief Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag, the Minister said that history tells us that until those who inflict damage on others experience the same pain, they don’t change.“I am of the opinion, it should not be taken as a government thinking, I always believe that if anyone harms you, he understands the same language.“How, when and the place should be of your choice but if someone is harming this country, then that particular individual or organisation, I purposely used the words individual and organisation, should also receive the pain of such activities,” he said at a seminar organised by the Army here.Asked to elaborate, Parrikar later said, “Basic principle is that until we give them pain, whoever they may be, until then, such incidents will not reduce”.In a reference to the Pathankot attack, the Minister said the country was proud of its seven soldiers who laid down their lives but he is pained by the loss.“I don’t appreciate it. I have said that it is time we tell our soldiers that it is inevitable that we will lose some soldiers, and in this incident we lost one person in actual combat.“We should tell them to think of the concept of taking life of your enemy, enemy of the country, instead of giving your life. This is an important aspect,” he said.He said that while sacrifice is respected, what nation needs is to neutralise the enemy. Asked if that means there is a change in policy from the previous UPA government, Parrikar retorted, “If someone comes and hammers you, you should keep quiet? Was that the policy?“What I am saying is basically that history tells you that those who damage you, if they don’t realise what pain they inflict, then they don’t change”. — PTI Cong targets govt for uncertainty over talksNew Delhi: Tearing into Modi government’s Pakistan policy, the Congress on Monday faulted it for continued uncertainty over Indo-Pak Foreign Secretary-level talks, saying the foreign policy is not conducted in such a way. “The talks with Pakistan are schdeuled in four days. Till today, it is not clear whether they will be held…it is not the way foreign policy is conducted,” party spokesman Abhishek Singhvi said. TNSFix responsibility for Pathankot attack: CPI Hyderabad: The CPI wants that responsibility ‘at the top’ should be fixed for not deploying Army in the counter operation. “There should be a thorough probe to find out how the terrorists entered. Whose fault is it among top officials in refusing to use the Army? If necessary, such officials should be changed,” CPI general secretary S Sudhakar Reddy said. PTIModi’s tolerance to terror should end: SenaMumbai: Advocating a strong response to the Pathankot terror strike, the Shiv Sena on Monday said Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘tolerance’ to such attacks should end. “Our tolerance to terror attacks is commendable. But there is a limit. We pray that the tolerance of Modi to such attacks should end,” an editorial in the Shiv Sena mouthpiece Saamana said. PTIArvind Kejriwal to visit Pathankot, GurdaspurChandigarh: Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal will visit Pathankot and Gurdaspur on January 13 and meet the families of the security personnel killed in the Pathankot attack. “He will meet the families of Havildar Kulwant Singh, Honorary Captain Fateh Singh and taxi driver Ikagar Singh,” Durgesh Pathak, national organisation-building head, AAP, said. PTI

ribune News Service,Amritsar, December 27

Though the Punjab and Haryana High Court has pointed out that the Army cannot forcibly take possession of any property occupied by the civilians located in the cantonment area, the Army is allegedly not vacating Kothi No. 4, a residential bungalow near Sadar Bazaar.This was stated by Vishesh Samra, who claims to have the ownership rights of the said property, along with Jugal Kishore. “This court has no doubt that if the petitioner is to be evicted, the respondents (the Union of India and others) shall proceed in accordance with the law, not forcibly specifically in view of the civil court judgement,” observed the High Court while disposing off the writ petition on December 19, which was filed by Samra.The disputed property is at present in the possession of several families, who have been living there for the past three decades. The residents of the area are facing threat of getting displaced from their homes.Earlier this month, the Army authorities pasted a notice (sans any signature) of vacating the property and deputed its jawans on a portion of the disputed site used for running a private school. The school was shifted to its new building recently. Samra and Jugal Kishore resisted the attempt and lodged a complaint with the police in this regard. The families living in the area also approached the National SC Commission for seeking its intervention in the matter.Samra alleged that as the Army officials were not taking the copy of the High Court orders, he was going to lodge a complaint regarding contempt of the court. He said he would also be going to the police authorities for registering a case for alleged illegal trespass. “I will also approach the local court for the same,” he added.Meanwhile, Naresh Vig, public relation officer of the Army authorities, could not be contacted even after repeated attempts.

Three military chiefs’ joint memorandum to defence minister on pay commission report sends disquieting signals.

The public debate over the recommendations of the Seventh Pay Commission report has focused on its financial implications and likely impact on the government’s fiscal deficit target. Little attention has been paid to the issues raised by various Central government services affected by these recommendations. As per procedure, their concerns are considered by a committee of secretaries under the cabinet secretary, which sends the recommendations to the Union cabinet for approval. This method has worked well so far, as it doesn’t deal with the substantive questions or allege an inherent bias in the deliberations of the pay commission. Now, by writing a joint memorandum to the defence minister over the pay commission recommendations, however, the three military chiefs have taken the controversy to a different — and disquieting — level.

Not only is it extremely rare for the three chiefs to jointly sign a memorandum — the seniormost service chief usually signs tri-service letters as the chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee — but also the issues raised by them point to a complete lack of trust in the commission’s recommendations. The defence services believe that their joint presentations to the pay commission, unlike those made by civilian employees, have been dismissed without even being included in the report. A downgrade of the status of military officers vis-a-vis their civilian counterparts, fixation of hardship allowances at lower rates, and denial of a real non-functional upgrade have been identified by the service headquarters as issues that emanate from the allegedly anti-military bias of the pay commission.

The three chiefs have asked the defence minister to institute an expert committee, with members from the armed forces, to look into these grievances. These issues have also been flagged by the three chiefs informally to the defence minister, Manohar Parrikar, who has asked for a formal presentation this week. It will take more than a presentation, however, to bridge the widening trust gap between the uniformed personnel and the government. The unresolved issue of one rank one pension has already created tensions that are adversely affecting the military. The political leadership needs to actively reach out to the military, redress their genuine concerns and restore their trust in government. Simultaneously, the top military leadership needs to quell the tide of heightened emotions in the defence forces to reinforce the well-established balance of civil-military relations. India is situated in a tough neighbourhood and beset with several internal
security problems. It cannot afford to have a disaffected military, least of all over the issue of pay and allowances.

– See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/a-trust-deficit/#sthash.87IbjI1Q.kQiQLv6w.dpuf

NEW DELHI: Reliance Defence has signed a manufacturing and maintenance deal potentially worth $6 billion with Russia’s Almaz-Antey, the maker of an air defence system that sources said the Indian military was poised to buy.

The partnership between the Anil Ambani-led company and the Russian firm was announced on Thursday, a day after Prime Minister Narendra Modi began a trip to Moscow aimed at strengthening defence ties.

“Our proposed partnership will constitute an important milestone in the strategic relationship between the two countries,” Ambani said.

Reliance has also discussed joint implementation of modernisation, repair and overhaul of Almaz-Antey systems already in service in India.

Earlier this week, defence ministry sources said the government had cleared the purchase of five S-400 air defence systems that are estimated to cost about $4.5 billion, in a bid to modernise the country’s defences against airborne attacks.

“The two sides identified the air defence missile systems…. radars and automated control systems as areas of partnership…. as well as offset policies of the Indian Ministry of Defence,” Reliance Group said in a statement.

Under the offsets policy, global defence contractors are required to invest a percentage of the value of any deal in India to help it build a defence industrial base and reduce imports for a military that has emerged as the world’s biggest buyer of arms in recent years.

India is forecast to spend $250 billion over the next decade to upgrade its military and the government wants a greater role for Indian state and defence firms.

The company also plans to bid for contracts for local manufacture of helicopters, submarines and ships. Earlier this month, Ambani’s Reliance Infrastructure took sole management control of Pipavav Defence and Offshore Engineering Co, which has built patrol vessels for the Indian navy.

Chandigarh, December 22

Major Gurdit Singh “Azadi Ghulatiya” passed away yesterday at nearly 100 years of age. He was cremated with honours by the UP government, his brother Narinder Singh Jallo said.Major Gurdit was born in Balarhwal village of Gurdaspur district in May 1916. In 1937, he joined the army as a clerk and was commissioned in 1941 in the Frontier Force. Due to an accident during the war time, he was transferred to the Army Service Corps. In 1945-46, the Major held command of a company in Ernakulam-Cochin. — TNS

• 
• Looking Within: A committee reporting to the defence minister has suggested far-reaching changes for the armed forces

• Tilt The Scales: Chief among its ­recommendations is a complete overhaul of the military justice system

• Going Easy: It also wants the defence ministry to become less litigious and not take an obdurate attitude towards soldiers

***

In July, defence minister Manohar Parrikar set up a committee with an unusual brief. Former servi­ces officers all, the members were told to shed their baggage and take a hard look at grievance red­ressal, pension-related matters and service-related litigation—all of which have taken adversarial tones in recent years. Parrikar wanted suggestions on institutional mechanisms that would bridge the gap between the ministry and the soldier.

The committee, too, has stayed true to its brief and made observations that are staggering, coming as they do from top brass wont to exert control. The former faujis—Lt Gen Mukesh Sabharwal, Lt Gen Richard Khare, Maj Gen T. Parshad—and Maj D.P. Singh and Navdeep Singh, a lawyer, want an overhaul of a colonial hand-me-down that is downright unfair on soldiers of a modern democracy. Risking the ire of the uniformed frat, which guards its systems with ferocity, they’ve said: “Fairplay and justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of military discipline.”

They’ve raised questions resisted by the system so far: How impartial is the military justice system? And how insulated is it from command influence? Making a case for far-reaching changes in the dispensation of military justice, the committee says, “Gone are the days when defence establishments could invoke the veil of confidentiality or fear psychosis in all matters in the name of national security. This is understandable in operational and strategic matters, but cannot be allowed to impact administrative, personnel, pensionary issues.”

Military trials have often been challenged in courts on the ground that they lack in independence and are under the influence of the convening authorities. Superior military authorities even have the power to revise the sentences or findings of courts martial. The committee found that, in the military justice system, there was no clear separation of the powers of the executive and the judiciary. No wonder when these verdicts are challenged in higher, civilian courts, they have often resulted in strictures.

Progressive democracies like the US and Canada have already created impartial, independent military justice systems, but in India, as the committee noted, “all main organs of a court martial continue to be subordinates of the convening authority, which puts a doubt on their impartiality” and “visible and invisible strings of the military justice system are intertwined with the chain of command”. Agreeing on the need for reforms, former army chief Gen V.P. Maliksays, “As our society and systems evolve, old rules and laws are amended. Our military laws are archaic, the structures and procedures should become more impartial. But it has to be done with care, without affecting discipline.”

One major suggestion from the committee is that, in all three services, the presiding officer and others on a court martial should be from a formation outside the influence of the convening authority. It also says a standing court martial system with suitable infrastructure must be created at two or three military stations under all commands so as to do away with the ad hoc courts martial convened in remote military locations.

General View Panel members submit their report to Parrikar

The committee comes down heavily on summary courts martial (SCMs), in which, it notes, principles of natural justice and basic legal norms are unknown! SCMs are provisions for quick dispensation of justice, chiefly a wartime provision to punish err­ant soldiers. But some 500 SCMs take place every year, and the establishment says they may be draconian but are essential for maintaining discipline. In the US, on the other hand, an SCM can be conducted only if a soldier gives his consent; besides, he cannot be dismissed by SCM.

In India though, commanding officers can mete out harsh punishment­—such as dismissal or imprisonment in a civil jail—without spelling out judgements or exp­laining decisions. In one egregious SCM case, set aside by the Supreme Court in 1987, sepoy Ranjit Thakur was dismissed for disobeying his superior’s order to eat while he was in disciplinary custody. The SC observed that “the sentence should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias”. The committee has recommended that, as a beginning, SCMs should be used sparingly, and only in operational areas. Gradually, they must be replaced by a system that meets constitutional norms.

As a first step for the complete overhaul of the military justice system, the committee recommends a seven-member study group. It must comprise members from the army’s Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, the army and civilian sides, and two independent experts. They must be given six months to create a common code for all three services, with service-specific cadres of independent military judges. And the current ad hoc juries must go. The committee also wants provisions to insulate the military justice system from senior commanders’ influence.

The defence ministry, says the committee, is a “compulsive litigant”, contesting cases against its own human resources even when matters have been settled by constitutional courts. There are more than 16,000 cases of servicemen before the courts, and 90 per cent of appeals rel­ate to the challenging of disablility benefits. In a letter of December 9, 2014, the defence secretary, on Parrikar’s instruction, had asked all its arms to apply court verdicts that had reached finality to all employees to whom they might apply. Response was weak, indicating the obduracy in the system, and in September this year, the attorney general had to remind the wing in charge of ex-servicemen’s welfare that cases and appeals meeting such criteria be disposed of, for the SC had even imposed costs on the ministry for stubbornly continuing with such cases.

A more serious matter is that of the ministry not implementing courts’ and armed forces tribunals’ decisions. The committee notes that there seems to be “an unwritten policy that decisions are not to be implemented unless a contempt/execution is filed by the litigant”. Many such cases relate to pensions, often of disabled soldiers, widows, or old and infirm veterans. It strongly recommends implementation of decisions within the time frame set by courts. And with cases related to women officers, the subject of much recent debate and litigation, it has recommended that henceforth appeal in court decisions favouring women officers and their cadre management be filed only after seeking the specific approval of the defence minister himself.

Conscious perhaps of how radical suggestions can be scuttled by power centres in the civilian and military bureaucracy, this committee reported only to the def-ence minister, having completed its work in four months. All eyes are now on Parrikar, to see if he will see such unorthodox proposals through. Notable among them is a proposal to allow soc­ial-media interactions within the forces. Commanders may write blogs, it says, and “intrusive” procedures to restrict social media use by military personnel must go. Glasnost in uniform?

GURDASPUR: Indian Army honoured a loco pilot Gurdip Raj during a function held at the Salaria Auditorium at Tibri Military Station near here on Friday for saving the life of a serving Indian Army soldier subedar Rajbir Singh of Rajput Rifles. On October 18, while the said loco pilot was running the DMU train from Pathankot to Jalandhar, Rajbir happened to be hit by the said train near Mukerian. The train driver Gurdip Raj brought the train to a screeching halt, reversed the train to the accident spot, picked up the accident victim in the train and rushed to the nearest railway station for taking him to the nearby hospital for medical treatment. His quick appraisal of the critical situation, response to the call of circumstances, appropriate and timely efforts saved the precious life of the accident victim soldier. Major general Sanjay Thapa, GOC Panther Division presenting him a certificate of appreciation, a memento and cash reward of `25,000.