Kulbhushan Jadhav. File photo

Islamabad, August 23 

Pakistan has “solid evidence” against Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav and is hopeful of winning the case against him at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Pakistan’s new Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said on Thursday.

Jadhav, 47, was sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court on spying charges in April 2017. India moved the ICJ in May the same year against the verdict. The world court halted Jadhav’s execution on India’s appeal pending the final verdict by it.

Both India and Pakistan have already submitted their detailed pleas and responses in the world court.

“We have solid evidence against Jadhav and are hopeful we will win the case in the ICJ,” Qureshi told the media in his home city of Multan in southern Punjab.

“We will try our best to present our stance in an effective manner before the ICJ,” he said.

Yesterday, the Geo TV citing sources had said that the world court will hear the case daily for a week in February next year.

Pakistan says its security forces arrested Jadhav from Balochistan province in March 2016 after he reportedly entered the country from Iran.

In its submission to the ICJ, Pakistan had stated that Jadhav is not an ordinary person as he had entered the country with the intent of spying and carrying out sabotage activities.

India denies all the charges and maintains that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he had business interests after retiring from the Navy and that he has no links with the government. On Indo-Pak talks, Qureshi said Pakistan wants to resolve the core issue of Kashmir in a peaceful manner through dialogue with India.

He hoped that India would reciprocate Pakistan’s offer for talks. PTI

Tribune News Service

Srinagar, August 20

The chairman of Chiefs of Staff Committee, Lt Gen Satish Dua, on Monday said thousands of Kashmiri youths want to join the Army.In all, 215 recruits from the state joined the Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry (JAKLI) Regiment on Monday. The passing-out parade was reviewed by Lt Gen Satish Dua at the JAKLI Regimental Centre in Rangreth on the outskirts of Srinagar.Lt General Dua said not all were alienated in Kashmir and the youths were coming in large numbers for the Army recruitment rallies. He hoped that the misguided youth would get back to the mainstream soon.“It is true that some of our children have been misguided and are on a wrong path. We hope that they will get back to the mainstream soon,” Lt General Dua told reporters after the function. “But this is just once facet of the state youth. If everybody is alienated then why do we have large number of J&K youths attending the Army recruitment rallies? Thousands of J&K youths want to join the Army. So, we must understand that there are some misguided elements but then there are some youth who have patriotic sentiments too,” he added.Lt Gen Dua said this summer, there had been an overall improvement in the situation.“Be it the incidents, terrorist encounters, stone-throwing — things are under control as compared to the previous years,” he added.

Pakistan’s third successive democratic transition should ideally suggest that civilians and the military have achieved a consensus on national security and foreign policy. But a closer look reveals that the last two democratic arrangements met their Waterloo after crossing swords with the security agencies. Imran Khan’s easy relationship with the army suggests that the current government may not spend most of its tenure anxiously looking over its shoulder. India is likely to rank as the fourth priority for Imran Khan after domestic consolidation and clean up, Afghanistan and ties with China-US-Russia. India needs to accept its place lower down on Islamabad’s pecking order as a blessing.Imran Khan has expressed a desire for reopening dialogue with India. But with the Modi government at the fag end of its tenure, any opening will get caught in the groove of whether Kashmir or terrorism should be the prime topic of discussion. The loser in this endless wait will be Punjab that had its natural trade routes to the west blocked after the 1965 war. The Modi government has initiated a massive infrastructure revamp along the coasts but Punjab’s wait for outlets continues. Punjab Cabinet minister Navjot Sidhu’s presence as Pakistan PM Imran Khan’s sole invitee from India points to the potential of reviving talks about re-engaging the two Punjabs. Last time this arrangement was sought to be consecrated via the Badal-Shahbaz Sharif joint statement. There need not be any political opposition to taking the dust off the initiative since at that time the Congress was in power at the Centre and the BJP a coalition partner in Punjab. For both Punjabs, the usefulness of trade revival needs hardly to be stated. But much of the agenda can only be implemented with the help of the Central governments. Both Islamabad and New Delhi need to take a hard look at such low-risk solutions that may over time become a stepping stone for substantial dialogue between the two nations.

Hockey legend scored 2 goals as India bagged first gold after Independence

Divya Sharma

Tribune News Service

Amritsar, August 11

The families of Army men and schoolchildren got a chance to know the Army in a better way through an exhibition organised by Panther Division at Panther Stadium in the Amritsar Cantonment.Children of jawans were enthusiastic to see the displayed arms. A large number of people attended the event organised ahead of the Independence Day celebrations.Schoolchildren were seen enthusiastically hopping around tanks, learning about the functioning of various guns besides getting their pictures clicked. However, families of Army men were seen accompanied by their real life heroes gathering information about the usage of these equipment.Sujata Waghmare, wife of an Army personnel accompanied by her two sons, said, “The kids should know what their father does.”The event began with a performance by Army band. Traditional bhangra added to the colour of the event. NCC cadets, war veterans and civil dignitaries were also present.Company Wuartermaster Sergeant CQMH, Rajesh Kumar, said, “It is good initiative. The family members can learn a lot from here.”Subedar Kundan Singh said, “I am posted in some other unit. Even I get don’t get to see such weapons on a daily basis. For my family, it is a new thing as they know we serve the Army but with this they can actually see the weapons and understand it’s working.”Shivani, a visitor, said, “I have come here for the first time. I love tanks.” Lalitesh Prasad, a student of Army Public School, said, “I am enjoying here with my school friends. It is so exciting to see these and understand them.”Brigadier Sushil Sharma was the chief guest of the event.

The story runs between ‘arms dynamic’, state, contractors and taxpayers.

Front-line fourth-generation modern fighter Rafale, manufactured by the French major Dassault Aviation, was chosen as the winner in the global tender for 126 MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) for the Indian Air Force (IAF) before the Narendra Modi government took over in 2014. The deal was shelved and subsequently replaced by announcement of a new contract for direct purchase of 36 Rafale at a cost of about Rs 60,000 crore—the process for which has already been under way since 2015 and the contract signed in September 2016. As time flies, the opposition parties, led by the Congress, have voiced serious concerns about the Rafale deal at a time when India is slated to go for national elections in less than a year from now. It appears that Rafale is going to dominate electoral discourse in the time to come. One is reminded of a national uproar during the late 1980s over the purchase of Bofors, which eventually cost the then government dearly, although a similar consequence appears highly unlikely this time.

The Rafale deal typifies a classic case of ‘arms dynamic’—a term propounded and explained by Barry Buzan and Eric Herring in the classic book ‘The Arms Dynamic in World Politics’ (Lynne Rienner, 1998)—which explains that arms transactions can be a complex affair involving elements of the state, bureaucracy and armed forces from the recipient side, and manufacturers and the state from the supplier side. Such is the ubiquity in the process as well as larger understanding between the supplier and recipient that it most often leads to inconclusive consequences, if questions are raised about its intent or process. All the more reason such cases become more complicated when the suppliers and recipients are relatively self-sufficient and deficient, respectively, in their industrial capacities. The absence of clearly-defined processes, although claimed otherwise, as well as hazy national security considerations leave little scope for probity and accountability, although large public resources are appropriated by the state.

The contract for 36 Rafale fighter aircraft typifies a case of state relations in global politics. Consider this: India needs 350-plus fighters of different types for its fast depleting belly portion of its fighter fleet, leaving aside front line as well as tail, if its sanctioned strength of 42 squadrons is to be maintained. This itself is a huge market for foreign aerospace predators. If previous tender experiences are of any indication, the Americans, Russians, French, Europeans (consortium-led), Swedish are all geared up for a slice in the $300-billion Indian military aerospace market alone. It is not for nothing that Presidents and heads of governments of these countries visited simultaneously on some pretext or the other within a span of six months during 2010 when the technical trials of 126 MMRCA were under way. In the new Rafale deal, the same situation did not happen as it was a one-off decision by the Modi government.

The 36 Rafale deal can be argued either way—on one hand, it arouses suspicion because of lack of sufficient data available in public domain, and on the other it does not appear to have flouted basic procurement rules. Consider this: the way the deal was announced during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to France raised eyebrows. Such suspicion did not get reflected adequately in the mainstream media at that time (it is only in the last few months that the opposition parties have raised the issue). However, it can be argued that the deal did not flout any rule of the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) as there are provisions under the same DPP that empower a particular government to negotiate and sign one-off deals based on strategic considerations through inter-government agreements. Sections 104 and 105 (Inter-Government Agreement) and 106 (Procurement on Strategic Considerations) of DPP-2016 (pp 29-30) not only provide sufficient power to the state to negotiate and sign arms contracts of high-value systems based on strategic considerations, but also such contracts may not necessarily follow standard rules and procedures as mandated under the DPP. Accusations on flouting of rules can thus be countered by the state.

The 36 Rafale deal has three core aspects: price, technical details and process. In all three, the state can justify its stand (price does not matter under sections 104 and 105 of the DPP; technical details for obvious reasons cannot be disclosed; while process can take the usual route). However, broader aspects of such deals are subject to interpretations, which can unsettle the state if it fails to adequately address such issues. Here, three questions arise:
(1) Is Rafale a worthy product to be considered under ‘strategic considerations’?
(2) Is it going to enhance strategic strike capabilities of the IAF?
(3) Is the Indian industry (for example, Reliance Defence) going to benefit from offsets, and if so, how?
If the government fails to adequately answer the above issues, the deal could end up in favour of the supplier and the recipient state at the cost of domestic contractors and Indian taxpayers.

-The author is Director, Indike Analytics (OPC) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

The debate on the recent no-confidence motion in the Lok Sabha will long be remembered for two notables. One, reprehensible hug-and-wink antics of an immature leader. Two, serious allegations were levelled against the government as regards the probity of the Rafale deal. The first aspect concerns the dignity and decorum of the house; and the posterity will remember it with due repugnance. It is the second aspect that is of much graver concern. For, the Rafale deal, if embroiled in political slugfest, has the potential of harming India’s security and derailing the modernisation programme.

Broadly, the government has been accused of (i) declining to reveal details of the deal under the allegedly sham clause of secrecy; (ii) negotiating a costlier deal; and (iii) ignoring the public sector to favour a private Indian company. All are serious charges and merit scrutiny. To recall, on the urgent demand of IAF, tenders were issued for 126 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) in August 2007. While 18 aircraft were to be purchased in fully built up condition, the balance quantity was to be manufactured in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) under transfer of technology. After extensive trials, two platforms (Dassault’s Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon)  were found technically acceptable. Finally, Rafale emerged winner due to its lower life-cycle cost. The announcement was made on 31 January 2012 and contract negotiations commenced thereafter. By 2014, negotiations had reached a total impasse with no signs of possible breakthrough. In addition to overly escalating cost (from USD 10-12 billion to USD 25-30 billion), two other critical issues proved highly cantankerous. One, Dassault declined to stand guarantee for the 108 fighters to be built by HAL as it had found HAL to be totally incapable of producing ultra-modern fighters. Two, differences emerged regarding the interpretation of scope and depth of technology transfer. Reportedly, Dassault was ready to part with limited technology for licence manufacture only and not the design technology. With no solution in sight, the then Defence Minister Antony had decided to let the proposal die by default. Secrecy Clause It is an accepted fact that major defence deals between the two countries are an instrument of a nation’s foreign policy objectives. They do not take place in isolation and are invariably a part of a larger package agreed to between the two nations. Hence, it is incorrect to view them as standalone commercial contract. Needless to say, many commitments made as quid pro quo carry serious security implications and are never made public. India is buying Rafale as a complete fighting system and not just the platform. The real punch lies in the weaponry, avionics, electronics and radars that it carries. Operational capability of a strategic system depends on its configuration and it has to be closely guarded secret. No country reveals such details as the surprise element gets negated and the prospective enemies can initiate counter-measures in advance. It is strange that some knowledgeable experts are wanting the government to release an item-wise comparative cost table. Demand for transparency cannot be carried to such ridiculous limits. As regards the seller, France has already confirmed that it does not want to reveal the commercial terms of the deal as it has to market the product to other nations as well. Commercial confidentiality is inherent in all government to government deals. There is no MRP for the defence systems. Comparative Cost of the Negotiated Deal It is being alleged that the deal negotiated by Modi is at a much higher cost than the one under the UPA regime. It is quite a childish prank. How can one compare a non-deal with a deal. As stated earlier, the earlier negotiations never fructified due to fundamental disagreements. A non-starter aborted arrangement cannot be used as a datum for price comparison? In addition, the earlier quote was for the platform as such and the negotiations for the add-ons never reached conclusiveness. The current deal includes large number of India specific capabilities which no other aircraft possesses. To quote an example, the base model of a sedan may cost only 11 lacs while the price of the fully loaded top-end model with all features could well exceed 16 lacs. Can the two costs be compared? Favouring the Private Sector Company The government has been accused of favouring Anil Ambani’s Reliance group by ousting HAL. This is by far the most ridiculous allegation. One does not know whether it is sheer ignorance on the part of the critics or a deliberate plan with malicious motives. The current Rafale deal does not entail manufacture/assembly of the fighters in India. All 36 aircraft will be manufactured in France and delivered to India fully configured. Hence, the question of having an Indian production partner does not arise. Reliance is not going to manufacture any aircraft. Dassault has selected a number of Indian Offset Partners (IOP) to fulfil its offset obligations and Reliance is one of them, albeit a major one. Fulfilment of offset obligations entails compensating the buyer country for the outflow of its resources through designated offset programmes. India’s offset policy has been spelt out at Appendix D to Chapter II of the defence procurement procedure. Provisions related to the current discussion are as follows:- Quantum of Offsets. As per Para 2.2, all ‘Buy Global’ cases of estimated value of more than Rs 2,000 crores have to carry offset obligations equal to 30 percent of the contract value. Interestingly, India has managed to obtain offsets equal to 50 percent of the contract value, despite stiff opposition by the French. It is a huge gain as Dassault has to incur considerable additional expenditure to fulfil extra offset obligations. Selection of IOP. Para 4.3 unambiguously states that the foreign vendor is free to select IOP and the government has no role to play at all. Responsibility for Fulfilling Offsets. Para 5.1 categorically states that the foreign vendor will be responsible for the fulfilment of offset obligations. Failure invites huge penalty (five percent of the unfulfilled offset obligation with a cap of twenty percent) and even debarment from future contracts. It is a huge punishment by all accounts. Avenues for Discharge of Offset Obligations (Para 3). The policy specifies six avenues for the discharge of offset obligations and the foreign vendor is free to choose any one or a combination of them. The avenues include direct purchase of eligible products and services; FDI in joint ventures; and investment in kind/technology. Eligible products/services cover the complete range of defence, inland/coastal security and civil aerospace products. It is a vast choice. The above provisions make eminent sense. If the vendor is responsible for offsets, he must have independence to select IOP in whom he has faith. The government cannot dictate IOP and yet hold the vendor responsible for timely completion. Dassault has chosen Reliance as a major IOP. No one can question it. It needs to be recalled here that India signed a contract for 22 Apache attack helicopters and 15 Chinook heavy-lift choppers from the US with offset obligations. Boeing chose Tata Advanced Systems, Dynamatic Technologies, Rossel Techsys and many others as IOP. Hence, accusing the government of favouring Reliance in the Rafale deal defies logic. Finally In the case of large value deals, government to government route is by far the most cost effective with sovereign guarantees. In addition, the seller government provides logistic, training and exploitation support. Most importantly, there are no middlemen and no slush money. The Rafale deal is no exception. However, every attempt at acquiring game-changing defence capability is deliberately embroiled in controversies by disparate inimical forces. As has been seen in the past, controversies are deliberately generated by the losing competitors by planting negative stories through paid sources to coerce the decision makers into aborting the deal. In the case of Rafale deal, media reports suggest that the government is considering procurement of additional Rafale fighters, especially the naval version. Apparently, efforts are being made to deter the government from going ahead. The current storm being kicked may well be a manifestation of the same. It is also alleged that some corporate entities are purposely targeted by the politicians to extort election funds. Every move to induct private sector in defence production is opposed tooth and nail by the public sector. Past performance of HAL has been dismal. With a view to develop alternate facilities for aerospace manufacture in the private sector, the UPA government had initiated a proposal for the manufacture of transport aircraft by a private sector entity in collaboration with a foreign vendor. Tata-Airbus combine was finally selected. Threatened by the entry of the private sector into its monopolistic domain, HAL cleverly converted the above proposal into a private sector versus public sector war. The proposal has since been lying mired in bureaucratic quandary and no further progress has been made. Every effort to integrate the private sector is thwarted by the patrons of the public sector. In the same vein, in the Rafale case, one has seen some conniving media personnel deceitfully claiming that HAL has been replaced by Reliance. To criticise and fault the government is fully justified provided the facts support allegations. It is grossly unfair to invent wild allegations, in the hope that some accusations may stick. False accusations to score brownie points vitiate the environment and India’s defence modernisation suffers. Even the boldest and the most conscientious leaders and officers fear subsequent enquiries. The media must certainly highlight acts of corruption and misdemeanours but it is not necessary to fault every defence deal. Anti-government posturing should not degenerate into anti-national rhetoric.

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, PhD, commanded an Engineer Regiment on the Siachen Glacier, the most hostile battlefield in the world. A highly qualified officer (B Tech, MA (Public Administration), MSc (Defence Studies) and a Doctorate in Public Administration) he was also the Task Force Commander at Pokhran and was responsible for designing and sinking shafts for the nuclear tests of May 1998.

Read more at: http://www.sify.com/news/rafale-and-the-reliance-conundrum-news-columns-sh5i7Ihaffbac.html
Read more at: http://www.sify.com/news/rafale-and-the-reliance-conundrum-news-columns-sh5i7Ihaffbac.html

Amit Khajuria

Tribune News Service

Jammu, July 27

Despite having the required infrastructure, the Jammu airport is still waiting for the permission from the Indian Air Force (IAF) to operate during night.The Srinagar airport, however, recently got the IAF nod for night flights.The Jammu airport, which had been ranked as the 27th busiest airports of the country, is having a hard time managing heavy rush during peak hours. The airport caters to more than 4,000 passengers on a daily basis in 40 (arrival and departure) flights.The airport starts its operations after 9.30 am and the last flight takes off before 4.30 pm. No commercial flights are allowed to operate beyond the allotted time.The local IAF station controls the air traffic of the airport and it does not allow the authorities to operate during night.“We have the required infrastructure to operate flights during night,” said DK Goutam, director, Jammu airport. “To seek permission from the IAF, we need flight schedules of the airline companies which are willing to operate during night hours,” he said.Goutam said in the last meeting of the airport advisory committee held in February this year, it was decided that various airlines would be requested to the send their schedules for night flights. However, no airlines have come forward with their schedules even after six months, he added.

Time and again, successive governments have given assurances of implementing a proper one rank and one pension system as per the veterans demands but they have not got OROP which they asked for. When you will read their story, you will feel ashamed to call yourself Indian. We bring a detailed analysis of what OROP is and why it has not be implemented and still the lies have been spread that OROP has been given after 40 years. In the words of Rajnath Singh when he was giving the speech during the no confidence motion event, he said OROP was granted by the government and it was followed by a clap. May be Hon PM and RM are in the impression that they have provided OROP for the jawans but let us learn from a Retd Major(who has been fighting for veterans cause now from a long time) what exactly is OROP and that was not being given to the ex service man, many of them fought for us in wars of 62, 65 and 71. If it cannot be done now then when?

Major AK Dhanapalan (Rtd) writes the pain of an ex service man. They have been totally blacked by the media now(in order to make us believe that OROP has been granted) and they still are protesting at Jantar Mantar.

OROP – A Himalayan Blunder

( OROP to Veterans and Widows of the Indian Armed Forces and related issues )

Propaganda is being made in the media to create an impression that OROP has been given and all ESMs are happy with it. If so, it need to be explained:-

a) As to Why there are too many Court Cases?. And why from Sepoys to General Officers are to knock the doors of the Judiciary, if the Govt machinery as well as the Ex-servicemen organizations are functioning properly. ?

b) And why the Govt loose all the cases giving a direct indication that their approach is NOT correct . ?

c) But why the judgments are NOT being implemented?

d) And why, to save the face of certain crooked officials, the Govt is forced to appeal against these ex-servicemen in Supreme Court spending huge public money only to loose the cases again ? Is it NOT a conspiracy in the MOD officials to harass the poor jawans and claim huge amount towards TA/DA, engaging private advocates and other misc expenses apart from wasting office time of such officials . ? All at the cost of Ex-servicemen Welfare..!

e) Is it NOT demoralizing the Armed Forces Personnel as a whole apart from financial and social aspect being faced by them ?

An attempt is also being made to equate the Armed Forces with that of civilian central Govt employees. On One hand the Armed Forces Personnel are being equated with that of Civilian employees, but on the other hand certain privileges availed by the civilian employees are denied to the Armed Forces Personnel. For example, NFU being granted to Gp A Civilians are not extended to the Armed Forces in spite of Directions of the Courts. Cadre review (Promotions), Deputations, age for retirement, right to have unions etc are some of the examples.

If the Armed Forces personnel are to be treated at par with that of civilian employees on the basis of basic pay (allowances, status etc) other terms and conditions applicable to Civilian Employees should be equally applied to the AF Personnel.

Equation of pension calculation with that of civilian employees i.e. 50% of Pay last drawn suits only to those ESMs who retire on completion of 58/60 years of age.

This injustice has been done when the jawans are to retire at an early age when his basic pay is very very less compared to Civilian Employees who have number of years service ahead for more promotions and more Pay Commission benefits and reach a very higher pay and get higher pension. This amount is the basis for all considerations after retirement of a person whether it is DA, pay commission benefits etc., ESM community is in a very disadvantage state. If at all this 50% is to be applied, justice demand that their pay(with promotion, pay commission benefits etc) also to be notionally stepped up to make at par with the civilians who retire at the age of 60 yrs. OR ESM who are to be retire at a very early age should treated at par with the VRS OR to be treated as retrenched personnel eligible to get immediate available appointment in the Govt service without coming through PSC/Employment Exchanges OR there should be a separate package of pay . One reason being pushed is that weightage was given. This is absolutely do not carry any merit. Reason being

(a) No change in the calculation i.e. 50% of last pay drawn is given

(b) it is to compensate 33 years requirement which is not correct. 33 years was stipulated to civ employees whose retirement age is 58/60 years. Since the jawans are to retire at the age of 35-40 this requirement of 33 years cannot be stipulated. Hence the weightage was an eye-wash. The present retires only get 50% of the last pay drawn. They do not get compensation for the early retirement. No one seems to realize the tress and mental agony caused by such an early retirement and befooling them in the pension calculations.

In all fairness ex-servicemen deserve a fair deal and should have been given a “MEANINGFUL RESETTLEMENT PACKAGE” in addition to the pension for the sacrifices they made for the safety and integrity of the Country.

The One Rank One Pension (OROP) sanctioned by the Govt of India , Min of Def, Dept of EX-Servicemen Welfare Vide No.12(1)/2014/D/(Pen/Pol)-Part II dtd 7th Nov 2015, says which I quote “OROP implies that uniform pension be paid to the Defence Forces Personnel retiring in the same rank with same length of service, regardless of their date of retirement , which implies, bridging the gap between the rates of pension of current and past pensioners at periodic intervals.” Unquote. This is precisely what has been done by the 7th CPC in the case of Civilian Employees, where in only the method adopted is stepping up the pay notionally to bring them at par with those of 2016 employees and revise the pension, here also the intention is to bridge the gap between the current and past pensioners. In other words, both are one at the same. Although this order for Armed Forces has been named as OROP, but this has nothing to do with the OROP, and mischievously used to confuse the issue.

However the difference is that;-

the financial implication for implementing the OROP for Jawans after a great deal of discussion and committees for years, has come to a conclusion that it would be around Rs.8 to 10 thousand Crs .

This amount is said to be a great burden to the Govt and after a long debate decided to pay the arrears in 4 (four) installments.

Apart from that , anomalies in the order which was too many, to be referred to a committee which was required to submit its report within 6 months has not seen the light even today, after 2 years.

The anomalies are still existing and the payments as per 7th CPC could not be made to the ESMs in full so far.

All these actions were to create an impression that much more than what is deserving have been given to the Ex-servicemen .

On top of it, the statement made in public functions that “OROP has been granted at the cost of poor farmers”, is an insult to the Armed Forces Personnel.

On the contrary, in the case of civilian pensioners, the similar decision to bridge the gap between the current and past retires have been fully implemented , financial implication for this is estimated to be nearly Rs. One Lakh Cr and approved with just only 15 mts discussion. The Arrears were paid in full and NOT installments.

Not only such insult and down gradation has been made, but also an attempt is being made to project the OROP as the one meant to compensate for the early retirement. There is reason to believe that the H’ble Prime Minister and the RM are being misinformed to the extent that the OROP is the one which is intended to compensate for the early retirement and is as per the demand of the -Ex-servicemen since last 40 years and most of the ex-servicemen fraternity are happy with the present OROP. This may be the reason why every time the leaders proudly say that OROP which was pending for the past 40 years have now been given to our jawans. This is factually NOT correct and misleading. This is similar to the cheating of“ Rank Pay” case gtd in 1986, created by the MOD officials. In fact, not only the OROP has not been given but also The ex-servicemen as well as the General public are being fooled using wrong propaganda.

In this connection I must mention here the findings of the 142nd Report of the Rajya Sabha committee on petitions dt 19/11/2011, extract of which is given below:(Page 2)