During its recent deployment in Haryana, the Army was constrained to carry placards to identify itself since all Central Armed Police Forces (CASF) wear army-like uniforms, virtually making it indistinguishable from the others. The Army is the last pillar of state authority and it must inspire respect and awe in the citizens and fear in the enemies/rioters. If the CASF and others dress like the army, the latter loses its identity and with it this vital element of awe and fear.  The Army authorities must convince the central government to prohibit wearing of the army-like uniforms by the others. Even the Indian Penal Code makes wearing army-like uniforms a criminal offence.

Brig Harwant Singh (Retd), Mohali

PUBLISHED Today 27 Feb in The Tribune

The panel, in its report, has criticised the defence services for passing such orders in, essentially, what are private matrimonial disputes. –

The Army, Navy and the Air Force Acts provide that the competent authority can impose a cut upto 33 per cent on pay and allowances which can be paid to the wife as maintenance on her application.

A panel of experts of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has slammed the defence services for passing orders granting maintenance allowance to wives of military personnel from their salaries, especially in Army, without due investigation and scrutiny.

The panel, in its report, has criticised the defence services for passing such orders in, essentially, what are private matrimonial disputes. The Army, Navy and the Air Force Acts provide that the competent authority can impose a cut upto 33 per cent on pay and allowances which can be paid to the wife as maintenance on her application. With growing matrimonial disputes, the number of such applications has increased in the last few years especially with the Army granting maintenance to the spouses on almost all applications through non-speaking orders without providing reasons.

An expert committee constituted by the Defence Minister on litigation has however observed that the exceptional provisions are being invoked in a routine manner by defence authorities. It has also found that the system does not have the wherewithal or ability to examine the veracity or truthfulness of the allegations and counter-allegations of both parties which is basically a matter of evidence that can only be weighed and dealt with by civil courts under law legislated for this specific purpose. The panel has said that this exercise can only be carried out under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the relevant Marriage Acts, rather than the defence services getting into what may fundamentally be a civil or private dispute between a husband and his wife. The panel has also observed that even the Army HQ has expressed concern on the issue and that maintenance is meant to tide over a difficult financial situation and not to lead life on someone else’s expense. It has recorded that the award of maintenance results in grave civil consequences for an individual wherein a cut is imposed on his pay and should be taken as a serious matter and not routine. Moreover, it may not be initiated on the fact whether the spouse is working or not but whether she has the capacity to work or not, further adding that a situation cannot be allowed to prevail wherein an otherwise qualified/educated spouse stops working or refuses to take up a job in order to claim maintenance. The Panel has stated that though defence personnel have a bounden duty to maintain their families, such issues should be left to Courts to decide based on evidence. Surprised at the acceptance of an unusually high number of applications by the Army, the committee has questioned, “does it mean that it was found that out of the total applications received, such a high percentage of officers were found wanting in their familial and marital obligations? If yes, then what were the tools available to reach that conclusion?” There has been a rise of litigation on the subject in the past. Recently, a Lt Col had averred that his wife held a Doctorate and also working in a real estate firm but still was awarded maintenance by the Army. Another officer had stated that his wife had a degree of MSc as well as BEd and was earning a huge amount from tuitions and he had elderly parents to look after but still deduction of arrears of maintenance had resulted in disbursement of more than Rs 30,000 to the wife per month while he was being disbursed a amount of just Rs 6000. Another serving Colonel had stated that was being expected put his earnings at the disposal of his wife who was fully qualified and competent to work and was actually working.

New Delhi: The Seventh Pay Commission award becomes boon for central government employees, is not going to be implemented before the implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP).

Pakistan’s Supreme Court on Friday ruled that only Pervez Musharraf should be tried for treason for subverting the Constitution in 2007, one day after the former president went to court to seek permission to go abroad for medical treatment. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Asif Saeed Khosa set aside a special court’s order calling for re-investigation of the high treason case against Musharraf. High treason is punishable with death if proved. Musharraf has pleaded non-guilty. The SC accepted former chief justice Abdul Hameed Dogar’s appeal to exclude him from the investigation into the treason case launched against Musharraf in 2013 for imposing emergency in 2007, when he was president.

Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar. Reuters file photo

United Nations, April 2

Clinging to its pro-Pakistan stance, China has asserted that JeM chief and Pathankot terror attack mastermind Masood Azhar does not qualify to be nailed as a “terrorist” to face UN sanctions as his case “did not meet” the Security Council’s requirements.

“Any listing would have to meet the requirements” for blacklisting, Chinese Permanent Representative to the UN Liu Jieyi told reporters yesterday in response to questions over China’s decision to place a ‘technical hold’ on designating Azhar in the UN Sanctions Committee.

“It is the responsibility of all members of the council to make sure that these requirements are followed,” he said, but gave no further details.

Liu’s comments came on a day when China, one of the five permanent members of the 15-nation Council, assumed the rotating presidency of the UNSC for April.

India has reacted strongly to China’s blocking of its bid at the UN to ban the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief, saying that the sanctions committee was taking a “selective approach” in tackling terrorism.

In Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei on Friday defended China’s decision, saying that it acts on such issues based on facts and rules in an “objective and just manner”.

“We always deal with the listing issue (banning militant groups and their leaders) under the UN Security Council committee established under resolution 1267 based on facts and relevant rules of procedures in an objective and just manner.

“The Chinese side has always been in communication with relevant parties on the listing issue,” he said, hinting that China is also in touch with India on the issue.

India yesterday said it is disappointed that a “technical hold” has been put on its application to include Azhar in the UN sanctions list, terming the move “incomprehensible” that this is despite the JeM being listed in the UN Security Council Committee as far back as 2001 for its known terror activities and links to al-Qaeda.

This is not the first time China has blocked India’s bid to get Pakistan-based militant groups and leaders proscribed by the UN.

The UN had banned the JeM in 2001 but India’s efforts for a ban on Azhar after the 2008 Mumbai terror attack also did not fructify as China, which has veto powers, did not allow the ban apparently at the behest of Pakistan again.

Last July, China had similarly halted India’s move in the UN to take action against Pakistan for its release of Mumbai terror attack mastermind Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, saying that its stand was “based on facts and in the spirit of objectiveness and fairness”, with Beijing again claiming at the time that it was in touch with New Delhi. — PTI

Activists carry placards of the chief of Jaish-e-Mohammad, Maulana Masood Azhar, during a protest against the attack on the Air Force base in Pathankot, in Mumbai on January 4, 2016. — AFP

Beijing, April 1

China on Friday defended its decision to once again block India’s bid at the UN to ban Jaish-e-Mohammad chief and mastermind of the Pathankot terror attack Masood Azhar, saying that it acts on such issues based on facts and rules in an “objective and just manner”.

Asked about China’s reported last minute move putting a technical hold on India’s submission, which Indian officials say was armed with strong evidence of the JeM’s terror activities and its role in the Pathankot attack, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said here that China “supports UN playing a central and coordinating role in international cooperation against terrorism”.

“We always deal with the listing issue (banning militant groups and their leaders) under the UN Security Council Committee established under resolution 1267 based on facts and relevant rules of procedures in an objective and just manner,” he said.

“The Chinese side has always been in communication with relevant parties on the listing issue,” he said, hinting that China is also in touch with India on the issue.

This is not the first time China has blocked India’s bid to get Pakistan-based militant groups and leaders proscribed by the UN.

The UN had banned the JeM in 2001 but India’s efforts for a ban on Azhar after the 2008 Mumbai terror attack also did not fructify as China, one of the five permanent members of the UN group with veto powers, didn’t allow the ban apparently at the behest of Pakistan again.

Last July, China had similarly halted India’s move in the UN to take action against Pakistan for its release of Mumbai terror attack mastermind Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, saying that its stand was “based on facts and in the spirit of objectiveness and fairness” with Beijing again claiming at the time that it was in touch with New Delhi.

Stating that China is opposed to all forms of terrorism, Hong said “China has also taken active part in international counter-terrorism corporation”.

To another question about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s comments at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington yesterday that the world community should “drop the notion that terrorism is someone else’s problem and that ‘his’ terrorist is not ‘my’ terrorist,” Hong said “China opposes double standards on the issue of terrorism”.

“We believe that all parties should enhance communication in a bid to forge counter-terrorism synergy to work together with entire international community, including India, to jointly fight against the threat of terrorism and safeguard peace and stability of the region and beyond,” he said. — PTI