Members of the Ex-Central Paramilitary Forces’ Welfare Association raise slogans during a protest against the Central government in Jammu on Wednesday. Tribune Photo: Inderjeet Singh

Jammu, June 7

The Ex-Central Paramilitary Forces’ Welfare Association today alleged that the Central government was not interested in giving one rank, one pension (OROP) benefits to the paramilitary forces.In a meeting held under the chairmanship of its president Shashi Kumar Sharma, the association worked out a strategy to approach the Centre. The association said the OROP was for defence forces and not for the paramilitary forces.“Regarding the OROP, the Government of India said nothing in favour of former personnel of Central paramilitary forces. Injustice has been done to us by not granting us OROP. From jawans to generals of defence forces, all are pursuing their matter vigorously but the Directors General of the paramilitary forces are maintaining a silence on it,” a statement of the association said.Others who were present on the occasion included DK Chohan, Gurbachan Singh, Dalip Singh, Noor Mohammad, Ramnat Saini, Kamlesh Kumari, Ashok Kumar and Vijay Kumar. — TNS

Soldiers taking positions during a search operation in a forest area outside the Air Force base in Pathankot. File photo

New Delhi, April 16

A parliamentary panel has rapped intelligence agencies for the terror attacks in Pathankot, Uri and a few other places saying these strikes “exposed the deficiencies” of the agencies but there was no analysis of their “failure”.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, headed by senior Congress leader P Chidambaram, said a year had passed since the January 2, 2016, terror attack at the Indian Air Force station in Pathankot but the probe has not been completed by the National Investigation Agency.

Moreover, it said, no analysis seems to have been done of the “failure” of the intelligence agencies to provide credible and actionable inputs regarding the attacks at Pathankot, Uri, Pampore, Baramulla and Nagrota.

“The committee feels that these attacks have exposed the deficiencies of our intelligence agencies,” it said.

While in the Pathankot attack, seven security personnel were killed, 19 army soldiers lost their lives in the attack at the Brigade headquarters in Uri on September 18 last year.

Terrorists also attacked a convoy of CRPF vehicles on June 25, 2016, at Pampore along the Srinagar-Jammu highway, killing eight paramilitary personnel.

While in Baramulla district of Jammu and Kashmir, militants attacked a camp of the Rashtriya Rifles killing a security personnel on October 3, 2016, seven soldiers were killed when an Army base in Nagrota in the state was attacked by militants on November 29, 2016.

“The committee, therefore, recommends that the (Home) ministry should instruct the NIA to complete the investigations of these attacks at the earliest so as to identify the loopholes in the intelligence setup in the border areas,” it said.

Taking note of “huge rise” in the number of infiltration, the committee said the government must carry out a thorough investigation into the sudden spurt in infiltration attempts along the Line of Control from across the border and find out vulnerabilities that are being apparently exploited by the infiltrators.

There were 364 attempts of infiltration in 2016 of which 112 were successful in comparison to 121 infiltration attempts and 33 net infiltration in 2015.

The committee also noted that there has been an increasing number of incidents of infiltration through tunnels from across the border.

The panel felt that in future this might become a major modus operandi of the infiltrators and the government must take proactive steps to foil such attempts.

“The committee recommends that the ministry must explore technological solutions for tunnel detection in border areas and should seek the help of other countries which have successfully developed tunnel detection systems,” it said. — P

Imphal, June 3

Three Assam Rifles jawans were on Saturday injured in a blast near the Indo-Myanmar border in Manipur’s Tengnoupal district, police said.The bomb, suspected to be an Improvised Explosive Device (IED), exploded at the junction of H Mongjang village and Imphal-Moreh road, about 100 km from Imphal, at about 2.15 pm when an Assam Rifle patrol party was moving on foot.Three jawans — Subedar Sher Ram, and Riflemen Sachin and Basumatari — were injured, police said.All three were airlifted by an Air Force helicopter to the military hospital at Leimakhong. — PTI

Kulbhushan Jadhav

New Delhi, April 16

India on Sunday said it was yet to get a response from Pakistan on its demand for a certified copy of the chargesheet as well as the military court order awarding death sentence to the retired Indian Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav.

“We have sought from the Foreign Ministry (of Pakistan) a certified copy of the chargesheet as well as the judgment in the death sentence of Jadhav, but there is no response yet from Pakistan’s side,” MEA spokesperson Gopal Baglay told reporters.

India had already announced that it would appeal against the death sentence to Jadhav.

Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad, Gautam Bambawale, had met Pakistan Foreign Secretary Tehmina Janjua on Friday in connection with the case and demanded a certified copy of the chargesheet and the judgment, besides consular access to Jadhav.

“India made the demand for the two documents on Friday when the Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad met the Pakistan Foreign Secretary,” said Baglay, replying to a question on the issue.

The death sentence to Jadhav, 46, was confirmed by Pakistan army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa after the Field General Court Martial found him guilty of “espionage and sabotage activities” in Pakistan.

Pakistan claims its security forces had arrested Jadhav from the restive Balochistan province on March 3 last year after he reportedly entered from Iran. It also claimed that he was “a serving officer in the Indian Navy”.

The Pakistan Army had also released a “confessional video” of Jadhav after his arrest.

However, India denied Pakistan’s contention and maintained that Jadhav was kidnapped by the Pakistan authorities.

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj had warned that Jadhav’s execution would be taken by India as a “pre-meditated murder” and Pakistan should “consider its consequences” on bilateral relations, if it proceeds on this matter. — PTI

The FIR names a Brigadier but his name has not been included in the list of accused.

New Delhi, June 3

The CBI has arrested a Lt Colonel and a middleman in connection with an alleged transfer racket at the Army headquarters here in which lakhs of rupees were paid by Army officers to manipulate their postings.

Lt Col Ranganathan Suvramani Moni, posted in the personnel division of the Army, and middleman Gaurav Kohli were arrested while an alleged bribe of Rs 2 lakh was changing hands for the transfer of a Bengaluru-based officer, CBI sources said on Saturday.

(Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)

The investigating agency had learnt of the illicit activities of some Army officers and laid a trap to arrest the two men.

The agency busted the racket involving senior Army officers posted at its headquarters here. They were allegedly giving choice postings for “huge illegal gratification” which ran into lakhs for a single transfer, sources said.

The expose is bound to send ripples in the Army as some more senior officers are suspected to be involved in the case, CBI sources said.

The FIR also names Brigadier S K Grover, DDG Personnel, but his name has not been included in the list of accused.

The case has been registered against Moni, Hyderabad- based army officer Purshottam, Bengaluru-based barracks and stores officer (BSO) S. Subhas and alleged middleman Gaurav Kohli.

The bribe was being paid through hawala channels, the CBI FIR alleged. The agency is also probing how Army officers were ready to pay lakhs of rupees to get a posting of their choice.

It is alleged that Moni entered into a criminal conspiracy with Kohli and Purshottam, an army officer posted in the engineer stores department (ESD), Kakinara, for influencing the transfer of various officers.

Purshottam allegedly contacted army officers who were either posted in different field formations or faced imminent transfer and were desirous of getting posted to their preferred locations.

He used to contact Kohli, who was close to senior officers in the personnel division of the army headquarters here.

Kohli used these contacts to pursue transfers of army officers in lieu of huge illegal gratification, the FIR said.

Purshottam allegedly requested Kohli to pursue the posting of one D S R K Reddy and Subhas in exchange for a huge bribe, it claimed. Both wanted to be posted from Bengaluru to Secunderabad or Visakhapatnam.

Moni assured he would help getting Subhas transferred through a senior officers in the Army headuquarters against payment of illegal gratification, it alleged.

Subhas allegedly delivered Rs 5 lakh as bribe to Kohli through hawala operators. “…Kohli visited residence of…Moni and conducted a meeting with some senior officers at the army headquarter in Delhi. Information also reveal that…Moni is in contact with Brigadier SK Grover DDG (Personnel) of Army Headquarter for the transfer matter of Subhas,” the CBI FIR stated.

It is alleged that Rs 2 lakh was to be paid by Kohli to Moni for Subhas’ transfer. —PTI

Kulbhushan Jadhav

Simran Sodhi

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, April 13

India and Pakistan today hardened their stance on the death sentence awarded to Kulbhushan Jadhav. Pakistan alleges he is an Indian spy, while India maintains he is “innocent”.India reiterated that if Pakistan went ahead with the death sentence, it would amount to a pre-meditated murder.The Ministry of External Affairs said it has no information on Jadhav’s location in Pakistan or his condition, noting that it was in touch with the government there on this “immensely important” issue.In Islamabad, top military generals held a meeting and decided there would be no “compromise” on the death sentence awarded to Jadhav. Sources say India is exploring options, both soft and hard, for ensuring that Jadhav is brought back home.(Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)The rift within Pakistan between the civilian government headed by PM Nawaz Sharif and Army Chief Gen Qamar Bajwa is also evident. Rawalpindi barracks seem to have taken the initiative and are leading the discourse on the issue. Today’s corps commanders’ conference in Islamabad was presided over by Gen Bajwa, the military’s media wing Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) said.The generals were briefed about Jadhav and it was concluded that “no compromise shall be made on such anti-state acts”, the statement said. The Ministry of External Affairs put the ball firmly in Pakistan’s court, calling in question the legality of the sentence and in essence harping on two facts. One: If Jadhav was indeed a spy, why would he be carrying an Indian passport ? Two: Pakistan’s obstinate insistence to not grant India consular access violates international norms and raises questions on the authenticity of charges.“Consular access is usually expeditiously granted,” MEA spokesperson Gopal Baglay said. “We need to verify how this gentleman got to Pakistan; we don’t know the circumstances of his presence in Pakistan. For that we need to meet him which is part of international law,” he added. Meanwhile, Pakistan claimed “foreign spy agencies”, may have “trapped” and then abducted Lt Col Muhammad Habib Zahir who disappeared on April 6 from Lumbini, a Buddhist pilgrimage site near India’s border town of Sonauli. Pakistan was in touch with Nepal to trace him.

In the second and concluding article, The Tribune examines the need to do away with historical legacies and well-worn procedures as well as develop the fortitude to accept setbacks. Only a radical departure from all past practices may have the potential to help defence manufacturing stand on its feet.

ARMS & SELF-RELIANCE: A tank and weapons on display at Parliament House. The DRDO organised a defence exhibition of tanks, Brahmos missiles & other equipment to mark 70 years of Independence. PTI

THE natural expectation is that government should do what it takes to achieve a breakthrough in defence manufacturing.  Every new political executive discovers the strength of tradition and of the constituencies in favour of the status quo, as well as the inherently conservative nature of all bureaucracies which are comfortable only with incremental changes. Fortunately, a strong government enjoying continuing popular support with a growing nationalistic fervour should be able to take big decisions and implement them. There are complex issues to grapple with and difficult decisions to be taken.In most technology and capital-intensive segments only one national entity can be supported to become strong enough to give autonomous capability. In the case of Europe, countries chose to consolidate their national air industries in European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS). After many years and considerable public spending, EADS succeeded in developing a real competitor to Boeing in the Airbus. In the Eurofighter, they developed a world-class military plane. Hence, taking a clear view of the optimal industry structure 10 to 15 years down the road and the future of the present set of ordnance factories and the defence PSUs in different segments is unavoidable.  Since the economic reform process began, large PSUs have ceded space to new private sector entrants and become white elephants where now they can neither be privatised as they have no value, nor can they be closed because of the large workforce. Air India and BSNL are good examples. Is it desirable to replicate this? Is corporatisation of ordnance factories doable? Is greater professionalisation and empowerment along with gradual disinvestment to create, say, an equivalent of Boeing/Dassault in HAL, an option worth pursuing? Is strategic divestment to suitable Indian private firms with proven manufacturing ability a viable option and, if so, in which segments?  Would having private strategic partners for a few platforms while leaving the rest of the system untouched, as seems to be under way now, the best way to go forward? Would it not be prudent to choose strategic partners only with proven manufacturing abilities, or, this is not relevant if there is sufficient financial depth? What safeguards, if any, are required in the eventuality of non-performance by chosen strategic partners? There are no easy answers. Taking a hard-headed view on these questions is necessary and is the intrinsic burden of leadership. The implication of having private sector entry and at the same time continuing with the public sector for the same platforms needs to be thought through. To illustrate, having many aircraft and helicopter manufacturing facilities, where only final assembly, controlled by foreign technology providers, is undertaken in India, without any real technological ability to develop new models growing in one organisation to become a world-class national player, would not serve the real purpose.  There may be some less capital-intensive segments where genuine competition over time may be feasible and desirable. A rational calculated view needs to be taken on weapon systems where India should try and have one world-class player and where it can afford two players. This is equally relevant for sub-assemblies and components which are the actual building blocks and usually do not get the attention they deserve.Then, there is the widely prevalent view in the Armed Forces that the DRDO has not yet given them weapons that they would really like to use whether it is the LCA or the battle tank. In any case, whatever has been developed is an assembly of primarily imported engines, sub systems and parts. So, does it make sense to write off whatever has been done and accept failure? Or, is the ability to design and develop a weapon platform even with imported sub-systems, not a significant enough achievement which should give confidence that succeeding rounds of development of newer versions are bound to be better?  Does it not then make sense to continue from what has been achieved and see what more is needed to produce  newer versions which appear good enough to the armed forces? Should such development not be funded and undertaken continuously to develop systems which may be equivalent to what is being used by the forces now and as a potential supplement, in the first instance? Is the present system of having a centralised DRDO responsible for technology and system development with production enterprises making only modest efforts in research and development, optimal? Or, having different verticals with responsibility for both platform development and production, as is the case with all western defence firms, a better model with the advantages of clear focus, accountability, incentives and rewards? Could not the successful experience of ISRO and Atomic Energy of working in genuine development partnerships with Indian firms to develop almost all that they needed to overcome the handicap of the international technology denial regime be replicated?  Should PPPs in system and technology development as well as manufacturing be pursued?    Could the armed forces moderate their expectations by lowering the bar to have, not the best in class in the world, but what is good enough for what our northern and western neighbours possess? (From this perspective, many have argued that even the present LCA is good enough.)  Willingness to lower the bar also increases competition as well as the ability to seek a higher degree of technology transfer for new systems needed now and which have to be necessarily procured internationally. Since the procurement system is tied to procedure and paranoid about any deviation from what is set out in the beginning, negotiating the best terms for technology transfer is not permitted.  As a result, India is unable to even begin making full use of the window of opportunity which is now there, with the US making India a major defence partner for technology transfer. Every procurement process should have the bjectives of getting what the forces need and maximise national technological ability and reduce future import dependence. A good Indian experience to recall is that of Maruti. Through a search and negotiation process, Suzuki was chosen as the technology and equity partner. A smaller player, it was willing to go the farthest in technology transfer and genuine partnership. Maruti selected vendors in a fair manner very quickly, but not through the rigid price-bidding process the only permissible route today. Vendors were helped with technology tie-ups and became long-term partners and suppliers with periodic negotiated price revisions. Maruti, like other global car companies, undertook only final assembly.  The outcome exceeded expectations. India was able to evolve a globally competitive private sector national auto-component industry. It is now a leading global hub for competitive small car manufacturing. On the international scene many firms, with frontline platforms, critical sub-assemblies, or materials/components, do not see much of a commercial future with declining defence budgets in their countries. They may be willing to part with technology, go in for genuine joint-venture partnerships, and even be available for acquisition — presenting an opportunity for technological leapfrogging. An empowered, bold leadership, acting strategically to create medium-term national capabilities is required to take a holistic view of procurement for specific needs, along with technology development and acquisition. An altogether different paradigm of decision making needs to be put in place. Without this, it is unlikely to make progress in defence manufacturing at the speed that is needed and also possible. (Concluded)The writer is former Secretary DIPP, Govt of India.

India-Pakistan Hostility: America’s
Good Intentions May Not Reflect Ground Realities
SNAPSHOT
Nikki Haley’s proposal to mediate is actually loud thinking about what the US may wish to see in the near future.

The Trump Administration may be attempting to change policies, which it may feel have not delivered. But the degree of sensitivity of issues must be central to such policies.

Noble may be the intent of a big power to bring estranged neighbours, anywhere in the world, to the negotiating table. However, if that is done without realistic assessment of the ground situation and without considering the likely immediate response, the effort would be doomed to failure. One cannot be unfair to a nation such as the US because its institutional understanding of the international security environment is usually up to date. Yet its actions may not always support its thinking.

The context here is the statement of Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations, about a proposal to mediate between India and Pakistan and stabilise the potential conflict situation in South Asia; something which has seen many critical moments in the last 28 years. The statement reads:

“It’s absolutely right that this administration is concerned about the relationship between India and Pakistan and very much wants to see how we de-escalate any sort of conflict going forward. I would expect that the [Trump] administration is going to be in talks and try and find its place to be a part of that because it’s concerned about the situation”.
It has to be assumed that Ambassador Haley was referring to US mediation and not merely facilitation because other parts of her statement did refer to the administration’s intent to be proactive about preventing the bubbling over of conflicts, with even the President personally involved.

Pakistan, of course, was quick to respond by welcoming the statement, forgetting that it is a signatory to the Shimla Agreement of 1972, which lays down bilateralism as the only means to problem resolution with India. India’s spokesman Gopal Bagley, an old Pakistan hand, clearly rejected the idea. Pakistani media made it out to be a result of the five-day visit of Indian National Security Adviser (NSA) Ajit Doval to Washington where purportedly discussions on Pakistan, its terrorist problem and nuclear weapons were held with a number of high-ranking officials.

So what has actually triggered the sudden rush of blood to look towards reversal of a policy which has been followed to the tee by at least three previous administrations on the trot? The State Department has seldom given credence to rants by Pakistan at the UN General Assembly sessions or any other international gatherings, but to think that Pakistan’s importance is in any way insignificant to the US scheme of things would be a half truth. Pakistan’s geo-strategic location bears tremendous importance for the US. It controls the access to the heart of Asia and the reverse access to the Indian Ocean. It flanks both Afghanistan and Iran, two countries the US has deep interests in, in different ways.

However, the real importance of Pakistan is in the negative. The more it is in confrontation mode with India, chasing a charade and a dream of wresting Jammu and Kashmir through its avowed strategy of ‘a thousand cuts’, the more it ties itself in knots. Its pursuance of perceived interests both at borders and in neighbouring territories has led it to adopt the notorious policy of friendly and unfriendly terrorists, employing the former as strategic assets. To add to it are its infirm democratic credentials and a military which rules the roost and takes all the strategic decisions.

The US analysts have for long worried about the state of security of the nuclear arsenal reputed to be fourth largest in the world with its control in military hands. But all this has been known for long and it’s for these very reasons that the US policymakers have treated Pakistan with kid gloves, ensuring they do not push it over the top. They need it for the logistics route to Afghanistan and for the stabilisation efforts there. They also need US influence over it to prevent it completely playing to the Chinese tune.

In fact, if there is any plausible reason for alarm bells in Washington forcing some rethink, it could be the recent parleys between Russia, China and Pakistan; reportedly for the purpose of stabilising Afghanistan. The US is looking for a way to remaining more relevant in South Asia at a time when other big powers appear to be stealing a march. Should it therefore be presumed that the US is insufficiently enthused by its emerging strategic partnership with India?

A better explanation may be the necessity for a super power to balance its options far better than to put all eggs into one basket; it does make strategic sense from a US standpoint, after all, the investment in Pakistan’s stability has been costly and over quite a long time. That should not in any way put off Indian policymakers, who are known to be pragmatic and comprehensive in thinking. The importance of the US-India strategic partnership cannot be dented by such actions.

The only other perceivable trigger appears to be the high profile status suddenly occupied by the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), its operationalisation considered by many as the most strategic event for long. There is no doubt that it gives Pakistan a confidence boost with talk of the current 5 per cent being converted to 7 per cent growth in GDP terms, in the next three years. It is possible the US thinking harped on the feasibility of a strategically emboldened Pakistan with Chinese backing, undertaking a dangerous mission against India. That would be catastrophic and the source of much instability in Asia.

India is confident of its stand over J&K notwithstanding the very turbulent conditions which have existed there for the last one year. Drawing it out into internationalisation and mediation will force it to compromise on its stance which has been amply clarified. It wishes stability and will work towards that. Its approach in adopting bilateralism has ensured it a position of strength with very few ever questioning its credentials.

An article by Robert Cassidy in National Interest magazine, “How Pakistan Warped into a Geopolitical Monster” refers to the support which terror groups affecting Afghanistan and the rest of the South Asian region receive at the hands of the Pakistani establishment. He goes on to say “As long as they enjoy external enablement, they have no incentive to reconcile”. Perhaps the strategic stalemate in Afghanistan is in the minds of the officials of the Trump Administration, who probably feel that progress towards peace between Pakistan and India will help Islamabad shed its propensity to depend on terror groups to deliver its strategic interests.

The US establishment’s approach appears to reflect some advantage that it perceives in reducing tensions in the subcontinent. No attempted backroom diplomacy is being reported and such actions are usually preceded by shuttle diplomacy. Admitted that Nikki Haley’s projection is actually loud thinking about what the US may wish to see in the near future. Many administrations have thought similarly but have avoided delving into any form of mediation or even facilitation except in crisis times. One is reminded of the Gates shuttle diplomacy of 1990 and the Clinton Administration’s role during Kargil in 1999. These examples should never be applied to the larger relationship issues between India and Pakistan. India’s stand is quite clear. It will engage Pakistan in dialogue but not under duress and definitely not with Pakistan continuing to sponsor proxy war in India.

The Trump Administration may be attempting to change policies, which it may feel have not delivered the dividends on ground. That is sensible but the degree of sensitivity of issues has to be kept centre point and consultation before decisions and even loud thinking would always be prudent.

Capt to re-examine Ladhar case, HC told

Chandigarh, May 26

The Chief Minister would have a re-look on the previous government’s decision to let off senior IAS officer SR Ladhar with just a warning, the Punjab and Haryana High Court was today told.Ladhar had collected an arbitration fee from farmers for deciding disputes with the National Highway Authority of India. Additional Advocate-General V Ram Swarup informed the Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta that the competent authority — the CM — would re-look at the decision of October 9, 2012, taken by the then CM.”Taking a lenient view of the matter, if the officer complies with the orders of the government, a written warning may be issued to him and he may be instructed to remain careful in respect of government rules/instructions,” the CM had ordered.An affidavit filed by Chief Secretary Karan A Singh said the matter was being taken up with the competent authority. For the purpose, six weeks’ time was sought.The HC, on the previous date of hearing, had asked the state to specify whether the action amounted to “misconduct” or “offence”. The query came on a contempt petition by advocate HC Arora against IAS officer Sarvesh Kaushal and others for not complying with directions issued by a Division Bench in October, 2013.Arora earlier stated that in October, a Division Bench had directed the state to ensure remittance of the arbitration fee charged by Ladhar along with proportionate interest. The exercise was to be completed in a month from the date of amount deposit by Ladhar. Thereafter, the amount charged from individual landowners was to be refunded within the next month. Arora submitted that the respondents were unable to ensure compliance of judgment. — TNS

Court stays dismissal of Punsup DGM

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 26

Just about a fortnight after the services of Punsup (Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited) Deputy General Manager were terminated on the allegations of possessing a false experience certificate, Justice Jaishree Thakur of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the operation of the impugned order.Justice Thakur said the court was prima facie of the opinion that it was a fit case where stay could be granted since a co-ordinate Bench was already seized of the matter regarding the genuineness of the experience certificate and challenge to the appointment was already pending consideration in different proceeding.“Hence, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated May 10 is stayed till the next date of hearing,” she added.The Bench was earlier told that the impugned order was passed in accordance with a condition in the offer for appointment. It specified that the appointment letter issued would be cancelled without issuance of notice, if deficit was found upon checking of certificates. It was added that the petitioner’s appointment was challenged by one Harmeet Singh, who alleged that the experience certificate was forged and fabricated.Justice Thakur observed that the stand taken by Punsup in an earlier written statement was that an inquiry, marked to Manager (Administration) for checking the authenticity of the experience certificate submitted at the time of appointment, found it to be “correct and genuine”. The Bench directed Punsup to conclude the inquiry. But apparently a fresh inquiry was initiated against the petitioner.Appearing before Justice Thakur’s Bench, the petitioner’s counsel, Akshay Bhan, submitted that once the High Court was seized of the matter regarding the genuineness of the experience certificate, the order of termination should not have been passed.

Not afraid of threats, don’t need more security: Amarinder

Capt Amarinder Singh. File photo

Chandigarh, May 25

Punjab Chief Minister Amarinder Singh on Thursday said he is not afraid of threats to his life from pro-Khalistan elements and that there was no question of enhancing his security.Three videos are rocketing around the Internet in which men, suspected to be based in Canada, are seen giving threats to the chief minister and Congress MP Ravneet Singh Bittu.(Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)He dismissed media reports that the Punjab government has sought Z-plus security from the Centre for him and Bittu, saying the state police was “more than capable of protecting the people, including Congress leaders”.”There is no question of approaching the central government for more security. I have full faith in the capabilities of Punjab police, which is doing an excellent job,” the chief minister said.Singh in a statement said he was more than ready to take on “such forces which are trying hard to disrupt peace and harmony in Punjab. I will do everything in my power to thwart their nefarious designs”.The chief minister said he and his government will not be cowed down by the threats from such “spineless people who do not have the courage to come to Punjab and openly confront him”.He said if pro-Khalistan elements came to Punjab, his government will “take suitable action to ensure that they do not get away with their cowardly threats and attempts to revive terrorism in the state”.The Punjab government will retaliate in a suitable manner to ensure that peace in the state is not disturbed at any cost, he said.An official spokesperson in the Chief Minister’s Office also said Singh was not going seek additional security in the wake of the threats.The chief minister has clearly told his officials and colleagues in the government that there should be no move on their part to scale up his security cover, the spokesperson said.He said organisations like Sikhs for Justice, which was purportedly behind some of the videos doing the rounds on social media, “were being supported, overtly or covertly, by certain Indian-origin members of Canadian Parliament”.These elements were bringing a bad name to the NRI Sikh community and diluting the latter’s contribution to the development and progress of those countries, including Canada, he added. — PTI

182 schools record zero pass percentage

Protesters clash with security forces near a polling station in Srinagar on April 9, 2017. — AFP

Kashmiri migrants show their inked fingers after casting vote at a polling station on the outskirts of Jammu on Sunday. Tribune photo: Inderjeet Singh

Tribune News Service

Srinagar, April 9

Six youths were killed and several others were injured when security forces opened fire on a stone-pelting mob that stormed a polling station in Budgam district in this Lok Sabha constituency on Sunday, disrupting polling, which saw an abysmally low 5.84 per cent turnout till 3 pm.Hundreds of protesters stormed a polling station at Pakherpora in Chrar-e-Sharief area of Budgam district and ransacked the building, officials said. (Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)Security forces fired several warning rounds to disperse the mob, which did not relent.Those killed were identified as 20-year-old Mohammad Abbas, 15-year-old Faizaan Ahmad Rather, Nissar Ahmed of Beerwa, and Shabir Ahmed of Daulatpora Chandoora, while two more have yet to be identified.

They said the BSF, deployed for security of the polling stations, fired live rounds as they were not provided with pellet guns.

Voting was affected in urban areas as the polling staff and security forces bore the brunt of stone-pelting incidents reported from across the district, comprising two assembly segments. However, polling in rural areas was higher than in Ganderbal town and other urban areas.

Army was called out in aid of the state administration in the Gadura area after a mob rained stones at polling stations and tried to burn down a building where a booth was located, officials said, adding that petrol bombs were hurled at the booth as well as the security forces guarding it.

The area connects the district with Soura area of Srinagar and is often used by militants to infiltrate into the city.

Ironically, a poster of Zakir Moosa, commander of Hizbul Mujahideen, appeared in the vicinity of a police station in the main town of Ganderbal leaving police personnel red-faced.

A visit to the area, located barely 20 km from Srinagar city, showed protesters gathered outside poll booths and staging a sit-in asking voters to refrain from polling.

Opposition National Conference leaders, including its president and candidate, Farooq Abdullah, and his son Omar attacked the Jammu and Kashmir government led by Mehbooba Mufti for having completely failed to ensure smooth conduct of the polls.

Comprising Ganderbal and Kagan assembly seats, the district has been a traditional bastion for National Conference.

In the Chenar area, one Mohammed Ramzan Rather and his wife and other villagers faced the wrath of angry protesters when they were on their way to vote. He was rushed to Kangan district hospital with a bleeding head.

The nearby locality of Wakura wore a deserted look after protesters pelted stones at security forces in the morning. After being on the defensive for over two hours, securitymen fire several rounds of tear gas shells to disperse the protesters.

Fifteen polling booths in Ganderbal and two in Kangan had reported zero votes till 1 pm. There are 209 polling stations in this district, all of which have been declared sensitive or hyper-sensitive.

Ganderbal town recorded 6.95 per cent of polling while the adjacent Kangan area recorded 16.9 per cent of polling by 1 pm.The average percentage of the district was 11.9 per cent.

An unusual incident occurred at Gutlibagh area where a group of 25 people cast their ballot at 9 AM and later resorted to pelting stones at the polling station to prevent others from casting their votes. — With PTI inputs