Deepanker Gupta

Udhampur, July 27

As the search for the AN-32 IAF aircraft, which went missing over the Bay of Bengal on July 22 with 29 persons on board, is on, the family members of airman Ravi Dev Singh, a resident of Pakhali village in Udhampur district, wait and pray for a miracle.Airman Ravi Dev Singh (19) was on board the missing aircraft. A pall of gloom descended on his village as the news of the missing aircraft spread.For the past five days, Ravi’s mother, father, brother and sisters have not had their meals. They are awaiting some news about the missing aircraft.Ravi’s friends said they were praying to god for a miracle and expecting Ravi to come home safely. They said all his family members, especially Ravi’s mother, was in a shock and had stopped talking to everyone. She only wants to see her son safe and alive, they said.“We are all waiting to hear some good news. We had spent some time together when he (Ravi) was here on leave a month ago,” said one of Ravi’s friends.“We pray that not only our friend, but all 29 on board the AN-32 aircraft safely return home,” he added.

Vijay Mohan

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 26

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has observed that operational capabilities of C-17 Globemaster aircraft were under-utilised due to non-availability of runway with appropriate length and strength (pavement classification number) and lack of ground equipment at various bases.The IAF had procured 10 C-17s and associated equipment from the US at a cost of 18,646 crore, which form 81 Squadron based at Hindon. There was delay in the completion of specialist infrastructure and setting up of simulators required for training pilots and loadmasters.The average load airlifted by C-17 ranged between 13 and 18 tonne per sortie, against the aircraft’s payload capacity of 70 tonne. The IAF flew 666 C-17 sorties in 2013, 1,617 in 2014 and 1,992 in 2015, out of which only 72, 260 and 731, respectively, were for air maintenance.On the VVIP front, CAG observed that the utilisation of the current fleet of Air Headquarters Communication Squadron, tasked with ferrying top leaders, was low. The squadron has three Boeing Business Jets, four Embraer aircraft and six Mi-8 helicopters. In addition, Air India’s Boeing 747-400 aircraft are used for international VVIP travel.

Nearly every video of Burhan Wani shows him affirming that his fight is for Islam. (Express Photo by Shuaib Masoodi)

China on Thursday continued to defy an arbitral tribunal’s ruling against its claims in the South China Sea, landing civilian aircraft on disputed islands in the region while staterun media referred to the US and Japan as “worrying eunuchs”.

REUTERSA Chinese ship and helicopter conduct a rescue exercise near the Paracel Islands in South China Sea on Thursday.

Beijing rejected the ruling by The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) that it has no exclusive rights over islands and resources in the South China Sea, saying it was “null and void”. It also warned it could create an air defence zone over the contested waters.

In what appeared to be planned retaliation, China successfully tested two new airfields on the Nansha (Spratly) Islands with civil flights, state media reported. This took the number of airfields in the archipelago open to civil aircraft to three. “The two flights, an Airbus A319 chartered by China Southern Airlines and a Boeing 737 by Hainan Airlines, both returned to Haikou after a short stay on the reefs,” official news agency Xinhua reported.

“The round trips came one day after a Cessna CE-680 flew to the two reefs to ensure that both airfields are prepared for civil flights,” Xinhua reported.

“Including the airport on the Yongshu Reef opened in January, China now has three functioning airports on the Nansha Islands, which lie under one of the world’s busiest airspaces,” it said. Statecontrolled media continued to castigate the US for purportedly manipulating the Philippines, which had approached the PCA, and for destabilising the region.

An editorial in the nationalist tabloid Global Times stood out for its use of language that usually doesn’t get into print. It said the US and Japan were more worried than the Philippines, whose attitude was “relatively mild” after the tribunal’s ruling on Tuesday.

The editorial said the Philippines had described the ruling as a “milestone decision” and called for restraint.

“An old Chinese saying goes ‘The emperor doesn’t worry but his eunuch does,’ meaning the outsider is more anxious than the player. In this case, Washington and Tokyo are the worrying eunuchs,” it added.

China may have no historic title over the waters of the South China Sea but the undaunted juggernaut leaves footprints far and wide. Closer home, India too needs to keep a hawk-eye on the other side of the Palk Straits because the Chinese have also strategically re-entered the Sri Lankan waters.

China sphere of influence in the region is rising. A container ship docked at the Colombo South Harbour funded by China. REUTERS.

The recent ruling of the international tribunal in Hague called off the Chinese bluff of claiming historical legality over the bulk of the South China Sea waters. The aggressive “nine-dash-line” approach of the Chinese swallows over 90 per cent of the disputed waters, much to the consternation of the wary neighbourhood. Behind the obvious issues of sovereignty, lies the geostrategic future and protection of the $5-trillion trade and the very survival of the Chinese juggernaut. This survival insecurity has led to the Chinese instincts of belligerence and strategic sweep like the “String of Pearls” that encompasses active “pitching” to various countries in the vicinity. Geographically, Sri Lanka is a priceless nugget in the Chinese chessboard of strategic footprints.             In 1952, the Dudley Senanayake government in Ceylon (now, Sri Lanka)  faced a dual challenge of acute shortages of the staple rice and the limited availability of foreign exchange to source the same, from the international markets — to compound the economic miseries, international commodity prices of rubber had sunk to a record low, impacting Ceylon’s rubber exports and forex realisations. A masterstroke in the form of a barter-based trade agreement with China, to import the much-needed rice in exchange of rubber for the Chinese, ushered in a critical understanding and relationship of the Chinese with the Island.This act of dire necessity set the backdrop of modern Sri Lankan practicality when it came to dealing with the Chinese, thereafter. The subsequent hue and cry over the annexation of Tibet and the plight of fellow-Buddhist Tibetans was met with a stoic silence by Colombo —contrary to the language of Chapter II of the Sri Lankan constitution which mandates, “The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the state to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana…”. The Chinese paid back the Sri Lankan for their silence and acquiescence, with weaponry during the difficult days of the Tamil wars when neither India nor the US was forthcoming to help the Sri Lankans — the Chinese had readily stepped in unconditionally to bail out the Sri Lankans, this time militarily.However, it was the reign of the megalomaniac former President, Mahinda Rajapaksa that the pronounced pro-China tilt took shape and swerved dangerously to the utter discomfort of both India and the US. This tilt manifested in murmurs of the Hambantota port emerging as another “Pearl” port (like Gwadar in Pakistan, Marao Atoll in Maldives, Sittwe in Myanmar etc.) of the grand Chinese strategy to dominate the waters from the restive South China Seas, the vulnerable “chicken-neck” of Malacca Straits and all the way up to the African hinterlands. The alarm bells went ringing when Rajapaksa allowed Chinese submarines to dock twice in Sri Lanka, without informing New Delhi as per a long-standing agreement between the two nations.This Chinese transgression in India’s backyard was against of the spirit of the 1987 India-Sri Lanka accord, that binds both India and Sri Lanka to not to allow forces inimical to each other, to use the other nation’s ports. However, it was the “cheque-book diplomacy” of generous doles and infrastructural investment by way of the mega $1.4 billion land-reclamation project of the Colombo Port City (part of Beijing’s One Belt, One Road and New Silk Route initiatives) that could potentially entrap Sri Lanka into a veritable vassal status due to its financial indebtedness to the Chinese. Clearly, Rajapaksa’s fondness for the Chinese was not just economic but also strategic, political and military. The end of the bloody Tamil conflict and the victory of the Sri Lankan forces had a lot to do with the critical supplies of Chinese ammunition and ordnance, besides the timely supply of six F-7 jet fighters, scores of anti-aircraft guns and a JY-11 radar system. The providential electoral results spoilt the Chinese stratagem of the “String-of- Pearls” approach with decidedly pro-India governments emerging in Myanmar (Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD replaced the junta rule), Bangladesh (with Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League in power) and in Sri Lanka, Rajapaksa was ousted by his own former minister Maithripala Sirisena who promised more neutrality to correct the Chinese tilt — “would not offer preferential economic or security access to any one country”, besides placing several Chinese contracts on hold for audit and review of the terms. Sirisena’s election manifesto alluded to the impending Chinese noose by noting, “The land that the White Man took over by means of military strength is now being obtained by foreigners by paying ransom to a handful of persons. This robbery is taking place before everybody in broad daylight… If this trend continues for another six years our country would become a colony and we would become slaves”.However, a year and half down the tenure of President Sirisena, the Chinese freeze is slowly thawing as financial considerations are forcing a climb-down from the earlier bravado, skepticism and intransigence against the Chinese. A precarious balance-of-payment situation, falling foreign reserves and a crippling $8-billion debt to China has brought Sri Lanka scurrying back to the Chinese to renegotiate the repayment terms and accept the reciprocal collateral conditions. Talk of equity swap instead of hard currency projects to mitigate repayment term has already been bandied. The famed Chinese economic-statecraft via the “cheque-book” diplomacy has ensured the return of the Colombo Port City project, besides other initiatives like the expansion of the Hambantota port and Mattala airport. Certain new projects like the development of the Special Economic Zone is also on the burgeoning agenda. The Sri Lankan experience with the ostensible Chinese generosity and largesse has always been smooth and readily available (unlike the Tamil  issues and conditions of India and the tight purse strings of Western powers). Also, the Chinese are “non-judgmental” and do not allow issues like alleged human right violations during the Tamil wars to derail stitching-up of strategic relationships.  Even though the Sri Lankans are making meek assurances that the Chinese return to favour does not entail any ownership of land as part of the Colombo Port Project, the Sri Lankan backtracking has geopolitical ramifications. India realises the reality of the Sri Lankan financial conditions and the resultant practicality of snuggling back to Beijing to avoid defaulting on debts. The Indians will do well to continuously forewarn and reiterate the typical strings that come attached with Chinese doles, partake all possible opportunities to ensure a toehold in all development projects (as it is supposedly not exclusive to any one nation) and indulge in smarter diplomacy to “sell” the benefits of the larger picture of an alternative, “anti-Sino” bloc which could be composed of countries like India, Japan, US and the other ASEAN powers. For now the Chinese have gleefully re-entered the Sri Lankan waters by waving thick wads of hard currency.The writer is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands & Puducherry.

Jammu, July 12

Western Command General Officer Commanding-in-Chief Lt Gen KJ Singh today visited the border areas in Jammu, Samba and Kathua districts to review the security situation.The Army Commander had a detailed interaction with the rank and file wherein he lauded their role in maintaining a high state of vigil against enemy designs, braving the odds of terrain and weather.General KJ Singh was accompanied by military commanders from the Rising Star Corps. The Army is maintaining the second line of defence on the international border and plays an important role in action against infiltrators. — TNS

The military was justifiably unhappy when the initial recommendations of the pay commission panel was released in November 2015. However being a disciplined force the bickering remained in-house and on social media. It was the veterans’ community and well-wishers who raised their voice in defence of the serving, who are bound by silence. The grievances and anomalies were such that it compelled the service chiefs to jointly meet the defence minister. Subsequently, a committee of secretaries under the cabinet secretary was nominated to study the report and forward recommendations. As before there was no military representative on the committee. The military was given an opportunity to present its views to the committee. However, most anomalies remain even to this day. The fight is not about a higher pay packet for the military, but about equality in status and allowances, being a central government organization. T

he statement in the initial pay commission about higher allowances for Guwahati than Siachen was absurd. The logic that if allowances are low no bureaucrat would be willing to serve is laughable. Till date no bureaucrat has faced a bullet in the region. He is secure while the military battles on. They also form a part of the government and therefore should be willing to serve where ordered. If the military is bound by law to serve anywhere on land, sea or air, why not other services. If they cannot serve, they should resign. I wonder if the pay commission was aiming to prove that Guwahati or the North East is not a part of India?

The government has logically maintained status quo on allowances for the present, while having them reassessed by a committee under the finance secretary. One major anomaly has been the pay matrix, where the military has twenty-four pay bands as compared to the rest, which have forty. Therefore the military loses out in both pay and pensions. Further, the status of a government employee would now be determined by his pay matrix. This lowers the standing of the military versus others.

The military serves alongside members of other central services in many locations, most being trouble spots or in aid to civil authority. When the military’s pay matrix is lowered, the working environment fails and egos rise to the fore. Even central service officer of a lower rank would refuse to function under military directions as his pay matrix is higher. This results in each service functioning separately and independently. The end result – Pampore type incidents or disjointed efforts in aid to civil authorities. Difficulties also arise in semi-military organizations. Military personnel are on deputation with Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), Quality Assurance, Ordnance factories etc. Similarly, civilian members of the Military Engineering Service (MES), Defence Estates and Military Farms work alongside the military. Their pay matrix is not governed by military conditions but by their own service, which creates an imbalance in seniority. In simple terms, while civil services gain in seniority, the military comes down.

Functioning at every level becomes difficult and nobody seems to care. The battle for OROP was based on a simple logic. All organizations retire their staff at sixty. Therefore, the longer you serve, the more increments you obtain, hence more pension you draw. Maximum responsibilities of an individual are between the age of thirty-five to fifty. Responsibilities include growing children and ageing parents. In the military, 92 per cent retire between the ages of 35 and 45, at the peak of their financial responsibilities. They have served for a period of only 17 to 25 years as compared to 30 to 40 years prior to retirement in other services, thus earn lesser pension. With no second career option, they only have their pension to survive on.

Therefore, logically, till the third pay commission, military pensions were 70 per cent and when reduced to 50 per cent, OROP was promised. For those retiring at 60, there is genuinely no requirement of OROP. This is why only the military was affected. Ideally the government should reconsider this additional expenditure of granting it to other central services also. The military has the steepest pyramid. Only .01 per cent rise to the senior level, while it is almost 100 per cent for the IAS and fairly high in others. Thus the military was fighting for the Non Functional Upgradation (NFU), already given to every other service. It would benefit over 99 per cent who cannot proceed up the ladder due to steepness of the pyramid. It was rejected. It may be under re-consideration at present, however unless voices are raised, it would as usual be denied.

The battle for supremacy between the bureaucracy and the military has been going on since independence. At every opportunity, the status of the military has been systematically eroded. The seventh pay commission has taken the cake, relegating it to the level of the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF). This affects joint functioning, when forces operate together as in J and K and the North East. The defence minister also admitted his failure when he stated, “Some of their demands have been accepted, some haven’t”. In times of crises while other government services have failed, the military has been the saviour. The recent Jat agitation and subsequent Prakash Singh committee report bear testimony. It is the bureaucracy which has fuelled the fear of a coup into the minds of politicians hence delayed and diluted the possible appointment of a much needed Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). There is always a tinge of jealousy which a non-uniformed civil servant has towards a uniformed one. The military earns more respect from the public than a bureaucrat or the police.

A military man stands out by his behaviour and gait and is easily distinguished. Hence, jealousy has reason and creates a desire to downgrade. It is for the national leadership to understand this shortcoming and set issues right, before it boils over and becomes an embarrassment. Therefore, military resentment is justified and should be expressed in every forum, by veterans and its wellwishers, till the government rectifies its follies.
Read more at http://www.thestatesman.com/news/opinion/military-s-unhappiness-over-pay-is-justified/153685.html#EJbkHchdpRjgFbSp.99

Man who won right for Sikhs to wear turbans in Canadian legions dies

A prominent figure in the Sikh-Canadian community who fought and won a high profile battle to allow Sikhs wearing turbans into Royal Canadian Legions, has died.

95-year-old Lt.-Col. Pritam Singh Jauhal passed away peacefully in Surrey over the weekend.

Jauhal fought for the British Empire in World War II, but on Remembrance Day in 1993 he was denied entrance to the Newton Legion in Surrey because of his turban and legion rules forbidding the wearing of hats and headgear.

“They had tried to explain that as soldiers they had fought with their turbans on so this was not something that was unknown to soldiers who had fought in World War II,” said Satwinder Bains, director for the centre for Indo-Canadian studies at the University of the Fraser Valley. “But the legion was adamant that they take them off at the door.”

“[Jauhal] didn’t understand that in the Commonwealth countries, how Canada could even think that people of the Sikh faith, who had fought in wars alongside Canadians and Europeans and people all over the world, could be not allowed into a legion,” said Bains.

Jauhal’s belief in religious freedom also led him to speak out against the Conservative government’s ban on Muslim women covering their faces during citizenship ceremonies.

Jauhal’s memoir, A Soldier Remembers, was published in 2013.

Bains says Jauhal will be remembered as a kind man who stood up for what he believed in.

“He had that in him, that gentle nature and yet that steel will and determination. This was who he was,” said Bains.

WSO Statement On Passing Of Lt. Col. Pritam Singh Jauhal

—The World Sikh Organization of Canada offers its tributes to Lt. Col. Pritam Singh Jauhal who passed away on Sunday at the age of 95.  Lt. Col Jauhal led the struggle to wear turbans in Royal Canadian Legion halls in the early 1990s.

In 1993 Lt. Col Jauhal, a World War II veteran and other Sikhs were barred from entering the Royal Canadian Legion in Surrey because of their turbans after the annual Remembrance Day parade.  The WSO had supported Lt. Col. Jauhal in his attempts to have the Legion permit the wearing of the turban.  The national organization eventually changed its policy after a national debate.

WSO Senior Policy Advisor Gian Singh Sandhu said today, “the WSO had the privilege of working with Lt. Col. Jauhal in his struggle to have the turban accommodated at Royal Canadian Legion halls.  We will remember him for his courage and determination. His unwavering commitment to justice and human rights is an inspiration.  Our sincerest condolences are with his family.”

WSO President Mukhbir Singh said, “Lt. Col. Jauhal is a Canadian Sikh icon and he is an example for the next generation of Canadian Sikhs that equity and human rights are worth struggling for.  He displayed that same commitment to human rights most recently when he opposed laws limiting the freedoms of Muslim women who wear the niqab.  Lt. Col. Jauhal’s contributions to the Canadian Sikh community will be fondly remembered.”

Pravin Sawhney
The NSG, for the US, is fundamentally about non-proliferation. Unfortunately, the UPA sold the 2008 agreement as necessary for electricity needs. The Modi government is now selling the NSG as the pathway to great-power status. Both have been less than truthful.

MISPLACED ANGER: Members of Swadeshi Jagaran Manch protest outside the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi after China did not support India’s bid for NSG membership. PTI

While there are many reasons why India’s strong pitch led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group was doomed to fail, two most important ones have not received attention.In the bid to salvage the bruised image of the Prime Minister, efforts are on to convey all is not lost. An unnamed US senior official has been quoted as saying that India’s case for membership is strong and should happen with some more push by December. Similarly, the outgoing chairperson of the NSG, Argentinian diplomat Rafael Grossi, has said that some way would be found to get India inside the NSG conclave. The key question remains whether India would get benefits as NSG member befitting a nuclear-weapon state?The first reason why this will not happen is that the US, and not China, had dashed all hopes of India doing trade in nuclear technologies with NSG members. In 2007, when President George Bush was pushing India’s case for exemption from the global restrictive regimes and in the US Congress as agreed in the 2005 Indo-US framework document, the US, under its global commitment, was also urging the NSG to review its export control rules to check proliferation. Thus, in July 2011, the NSG announced its new export norms: only those nations which had signed the NPT would be eligible for reprocessing and enrichment (ENR) technologies. This came as a bombshell for India. While allowed to trade for fuel with the NSG, India would be denied ENR technologies needed for utilisation of closed fuel cycle because it had not signed the NPT.In simple terms, while India could buy nuclear fuel from the world, it could not use it fully as without ENR technologies it would be unable to use the nuclear waste for energy production. This was when Indian scientists protested that they had own limited reprocessing capabilities and were not entirely bereft of them.The second reason is that Modi’s India has displeased Beijing no end by pitting itself as a leading power in Asia, rivalling China, which it is not. It has forgotten that China had rejected the US’ G-2 (Group of Two) proposal for global power sharing and had instead sought the new major power relationship, a move that moved the US pivot to Asia since it signalled the race for global supremacy. The G2 system was informally proposed in January 2009. It was soon endorsed by the Obama administration.However, China was not impressed as it had other plans. During Obama’s China visit in November 2009, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao told him that China preferred a multipolar world. What he did not say was that China aimed to displace the US as the global power in the 21st century. This task was left for Chinese leader Xi Jinping, who, heading its fifth-generation leadership, sought the new major power relationship with the US in December 2012.Also little understood is that Pakistan is no longer China’s lackey. Since Chinese President Xi Jinping’s 2013 announcement of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor as the flagship of his ambitious Belt and Road project (the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road), Pakistan has emerged as China’s critical partner on the global chessboard. China believes that success of the CPEC would convince the world to jump on the Belt and Road bandwagon to help Beijing create alternative security architecture in Asia, the gateway to a new global order.Given this, China can hardly be blamed for India’s short-sightedness and little understanding of strategic imperatives. Beijing opposed Delhi’s inclusion as NSG member not because it wants India to remain boxed in South Asia, but because it has reason to pull Pakistan out of South Asia as well. If this truism had been grasped by the Modi dispensation, it would have realised that the NSG is not the high table it should seek (that remains the elusive membership of the UN Security Council).Just like the 2008 Indo-US civil nuclear agreement, the NSG, from US’ perspective, was and remains fundamentally about non-proliferation. Unfortunately, the Manmohan Singh government sold the 2008 agreement as necessary for providing round-the-clock electricity to the people of India. The Modi government is now selling the NSG as the pathway to great power status. Both governments have been less than truthful. Regarding India’s quest for membership of the NSG — the club which works on consensus principle — China had in July 2015 made it clear that signing of the NPT would be essential for new member states. What China had left unsaid was that India could become NSG member only if it signed the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.To understand the implications of India joining the NSG, it would be instructive to revisit the 2008 Indo-US agreement. According to it, India was to place certain numbers of its nuclear reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. In return, the US promised to end India’s nuclear apartheid by acknowledging it as a nuclear weapons power, agreed to India getting access to high and dual-use technologies, and offered to cooperate on civilian nuclear energy to meet India’s energy demands.It seemed that India would get the moon: it would become a nuclear weapons power (with freedom to maintain its credible minimum deterrence); be free to decide on more indigenous nuclear reactors for strategic purposes; be part of the global restricted technology cartels, namely, the NSG, Missile Technology Control Regime, Australia Group, and Wassenaar Arrangement (all led by the US but working by consensus); maintain strategic autonomy, implying independent foreign policy; not be clubbed with Pakistan; be free to buy nuclear fuel (uranium); run the nuclear closed fuel cycle (including reprocessing and subsequently the indigenous three-stage thorium cycle), and purchase state-of-the-art ENR technologies for its energy needs. It appeared to be a win-win situation for India.In reality, from the US perspective, the deal was about non-proliferation by coercing India to identify maximum numbers of its reactors for civilian use, getting India to de facto sign the CTBT even when the US Senate had rejected it, getting India’s foreign policy closely aligned with that of the US, doing commerce in civil nuclear reactors and defence (through a 10-year Defence Framework signed separately but highlighted in the July 18, 2005, framework document), and eventually having India as a junior strategic partner if not junior ally in the Asia-Pacific region.Against this backdrop, hypothetically speaking, if India becomes a member of the NSG, what would it get? It would certainly not get the ENR technologies that it desires from NSG member states. In any case, this is a bilateral issue. For example, China, an NSG member, continues to unabashedly give ENR technologies to Pakistan without even a mild protest from other NSG members, including the US.On China, Indian diplomats incorrectly compare 2008 with 2016. At that time, China agreed to the US’ call to support India for two reasons: a strictly one-time waiver had been sought for India from the NSG to do nuclear commerce. And, China had yet not disclosed its grand China Dream with the Belt and Road as its manifestation to challenge US’ global supremacy. But China is now willing to discuss India’s entry into the NSG, provided Pakistan’s is also considered.The reasons for India and Pakistan seeking to join the NSG are different. Pakistan’s quest for the NSG membership is not about nuclear technologies trade but about maintaining strategic balance with India. India, on the other hand, wants to be in the proverbial NSG tent to be able to participate in its policy-making. Considering the NSG was created as the consequence of India’s 1974 nuclear test, it is unrealistic to expect the conclave to alter its NPT imperative to allow nuclear technologies trade with India.The writer is editor, FORCE newsmagazine