Officers Management in the Army is demanding recognition as a controversial issue that has reached cul de sac.  This clarion call comes with five rationales. One, say within the next two/three years, the armed forces will be prepared for Integrated Theatre Commands.  This will have deep repercussions on the Officer Cadre promotional structure, as the three services follow a dissimilar path in entirety, and inter-se seniority is a bugbear currently. Two, the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision on Women Officers has significantly opened the field for their taking over Command of units, which will also have a material effect. Three, the promotion opportunities for commissioned officers from all arms and services, should largely be similar, to be motivating enough to new inductee Young Officers to retain a modicum of ambition. That does not exist presently for the Services officers. Four, warfare is dramatically changing, the foci is shifting to modern, information age conflicts.  There would be a transition to newer units and to the new cutting edge in warfare.   And, five, cases are yet subjudice in the Hon’ble Supreme Court for allocation of additional vacancies at higher ranks to combat arms, the decision to which will have a more far-reaching effect.

The Army has to resolve the internal officer’s career management policies, which have been under considerable strain for the last nearly twenty years.   It is necessary to first address the Army’s imbroglio, with a short backgrounder, though majorly, it will be known to all readers.  Consequent to the lessons learnt of the 1999 Kargil War, it was considered necessary to manage the reduction of ages of officers commanding infantry battalions and brigades. With that term of reference, AV Singh Committee (AVSC) was formed, which came up with a mathematical model (colloquially later called Command Exit Model – CEM). The chronology that followed needs recounting with certain specifics:

• The CEM was based upon two variables – the Command assignments allocated to an arm or service, and the tenure in command. The first variable, the numbers of Command assignments, was left open-ended by the AVSC and has consequently witnessed large increments.  The second variable, the command tenures was fixed, with a wide span from Infantry Commanding Officers (COs) having 30 months to Services COs of 60 months. AVSC having been approved by the Union Cabinet, made the Report as if etched in stone for times immemorial, except in 2016, when in a judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme down-scaled the command tenures for the Corps of Engineers, Signals and Air Defence.
• AVSC rested on many basic premises, the most important of which was to make Short Service Commission (SSC) attractive, to ensure the ratio of Permanent Commission (PC) to SSC to be as near to 1:1 as possible. This would have enabled batch construction at intake in a manner that would have retained equivalence in promotability at the level of Lt Col to Colonel (for taking over Command). The second important premise was lateral absorption of Army Officers in other Governmental Ministries. Despite the two pay commissions – 6^th and 7^th, and countless representations, these two have not fructified. The SSC has remained singularly unattractive as an intake option, and PC: SSC ratio has largely remained in favour of PC, up to the extent of 1:4.7, with an immensely adverse effect on promotional structures.  With the finite number of promotion avenues to Colonel, say 500 a year, and with say 1600 under consideration, the promotability ratio reduces to a little over 30%.  However, cumulated with command tenures variation, the promotability can vary between 20 to 60%, between various arms and services causing great consternation. Number of Command assignments at Colonel rank also have a commensurate effect on balance colonel vacancies – for example, if the total command assignments were 1500, and total Colonels authorised on establishment were 5500, then balance 4000 vacancies were allocated on the pro-rata of the ratios of the command assignments held by that arm or service. Hence, the race commenced on designating more and more command assignments by each arm and service.
• Since 2011 to 2019, there have been a number of Army-internal and MoD study groups that have delved into the issue. The first broad based study group in 2011-2013 was headed by an esteemed Army Commander, had made important recommendations. Subsequently, seven or eight (one looses count) studies were undertaken, even by the College of Defence Management, though none met success on the altar of unanimity, or reached fruition by dedicated decision making.
• In the interregnum, the CEM reached the stage of litigation at the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) initially and Hon’ble Supreme Court later. Being subjudice, the issue was denied the requisite opportunity to be addressed internally as an Army-Government policy. While in 2015, the AFT had stuck down the CEM, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld it in 2016.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court also allocated additional vacancies at Colonel Rank to the Corps of Signals, Engineers and Air Defence, which still did not benefit the Services.  The case is yet subjudice, for the same arms seeking commensurate vacancies at even higher ranks.

Having broadly chronologised the last sixteen years of CEM, it is apparent that the issue has far-reaching ramifications. The Army has yet to define command, whether it is designated on the basis of the strength of personnel in a unit, equipment held or based upon the functionality of operational or administrative tasking and financial outlay. Indeed in retrospective, many command assignments may not measure up to the original rationale.  In trying to adjust to meeting some satisfaction, allocation of vacancies has witnessed many a tweak and a number of loan vacancies, all of which have further muddled the issue.  With the passage of time the positions of arms and services have hardened, with all silo-ed in individualistic concerns and believing in their indispensability and meritocracy!

The Army has large officer corps with over 42500 officers, all of the high calibre and near incessantly employed in operations.  Career management of the officer corps is a sacred responsibility. The issue has procrastinated for a very long time and cannot be allowed to fester on the doorsteps of the Courts and be decided through a litigative process.  Inability to create a policy bespeaks of avoidance of an all-important measure of cohesiveness of the organisation. Also, individual Court decisions on petitions provide solace to a number of litigants within finite numbers of promotional assignments, but it would have a corresponding negative effect on the satisfaction of many others.

The issues that need addressal at this juncture are holistic in nature. Two of these must be considered before making recommendations. First, the CEM was approved by the Union Cabinet and second, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the CEM. Any significant change hence cannot be initiated internally; it will be challengeable with the Government or litigable in the Courts.  Some views are proffered below:

• Short service commission is not much sought after, as it causes a mid-life crisis for the officers who do not achieve permanence in the Army. Making of Short Service Commission attractive, is absolutely mandatory, for which detailed proposals exist, like for a ten year SSC, allow an officer last year of study in a professional change-of-career institute, like IIMs and IITs ( for E-MBA or M Tech), and then placement. A gratuity had been recommended that provides for each year of service rendered in the Army. This must be pushed in with vigour. This will assist in constructing a balanced PC-SSC batch for each arm and service, and assure better than 50% promotability for all from Lt Col to Colonel.
• The Hon’ble Supreme Court has given a decision on Women Officers being granted permanent commission and command of units. This will also mandate a share of vacancies at Colonel rank.  A proposal on the methodology of implementation was recommended earlier.[1]
• Tri-service organisations are a reality, and the difference in service profile of equivalent ranks is irksome in managing command and control. With Theatre Commands this will be even more problematic.  The joint-service experienced officer will be obligatory, prior to reaching higher rungs in the three or joint Services organisation.
• New realms of warfare– like cyber, information, precision and hypersonic projectiles, space and drones, are in themselves wholesome in nature, and maybe deciders of future wars. There will be requirement of reconfiguring specialist multi-domain warfare units in future, with differing command expertise, equipment profiles and manpower. For career management, these will have to put inside the CEM.
• Command has to be redefined. The logic of deciding command was that a unit ought to be operational in nature (which includes arms and services units so committed), manpower or platform (equipment) oriented. The quantum of equipment that a unit ought to be authorised with, has to be credible enough for the operational task.

Status quo is not the answer.  To ameliorate it, there are many ways and time is ripe to take the bull by the horns!  It is clear, that this cannot be done internally – for there are too many vested, parochial interests. Even at the very higher rungs, individual corps/ regimental parochialism will mar effective visionary decision making, and subsume broader organisational interests.  Any significant change will require obtaining Union Cabinet approval, superceding the previous cabinet approval and issue of a formal policy.

There can be three options. One, a well conceptualised Intra-Arm/Service Track 2, (that can involve retired seniors officers too) that will bring about a rapprochement, a balance and a via-media within the parameters of laid down CEM. At this juncture such an option seems a non-starter, due to sharp cleavages. Two, under the powers of the Union Government, a Blue Ribbon Committee be nominated, to study the gamut of the issue and make recommendations, for a Cabinet approval. Three, an HR Management Consultancy to be engaged through the Government, to study, obtain approvals, facilitate implementation and undertake a couple of years of hand-holding!  There are also Research Organisations that specialise in Human Resource issues, like XLRI, Jamshedpur and TISS, Mumbai which can be requested to study the same. Though there may be resistance to an outsider agency, for lack of in depth knowledge, for HR Professionals, adjusting policies may be a minor impediment. It is opined that obtaining professional expertise from outside the realm of Army-Government should be the best.  This will also require Government sanction/ approvals. The Courts can be informed that the issue has been taken up at the Governmental policy levels for decision-making, and details can be submitted on finalisation.

In sum, there has been undue procrastination, that has caused ill-will and it needs to put behind.  Sooner the better!

End Notes

[1] Rakesh Sharma, Supreme Court Decision on Women Officers: Need for Holistic Policy Planning, Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), 20 Feb 2020, accessed at https://www.claws.in/supreme-court-decision-on-women-officers-need-for-holistic-policy-planning/

Pensions account for about 30 per cent of India’s defence budget. A proposal to raise the retirement age of troops of the three armed forces is aimed not only at reducing the burgeoning post-retiral bill, but also to ensure that trained manpower stays in service for a much longer duration. The move, which could benefit about 15 lakh personnel, makes sense in both military and economic terms. The Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Bipin Rawat, has rightly argued in favour of getting a jawan to serve for 30 years rather than only 15-17 years. In February, General Rawat had dubbed the rise in the budget outlay for pensions of armed forces personnel as ‘unsustainable’ and stated that the three services were exploring the feasibility of extending the retirement age of jawans till 58 years. The whole idea is to pay pension for about two decades instead of the current 30-32 years. For the record, the pension budget for 2020-21 is

Rs 1.33 lakh crore, up from Rs 1.1 lakh crore in 2019-20.

As per another proposal, the Army is considering the ‘Tour of Duty’ (ToD) model to take in officers for only three years of service. With at least 90 per cent of the officers opting for permanent commission after doing 14 years’ service, the Short Service Commission (SSC) scheme’s purpose of keeping the Army lean is getting defeated. The cost incurred on an SSC officer — right from pre-commission training to the payment of gratuity — is as high as Rs 5-7 crore.

Unlike Israel’s mandatory conscription model, which dates back to 1948, ToD would be voluntary. Fighting-fit Israelis have been making the most of military service, lasting about three years, to subsequently excel in other professions. It’s a moot point to what extent unemployment and a ‘resurgence of nationalism and patriotism’, as cited by the Indian Army, can spur the youth to have a feel of military professionalism and then move on. Again, the focus is largely on reducing the payouts. The intended reforms would be worthwhile if they result in considerable savings that can facilitate much-needed modernisation of the forces.

Jammu, May 17

The Pakistani Army on Sunday opened fire and shelled forward areas along the Line of Control (LoC) in Poonch district of Jammu and Kashmir, a defence spokesman said.

The cross-border firing started in Degwar sector around 8:40 am, drawing retaliation from the Indian Army, the spokesman said.

He said there was no report of any casualty on the Indian side in the Pakistani firing.

“They started with small arms firing and later fired mortars around 9:30 am,” the spokesman said, adding the cross-border firing between the two sides was going on when last reports came in.

The Pakistani firing ended over a week-long lull along the LoC.

Pakistan last violated the ceasefire in Degwar sector on May 9 and Kirni, Qasba and Shahpur sectors of Poonch two days earlier. PTI

New Delhi, May 16

The CRPF had ordered an immediate withdrawal of scores of its personnel working as domestic help and orderlies with its retired or repatriated officials fearing they might contract COVID-19 in the absence of proper healthcare facilities, officials said on Saturday.

The step had been taken in the country’s largest paramilitary force, they said, after reports emerged recently that four jawans posted with a retired Additional Director General-rank officer of another paramilitary force had been infected with COVID-19.

The force has directed its northern sector based in Delhi to “immediately withdraw” all orderlies, security personnel, drivers and cooks provided from its regular strength of 3.25 lakh personnel.

It has also begun a manpower audit to ascertain the number of men used for extending such privileges, the duration of these attachments and the order under which these postings were authorised.

“After a full manpower audit post May 17, only the most essential ones will be allowed to continue once the COVID-19 infection is contained. Action will be taken against unauthorised approvals and the names of officials enjoying these perks illegally will be notified to the Home Ministry,” a top officer, who requested anonymity, said.

The official said other Central paramilitary forces such as the Border Security Force, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police, the Central Industrial Security Force and the Sashastra Seema Bal were expected to issue such directions soon.

They said the withdrawal of personnel would also help the force to supplement its already depleted manpower as over 300 personnel from the CRPF units, based in the national capital, had either been infected by the pandemic, quarantined or were on leave.

Also, they said, that withdrawal of this jawan-rank personnel was also to make sure that they did not get infected with COVID-19 as they might not be able to take proper care of their health while rendering these duties.

Recently, another paramilitary force had admitted four such staffers and a state police personnel to an isolation facility at its camp in Chhawla in south-west Delhi.

This five personnel were posted at the residence of a senior officer in Delhi since he retired from service in February.

“We do not want a repeat of such an incident. These personnel working as domestic help and orderlies are as vulnerable to the COVID-19 disease as anyone else,” a top paramilitary officer said.

A back-of-the-envelope estimate by senior officials of these forces has found that over 100 vehicles and more than 400 orderlies and cooks of these Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) are deputed with various ranks of retired and repatriated officials across the country for varied periods of time.

The unofficial estimate put the expenditure of extending these perks at a few lakh rupees every year.

The Union Home Ministry had taken note of this abuse of manpower in 2016 and had said such practices ‘create a wrong impression in the public mind and are also against the basic decorum and discipline of the government service, more so of the uniformed forces.”

A directive issued on September 21, 2016, on the subject of ‘retention of manpower, vehicle etc by police officers at their residence even after their retirement’ had asked Central and state governments that such facilities should be withdrawn “within a period of one month of the retirement of any police official.”

It had said those retired police officials, who did not follow these instructions and enjoy these services by regular paramilitary personnel, “should be made to pay”.

“Similarly, action should be taken against the serving officials who do not take timely action to withdraw these privileges from the retired officials,” the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) order had said seeking its strict compliance. PTI

Ajay Banerjee

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, May 16

Ending years of debate on the matter, the government on Saturday, in a path-breaking move, allowed foreign military equipment makers to invest up to 74 per cent stake, up from the existing 49 per cent, in projects in India.

The move comes, as the existing Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) limits for defence manufacturing sector meant it was literally a non-starter. India attracted only a measly $ 8.8 Million (Rs 66 crore) in FDI in the defence manufacturing sector in the past 19 years – that is from April 2000 to end of 2019. The figures were tabled in Lok Sabha on March 4 this year.

Otherwise, annual cumulative FDI inflow into India was some $ 62 billion for the fiscal ending March 31, 2019, which had raised demands for hiking the FDI limits in defence manufacturing.

Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman (who was Defence Minister from September 3, 2017, to May 31, 2019), announced the change that could encourage global biggies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, Saab, to invest in India. This will also be a boon for warship making industry, UAVs, Artificial intelligence, helicopters, military vehicles, aerospace ventures making sub-assemblies and part of aviation systems.

“FDI limit in the defence manufacturing under automatic route will be raised from 49% to 74%,” Sitharaman announced.

Also read Militay experts welcome reform measures in defence sector

Earlier, in August 2014, within three months of coming to power, the Narendra Modi government had raised the FDI cap in the sector from 26 per cent to 49 per cent.

Foreign equipment makers have said it openly at various forums that they would invest only once ‘controlling stake’ in a venture is assured, 49 per cent stake did not allow that.

Sitharaman also said a list of weapons and platforms will be drafted on which there will be a ban on the import, bans will be year-wise progressive timelines.

Indigenisation of imported spares is another issue that the Minister addressed. The problem is largely from Russian-origin spares.

Separate budget provisioning will be made for domestic capital procurement – weapons and equipment, this will help reduce the import bill.

The Ordnance Factory Board, which 41 factories under the MoD will be corporatised.

A Project Management Unit (PMU) will be set up to support contract management, besides the realistic setting of General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQRs) of weapons/platforms. GSQR’s are the parameters for choosing a weapon or platform.

Ajay Banerjee
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, May 16

Indian Army is set to outsource repair and maintenance of its Russian-origin tank fleet of T-72 and T-90 tanks to private companies.

Bids have been invited from private vendors by asking the how they would undertake operations of Delhi-based 505 Army Base Workshop (ABW). The Army has used what they call “Government Owned Corporate Operated” (GOCO) model to describe this. Under provisions of GOCO, mooted in 2017, infrastructure and facilities of ABWs will remain under the ownership of the government while the contractors will be responsible for the day-to-day operations, plant maintenance and meeting targets.

India operates some 3,600 tanks of these two types, including some 1200 T-90 tanks and 2,400 T-72 tanks.

This is part of the government’s plan to rationalise Army manpower and reduce the “tail” as recommended by the Lt Gen DB Shekatkar committee in 2016. A Committee of Experts (CoE) under the Chairmanship of Lt Gen DB Shekatkar (Retd), was constituted in 2016 recommended outsourcing the functioning of the ABWs to private sector players.

The first stage of the bid called the Request for Information (RFI) has been sent out.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has barred its own Public Sector Undertakings (PSU) and also the Ordnance Factories from bidding.

The 505 Army Base Workshop has carried out repairs of tanks as well as engines and major/minor assemblies of tanks.  It currently overhauls 70 of the T-72 tanks annually and its associated engine, assemblies.

From this financial year, the 505 ABW is scheduled to start all these activities for T90 tanks.

Eight Army Base Workshops were established by the British during the Second World War (1939-1945) to carry out repairs and overhaul of weapons, vehicles and equipment to keep the Indian Army operationally ready.

New Delhi, May 16

Military experts, on Saturday, welcomed the reform measures rolled out by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman to promote the domestic defence industry, saying their proper implementation will help India significantly cut its ballooning import bill on weapons and military platforms.

At a press conference, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced a series of initiatives to promote indigenous defence production which included making separate budgetary outlay to procure Indian-made military hardware, increasing FDI limit from 49 per cent to 74 per cent under the automatic route and generating a year-wise negative list of weapons whose import won’t be allowed.

Experts said increasing the existing Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) cap to 74 per cent would encourage global players such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Airbus and Dassault Aviation to set up manufacturing hubs in India and bring niche technology without hesitation as the firms will have majority stakes in their Indian subsidiaries.

India is one of the most lucrative markets for global defence giants as it figured among top three importers of military hardware in the world for the last eight years. According to estimates, the Indian armed forces are projected to spend around $130 billion in capital procurement in the next five years.

“Nobody is going to give us critical technology unless we provide them facilities to produce for the global market,” former Army Chief Gen (retd) N C Vij said while welcoming the government’s reform initiatives in the defence sector.

He said India must aim to become self-reliant in defence manufacturing as it would be difficult for the country to keep allocating scarce resources to import expensive weapons and platforms to confront complex security challenges along the northern and western borders.

“The kind of money we require to beat the security challenges is so much. We cannot afford to make that kind of an allocation year-after-year. There is a need for us be self-reliant in defence production, particularly when our economy was hit hard following the COVID-19,” he said.

Lt Gen (retd) Subrata Saha, former Deputy Chief of Army Staff, identified the proposed ban on imports of certain weapons and platforms as the most significant announcement by Sitharaman.

“In the process, the government is giving fixed timelines for indigenous production of specific weapons and platforms. It will make sure that there is accountability,” he said.

Former Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal (retd) Fali Major praised the government’s announcement on corporatisation of the Ordnance Factory Board, the nearly 200-year-old organisation that operates 41 ammunition production facilities across the country.

“I welcome the reform initiatives. Raising of the FDI limit will give major impetus to defence production in India,” he said.

Lt Gen Saha also lauded the announcement by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman that separate allocation in the budget would be made to procure India-made military hardware besides the proposed setting up of project management teams to oversee implementation of specific programmes.

Another defence expert, Lt Gen S L Narasimhan said the reform measures were in the offing for quite some time and that they would give a major push to the Make in India initiative in the defence sector.

Gen Vij felt Finance Minister’s announcement would help India realise its goal of achieving defence exports worth $5 billion in next five years.

“The reform measures are very timely and they will significantly boost our defence industry,” the former Army Chief said.

In February, Prime Minister Narendra Modi set a target of $5 billion worth of military exports in the next five years and invited global defence majors to set up manufacturing hubs in the country.

In her announcement, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman also said the process for the General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQRs) would be made realistic. In the GSQRs, the armed forces define criteria to procure platforms and hardware.

India was among the world’s three top importers of military hardware.

According to a latest report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), a leading think-tank on military spending, India’s defence expenditure stood at USD 71.1 billion in 2019, which is the third highest after the US and China.

In 2017, the government came up with an ambitious policy under which select private firms were to be roped in to build key military platforms like submarines and fighter jets in India in partnership with global defence majors. PTI

Ira Pande

Queen Elizabeth famously described 1992 as her ‘annus horribilis’, which is Latin for a horrible year. Some cruel Republican wags called it ‘Her Majesty’s bum year’, because in that one year, she saw the marriage of her first-born son and heir to the British throne, Prince Charles, to the beautiful Princess Diana break up, leading to a huge dip in popularity ratings for the royal family. As if this weren’t enough, a devastating fire gutted the historic Windsor Castle, among her most favourite properties and a national treasure. Few will forget the grim Queen, her head covered by a scarf, gazing sadly at the debris of the monument that seemed to reflect her own life at that moment.

Perhaps we can also begin to think of dubbing 2020 as a collective ‘annus horribilis’ for all of us on this planet. No one in this generation remembers another one like it, as grim data is reeled out daily about the mounting deaths and the end of the world as we knew it until a few months ago. Enough has been written about the plight of the unemployed and the poor, so none of us will ever be able to forget the heart-rending sight of long lines of migrants, trudging on highways and sleeping on railway tracks with their little children and pitiful belongings. Nor will we ever forget the ugliness of those who have shown such indifference and callousness to fellow humans wherever in the world they may be. For those of us born after the Partition, it is like a re-run. I doubt if anyone will forget this year that has brought so much misery to so many.

Yet, we cannot also forget how miraculously the planet healed itself as human beings stopped all those activities that have destroyed the harmony of nature. The sight of the magnificent Dhauladhar range, visible after decades from Jalandhar, the pristine blue waters of the Ganga, cleansed of its pollutant industrial and human waste, the heart-warming sight of animals reclaiming their lost world, snatched away by ruthless development — all these and more are equally worth remembering. It now remains to be seen which world we will choose to occupy and build when this scourge is finally over and we can resume our broken lives. If the unruly and jostling mobs outside our thekas were anything to go by, I suspect we will slip back to the life that we should seriously give up. I am an eternal optimist but sometimes even I begin to wonder whether we will really learn some lessons from this pandemic.

If it were up to me, I would declare a worldwide lockdown once a year for a month so that the planet can heal itself. It took Nature just a month to regain its equipoise, how long will it take us? Sometimes when human greed crosses the boundaries of good behaviour, Nature takes over to show them who really owns the planet and what will live on long after you and I are gone.

This may sound like pop-philosophy, but reflect for a moment on how many dear friends and relatives we have seen die and been helpless as we couldn’t attend their last rites. How many homeless people have lost not just their livelihoods but even the will to live — and you will agree that it is time for politicians everywhere to stop throwing blame and playing politics even on an occasion as this. It sickens me when I hear and see them exchange insults or shed crocodile tears over the plight of migrants without lifting a finger to help in any meaningful way. Is this responsible behaviour and do they even deserve to be called our representatives? I have written countless columns but the warmth that my piece on the Sikh community received has taken me by surprise. So many friends, non-Sikhs, mind you, have said they heartily agree. What the Sikhs have shown all armchair philosophers and our lofty academics is simply that they follow their religion in their life in a way that no other community has done. And even if they do not spout wisdom on our TV screens every night, they have learnt well the lessons their Gurus taught them.

Behind all the bombast about India becoming a Vishwaguru and the constant harking back to our glorious past is the reality that we have betrayed the wisdom of our own religions. Mere recitation of Sanskrit mantras, as the great Shankaracharya said, is not going to grant absolution. But who remembers him or Swami Vivekanand or even the wise Sufi saints who lived and died by the doctrine of love for all? Even the West has forgotten Jesus, who pulled down a temple saying to the greedy Pharisees (ancient Jews) that they had converted His father’s house into a commercial place.

Behind every politician I see the unseen presence of their real image which, like Banquo’s ghost, hovers more prominently than their earnest advice. I hope they realise that you can fool some of the people for some of the time, but not all the people all of the time.