When the General speaks, his word reaches every man and woman and boosts their morale. In this age of information warfare, every word makes an impact on both sides of the fence.

Lt-Gen RS Sujlana (retd)

IS General Bipin Rawat loquacious? First, the counter to the statement of Bajwa, the Pakistan Army Chief, made in the Pakistan Parliament. 

Countering Pak’s Bajwa

Terming his call for peace as contrived, is based on experience, intelligence inputs and the ground realities of which the General is the best judge. All these inputs must be pointing contrary to the intent conveyed by Bajwa. What has been our experience in the past? Firstly, no statement emanating from Pakistan can be taken at face value. Secondly, whenever the situation warranted a joint approach, but the thrusts of the foreign and defence policies were at variance, the nation received a raw deal. A few examples will drive home this point: a) starting with the Indo-Pak war of 1947-48, approaching the UN against military advice, accepting a ceasefire and a flawed proposal to hold a plebiscite which can never take place on original terms; b) post the Indo-Pak war of 1965, strategically important areas were returned to our disadvantage; c) the Simla Agreement after the war of 1971 saw over 90,000 Pakistan prisoners of war returning home with no positives coming India’s way. Rather, Pakistan retained some of our captured soldiers who are still rotting in their prisons. The intent was evil and marked lack of concern from our side; d) the infamous Agra Summit with Musharraf, the failed bus diplomacy ending in the Kargil war! Need one say more about contrived talk?Thus, there is nothing amiss when the Army Chief calls it contrived. Actions on ground must follow words. 

Views on Doklam

With regards to China, the 1962 debacle is enough to show the disjoint between our foreign policy and defence policy. The Chinese have continued non-stop transgressions across the marked border. At Doklam, our tough stand was aimed to stop such transgressions. In such situations, the nation expects the Army Chief to take a tough stand and that is what he did.The armed forces have their own ‘niche’; nations perceive their requirement to fulfil their security needs which the military carries out. In our country, the armed forces have performed their roles most commendably with immense sacrifice. But to opine that the political narrative is getting militarised is farfetched. There are no indicators to support this view. The military has a limited say in matters of significance. Rather, the forces don’t even have a say in their own matters! 

About education in Valley

In making the statement about the education system in the Valley, the General has possibly ventured into domestic politics. But he has addressed an issue which should have been done long ago. Political parties of all hues, including the tough, rightest, nationalist ruling party, thought it wise not to rock the boat when it was known that the textbooks in question have been a major source of radicalisation of the youth. Someone had to hold the bull by the horn. The General did so. The aim was clear: to target the aetiology of the growing fundamentalism in the youth, and thereby wean the youth away from a path of self-destruction. Even limited success in this matter will have positive fallouts and reduce the gun culture and, most importantly, bring an end to the daily fatal casualties both in the civil society and the security forces and build a path to peace!  

Reality of military

The reality of the military in India can be judged by some facts: repeated undermining of their status; lack of modern wherewithal; refusal to rectify the injustice done in the Seventh and past Central Pay Commissions; their parent ministry (MoD) repeatedly moving the courts to counter their genuine demands; the negation of full OROP; maltreatment of the veterans and of course; the ever-elusive Central War Memorial. While memorials to commemorate our heritage are being planned (and rightly so), why the hesitation to build one for the military? So, are there really any grounds to show creeping militarisation in politics?

Fulfilling a duty

The need to take a stand and fulfil one’s duty is a must. History narrates that when Emperor Jahangir asked Guru Arjan Dev ji why he had supported Prince Khusro who had rebelled against him, the Guru had remarked, “If I had not assisted him in his forlorn condition…all men would despise me for my heartlessness and ingratitude, or they would say that I was afraid of thee!” The Army Chief would somewhat be in a similar predicament if he did not speak boldly. As physically he cannot reach out to every soldier, his word will reach every man and woman, boost their morale and motivation. Besides, in this age of information warfare, every word makes an impact on both sides of the fence. Such words are extremely important. The General must be allowed to fulfil his bounden duty, assist in preserving the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity, no effort should be made to gag him or place him in a Catch 22 situation!

tory Highlights

• New account of Indian attack on Pak’s Murid airbase during 1971 war
• Former pilot recalls raid, believed to be Air Force’s greatest offensive
• Defence Ministry’s commissioned history did not include incident

New Delhi: On December 8, 1971, four young Indian fighter pilots scything their way through enemy airspace were greeted by a sight almost too good to be true – several  Pakistan Air Force (PAF) transports and fighter jets were out in the open at Murid airbase which they had been tasked to attack. The PAF had been caught off-guard and Squadron Leader RN Bharadwaj, Flying Officer VK Heble, Flying Officer BC Karambaya and Flight Lieutenant AL Deoskar flying British-made Hunters of the IAF’s 20 Squadron pressed home their attack on the airbase located 120 kilometres inside Pakistan.

“We were a 4 aircraft formation.  Aircraft 1 and 2 went ahead on schedule. 3 and 4 were asked to delay their attack by a minute and a half. There was lot of ack ack fire in the sky. We broke radio silence and the lead aircraft told me ‘I just clobbered a 4 engine aircraft in the pen” says BC Karambaya, who won a Vir Chakra in 1971 and retired several years later as a Wing Commander.  “There was black ack ack all round.  I saw what I thought were MiG-19s [infact, the Chinese F-6, a copy of the Russian MiG-19] in a blast pen. Deoskar spotted another. I fired a small burst – a refuelling bowser caught fire. I kept on firing and was at a height of only 300 feet and the aircraft started rocking – I had clearly been hit by ack ack fire. I said, ‘I am ejecting.’  As I was about to pull the handle [to eject], I realised I didn’t want to become a prisoner of war. I kept flying low and then I saw the whole front right part of the wing and fuel tanks had been blown away but somehow the aircraft kept flying. There was very violent rocking. I just maintained my height and crossed the Indus and Sutlej into Indian territory.”

What Karambaya or the other pilots in the attack on Murid didn’t know at the time was that they had just participated in perhaps the greatest offensive counter-air operation in the history of the Indian Air Force, the success of which has been highlighted in a new book 47 years after the 1971 war.

AF Hawker Hunter in 1971 often called “God’s Own Aeroplane” by 20 Squadron, IAF

Never have more enemy jets been destroyed in a single IAF raid on a Pakistani airbase.

In his new book, “In The Ring and On Its Feet – Pakistan Air Force in the 1971 Indo-Pak war,” Pakistan’s premier military aviation historian Air Commodore M Kaiser Tufail (retd.) has now stated that IAF Hunters belonging to 20 Squadron destroyed 5 PAF F-86 Sabres on the ground in Murid. The F-86 wasn’t just any fighter – the Sabre was the premier fighter of the Pakistan Air Force and the single biggest challenge for the Indian Air Force in air battles in both the 1965 and 1971 wars, a jet that shot down several IAF fighters in air-to-air combat and inflicted heavy damage to ground targets in Indian territory. Tufail, who lists the identifying tail numbers of the Sabres which were destroyed (1095, 3839, 3848, 3851 and 4018) goes on to state “26% of PAF’s losses were entirely avoidable as slipshod dispersal led to the loss of five aircraft on the ground in Murid in a single IAF raid; two more were lost on the ground in other raids.”  In fact, Murid was particularly vulnerable to air attacks.

According to Tufail, “Intruders from Pathankot could nestle against the Parmandal Range, before swinging in from Naushahra-Rajauri side. To counter this susceptibility, F-86Fs from No 15 Squadron were providing constant Combat Air Patrols since first light on December 4.” As it turned out, the December 8 IAF attack decimated approximately 30 per cent of the strength of this same 15 Squadron of the Pakistan Air Force.

Ironically, the official Ministry of Defence commissioned history of the Indian Air Force, published after the 1971 war, makes no claim on the destruction of the Sabres.  The only reference to the December 8 mission is attributed to a book written by a former Pakistan Army Major General and says, “In two counter-air missions by the IAF, five aircraft were destroyed on the ground at Murid and Chaklala.”

Neither has there been an attempt so far at revising the official IAF record of the 1971 war despite the fact that details of the Hunter attack on Murid were first published by the Pakistan Air Force in 1988 in the book, ‘The Story of the Pakistan Air Force: A Saga of Courage and Honour’ which says, “On the ground, the PAF’s biggest single loss occurred at Murid on 8 December when a Hunter attacked a lone F-86 which was thoughtlessly parked, after being refuelled and rearmed, next to a cluster of 4 covered pens; within these pens stood 4 F-86s fully armed with bombs for the next mission. The base paid the price for this inexcusable lapse by losing all 5 aircraft when the exploding bombs of the exposed Sabre triggered detonations in the other four.”

What is also clear is that the IAF pilots on that December 8 mission never knew about the extent of their success. In fact, they didn’t even know what they hit. The 20 Squadron history, ‘When Lightnings Strike – No.20 Squadron, Indian Air Force 1956-2006’ has several details of the mission. “The second strike on 8 December was the third Lightning visit to Murid. Led by Ravi and Heble, Deoskar and Karambaya. They reached Murid just as a PAF mission had landed back. They had a great time like children in a toyshop and knocked out a transport aircraft, vehicles and MiG-19s in pens.  Karambaya had to reluctantly return from the party owing to damage sustained on his drop tank.”

The remarkable Indian Air Force attack in Murid during the 1971 war with Pakistan is a mostly forgotten chapter in the history of the Indian Air Force, due, in no small part, to the poor quality of video recordings of the attacks filmed from the gun-cameras of some of the jets.  Claims made by pilots could often never be verified and in cases, the pilots were honoured with gallantry medals for other operations that they were involved in. But Murid was different. The Pakistan Air Force has twice stated the impact of the raid.

According to India’s foremost aviation historian Pushpinder Singh Chopra, “The IAF knocked out more jets on the ground in Murid than they have been able to do in any other offensive counter-air operation.  Given the details in Tufail’s new book, there is an urgent need to update our military records and give credit to the men who were part of this remarkable mission on December 8, 1971.”

Majid Jahangir

Tribune News Service

Srinagar, January 20

Amid the escalating tension along the border, Lt Gen Anil Kumar Bhatt is likely to take charge of Army’s Srinagar-based sensitive and strategic 15 Corps in the last week of January, defence sources said.Lt General Bhatt was appointed as Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) in 2016 and was in charge of all Army operations, including along the Line of Control (LoC). He will take over as GoC 15 Corps on January 28 or 29.He will be replacing Lt Gen JS Sandhu, who had taken over as General Officer Commanding (GOC) of 15 Corps also called the Chinar Corps, on November 1, 2016.Lt General Bhatt, a Gorkha officer and an alumnus of prestigious St George’s College, will assume the office at a time when there has been a spike in tension along the LoC, though the nearly 350-km LoC portion in Kashmir under the control of 15 Corps is relatively calm, unlike the Jammu region.“Lt General Sandhu will move to Delhi and take over as new Military Secretary,” the defence sources said.Lt General Sandhu had taken over as GOC 15 Corps almost four months after the unrest broke out in Kashmir over the killing Hizbul Mujahideen militant Burhan Wani.While the new Corps commander is likely to take over in the last week of this month, the GOC of the Baramulla-based 19 Infantry Division, responsible for guarding the LoC from Gulmarg to Uri to Nowgam, was also replaced last month. Maj Gen GS Rawat took over from Maj Gen RP Kalita as the GOC 19 Infantry Division.The LoC in Kashmir is manned by troops of two divisions of the Army — one based in Baramulla and another in Kupwara.

There was a ceasefire violation by the Pakistan Army. PTI file

Jammu, January 17

Pakistani troops opened fire on Indian posts along the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir’s Poonch district, injuring an Army captain, officials said.There was a ceasefire violation by the Pakistan Army.They resorted to firing along the LoC in Chakan Da Bagh area in Poonch on Tuesday evening, a security force official said.

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

The injured Army captain had been hospitalised, they said.The Indian troops retaliated and the exchange of fire continued till Tuesday night, they said.The latest violation of the ceasefire came a day after seven Pakistani Army men, including a major, were killed and four others injured in retaliatory action by the Indian Army in Poonch.Authorities had on Monday suspended the cross-LoC bus service between Chakan Da Bagh and Rawalakot, following heightened tension on the LoC. PTI

Scales tilt? Something dark may be brewing in the topmost court of the land.

Yogendra Yadav

LET’S be clear about what the current crisis in the apex court is not. We know that this is not a storm in a teacup that was to go away by Monday morning. This is not a personal tussle among the top judges that has spilt over in the public domain. This is not a dispute about who should decide the case of Judge Loya or a few similar cases. This is not a technical dispute about the power to decide the roster in the Supreme Court. This is not just about a serious allegation of corruption that points to the apex of our judicial system. In fact, this is not a dispute internal to the institution of judiciary.This is about an actor that has managed to stay invisible through this crisis: the Modi government. This is, above all, about the relationship between the judiciary and the executive. Specifically, this is about an attempt by the government of the day to secure a pliant judiciary through Bench fixing. In the run-up to the Emergency, Indira Gandhi had demanded and, indeed, almost achieved a “committed judiciary”. The Modi government now seeks to achieve the same objective through a compromised judiciary. The protest by the four judges represents perhaps the last significant hurdle that the Modi government faces in this project. And judiciary is one of the last hurdles that it faces in its drive for total control. That is why the current crisis in the apex court is about the future of Indian democracy.Let’s not be distracted by the loose gossip that accompanies any development of historic significance. Media and the Bar have seen intense speculation on the relationship among the top judges and their motivations. True, no action is entirely devoid of envy, ambition and pride. But the unprecedented action by the four judges, known for their integrity, goes beyond such small motives. None of them has anything to gain and almost everything to lose by doing what they did. Justice Gogoi runs the risk of losing his turn as the next CJI and the other three may lose on post-retirement sinecures. Besides, the press conference was too sudden (and clumsy) to have been orchestrated through a grand conspiracy. We have thus no reason to disbelieve that these judges were speaking the voice of their conscience. If they wanted to compromise, the CJI may not have gone ahead by excluding them again from the constitutional Bench. Let’s not get caught up in a limited procedural dispute about whether this was the right way to express their dissent. True, judges are supposed to speak through their judgments and not through the media. Their outburst has the potential of setting a bad precedent. The criticism by Justice Santosh Hegde and some other retired judges has a point. Perhaps the judges could have chosen another forum. What if the judges thought that the matter is so grave that it must be brought to public attention? At least that is what they seem to be suggesting when they spoke of “discharging a debt to the nation”. If that was the intent, we should be grateful that they chose the straightforward way of open, public expression instead of the dishonest route of planted stories and leaked letters. Debates about how to express dissent must not trump the point of what the dissent was about.    Let’s not limit ourselves to the technical dispute about who decides the roster and how. There is no dispute that under the present arrangement, the Chief Justice of India is the master of roster. But surely, the CJI needs remember what the courts tell the babus every day: yes, you have the power, but you cannot use it arbitrarily. There are procedures, practices and precedents. No one is saying that all “serious” or “sensitive” cases be given only to senior judges. The objection is about a pattern, of late, in which some top or inconvenient judges have been systematically kept out of, or removed, from cases the government has stakes in. What makes the roster crucial is its political significance. The CJI exercises twin powers of listing a case and assigning it to any Bench. In our judicial system where the Supreme Court sits in small Benches of two or three, and where cases drag for decades, this power can make or mar a case. This is why the CJI is so crucial to the justice system. This is why the government of the day may wish to keep the CJI in good humour, or on a tight leash.Therefore, let’s not limit our gaze to only the case of Judge Loya. This is, no doubt, a crucial case and can implicate the second most powerful person in the country. The evidence in the public domain so far does indicate something fishy. It must be pursued to its logical conclusion. But it is equally clear that this case was no more than a trigger for the protest by the four dissenting judges. They were looking at a series of other cases in the recent past, which the Committee on Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has meticulously documented. They must have been concerned about the cases that are to come up this year. In this year of the run-up to the general election, the ruling party’s electoral strategy hinges on the outcome of some cases in the apex court, including the Ayodhya dispute. More than ever before, the government needs a friendly CJI.Instead, let’s pay more attention to the application for internal inquiry against the CJI moved by Prashant Bhushan on behalf of the CJAR this Monday. The petition makes a case for an internal inquiry in the matter concerning the grant of recognition to a medical college in UP. The Bench hearing this case in the Supreme Court was headed by the current CJI. The petition documents a disturbing pattern in which this dubious medical college got more than one favourable judgment from this Bench. It also provides details of findings of the CBI’s preliminary investigation into this case. The evidence prima facie shows a middleman who was promising a favourable judgment from the Supreme Court. Most tellingly, this petition annexes transcripts of telephone conversations between the middleman and college owners. The middleman gives “500 per cent guarantee” of a favourable judgment by “the Captain” in “the temple” in Delhi, provided “prasad” is given in advance. We do not know if this refers to CJI Dipak Misra, and whether the middleman was acting at his behest. But surely, this matter needs an independent and credible probe.Let’s consider a possibility: could it be that the government is holding this and more sensitive material against the current CJI, leaving him with little option but to acquiesce. Since there is no set procedure for an inquiry against the CJI, the CJAR has approached the five seniormost judges after the CJI and has requested a probe. What happens to this request could determine the future of the Supreme Court of India.Let’s keep an eye on the fate of the CJAR petition, but let’s not just watch. Justice Chelameswar, Justice Gogoi, Justice Lokur and Justice Joseph have ensured that unlike their predecessors during the Emergency, they cannot be accused of selling their soul. But the onus of saving the judiciary and the constitutional order does not lie merely with the judges. In the last instance, it lies with all the citizens. Let the citizens be prepared to act in this battle for safeguarding democracy.

yogendra.yadav@gmail.com

Vijay Mohan

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, January 15

The Ministry of Defence has issued orders to revise the salary of superannuated officers who have subsequently opted for re-employment in the armed forces, consequent to the implementation of the Seventh Pay Commission.Re-employed officers in the defence services after retirement have been excluded from the purview of the respective Army, Navy and Air Force Officers Pay Rules 2017 that had re-fixed the salaries of regular officers last year.The pay revision for re-employed officers will cover all such officers who were under re-employment on or after January 1, 2016, the date of effect for the Seventh Pay Commission, the ministry’s orders issued earlier this week state. As a welfare measure and also to mitigate shortage of officers, the defence services offer re-employment to retired officers up to the rank of Brigadier for a maximum four years.The existing ceiling of Rs 80,000 per month for drawing pay plus gross pension on re-employment has been enhanced to Rs 2.25 lakh per month, the maximum basic pay prescribed for officers under Level 17 of the new pay matrix. The ‘ignorable part’ of pension, which is the amount that is not considered for deduction while calculating the pay for re-employment, has been enhanced from Rs 4,000 to Rs 15,000.The initial pay of a re-employed officer will be fixed in accordance with Rule 7 of the Army, Navy and Air Force Officers Pay Rules, which deals with the methodology of pay fixation of regular officers in the revised pay matrix as per their rank and seniority and the recommendations of the pay commission thereof.Revised pension under the Seventh Pay Commission, as applicable to the officer on retirement, excluding the ‘ignorable part’ of the pension, shall be deducted from the pay on re-employment in live with the general policy of the government, though they will be entitled to dearness allowance and military service pay with effect from January 2016. In addition to the revised pay, re-employed officers will continue to draw retirement benefits that they were permitted to get under pay commission recommendations.

Army Chief Gen Bipin Rawat reviews security in Rajouri sector. Tribune file Photo

New Delhi, January 14

Political initiative must go “hand in hand” with military operations in Jammu and Kashmir to bring peace, Army Chief Gen Bipin Rawat said today, and favoured ramping up the military offensive to pile up heat on Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism in the state.General Rawat said the armed forces operating in the state cannot be “status quoist” and must evolve new strategies and tactics to deal with the situation, which he feels is “marginally” better since he took over a year ago.In an interview, the Army Chief asserted that there was room for ramping up heat on Pakistan to cut the flow of cross-border terror activities, clearly indicating that the Army will continue its policy of hot pursuit in dealing with militancy.“The political initiative and all the other initiatives must go simultaneously hand in hand and only if all of us function in synergy, we can bring lasting peace in Kashmir. It has to be a politico-military approach that we have to adopt,” the Army Chief said.In October, the government had appointed former Intelligence Bureau chief Dineshwar Sharma as its special representative for a “sustained dialogue” with all stakeholders in Jammu and Kashmir.“When the government appointed an interlocutor, it is with that purpose. He is the government’s representative to reach out to the people of Kashmir and see what their grievances are so that those can then be addressed at a political level,” the Army Chief said.Asked whether there was room for ramping up pressure on Pakistan to force it to stop sending terrorists to the state, he said, “Yes, you cannot be status quoist. You have to continuously think and keep moving forward. You have to keep changing your doctrines and concept and the manner in which you operate in such areas.”General Rawat said the Army would have to evolve new strategies and new tactics to deal with the situation. At the same time, he said an overall approach was required to deal with the Kashmir issue.Since the beginning of last year, the Army pursued an aggressive anti-terror policy in Jammu and Kashmir and, at the same time, forcefully responded to all ceasefire violations by Pakistani troops along the Line of Control with a tit-for-tat approach.“Military is only part of the mechanism to resolve the Kashmir issue. Our charter is to ensure that the terrorists who are creating violence in the state are taken to task and those who have been radicalised and are increasingly moving towards terrorism are prevented from doing so,” he said.The Army’s aim is to ensure that it continues to maintain the pressure on the terrorists and those fomenting trouble there, General Rawat said. “But at the same time, we have to also reach out to the people.”Asked whether the situation in Kashmir has improved since he took over as the Army Chief a year ago, General Rawat said, “I am only seeing a marginal change in situation for the better. I do not think it is time to become overconfident and start assuming that the situation has been brought under control because infiltration from across the borders will continue.”According to official figures, 860 incidents of ceasefire violations by Pakistani troops were reported in 2017 as against 221 the year before. — PTI

In an unprecedented move, four Supreme Court judges today came out against the Chief Justice of India, saying that events in the Supreme Court left them with no choice but to address the nation.

Justice J Chelameshwar said the administration of the nation’s top court was not in order.

He said this was an extraordinary event in the history of the institution, and that they were compelled to act in this way because the Chief Justice could not be persuaded to mend th .. to mend the ways of the court.

“We met CJI this morning. We collectively tried to persuade CJI that certain things aren’t in order so take remedial measures but unfortunately our efforts failed,” says Justice Chelameswar.

“The four of us gave a letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) some months ago,” the Justices revealed. “It is discharge of debt to the nation which has brought us here, Justice Ranjan Gogoi told the media. Chelameshwar said democracy in this country would not survive without an institution as important as the Supreme Court, and a free judiciary.
We owe a responsibility to the institution and the nation. Our efforts have failed in convincing CJI to take steps to protect the institution,” the judges said.

“It is with no pleasure that we have been compelled to do this, administration of Supreme Court is not in order,” they said.

In response to a question on whether the CJI should be impeached, Justice Chelameshwar said that it was for the nation to decide.

Justice Gogoi, who would be succeedi present CJI in October this year, said that, “it’s a discharge of debt to the nation which we have done.”

The other judges involved included Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan Lokur and Justice Kurien Joseph.

The press conference was called at Justice Chelameswar’s residence here at Tughlaq Road.

In response, a special CJI hearing has been scheduled for 2 PM after Justice Dipak Misra also met the Attorney-General KK Venugopal.

Is this the case that left the judges aggrieved?
Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that the difference with the Chief Justice arose during the assignment of the case regarding the death of Justice Loya. He said the the death of Justice Loya left all four of them aggrieved.

The Supreme Court today agreed to hear two separate pleas seeking independent probe into the death of special CBI judge B H Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case. Loya had gone to Nagpur to attend the wedding of a colleague’s daughter on November 30, 2014, when he apparently fell ill suddenly and died of a heart attack. After Loya’s death, Judge MB Gosavi took over the Sohrabuddin case. Loya had gone to Nagpur to attend the wedding of a colleague’s daughter on November 30, 2014, when he apparently fell ill suddenly and died of a heart attack. After Loya’s death, Judge MB Gosavi took over the Sohrabuddin case.