I have started working with SFI.Its a good way of earning hand somely.Any one can join as affiliate.

For Petty Gain

Letter to Congress President: OROP BillboardDesignation of Maj TC Rao is President Ex Servicemen Cell (DPCC)Lt Gen Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSMChairman262, Sector-17A, Gurgaon – 122 001IESM/OROP/2009, July 2009Dear Madam,I draw your kind attention to the publicity bill boards that have appeared recently at many public places in Delhi. In these one Major TC Rao (retd) has expressed gratitude for the grant of ‘one rank one pension’. Photos of a few political leaders, including yourself, appear on top of the advertisement. A copy of the advertisement is attached for your perusal.Major Rao uses the honorific of President Ex Servicemen Cell (DPCC). It is not known whether he is using the medium of propaganda for furtherance of his personal ambitions or whether the effort has the official backing of the Congress party or the government; his being a Congress functionary prima facie suggests the latter. Whatever it is, my aim in addressing this to you is to point out that the claim made in the advertisement if false. The fact is – and is well known to the environment – that the government is not implementing ‘one rank one pension’. If the government is indeed granting ‘one rank one pension’, all pensioners have to be brought at par, rank-to-rank and service-to-service. Merely removing the differences between the pensions of distant past and recent past cannot be construed as ‘one rank one pension’.The false propaganda has caused great anguish among the Ex Servicemen community. It is also hurting the image of the Congress Party. I would request that the bill boards be taken off from public places.With best regardsYours sincerely,Sd xxxx(Raj Kadyan)Smt Sonia GandhiPresident Indian National Congress10, Janpath, New Delhi

Kargil Heroes

http://reportmysignal.blogspot.com/2009/07/kargil-war-heros-tribute.html

OPEN YOUR EYES SOLDIERS

AN ARMY OF OCCUPATION: A BUREAUCRATIC VIEW OF THE MILITARY Many defence analysts are of the view that had the Kashmir war not started in 1947, in less than a decade the Indian army would have been reduced to a constabulary. When the subject of modernization of the army was raised with Nehru, it is believed that he responded by saying that, if need be, the army should be prepared to fight with 'lathies..' Kashmir operations not withstanding, the plan to systematically and persistently downgrade the military was put into operation and by 1962 much had been achieved. The political class had come to believe that they had ascended an era of peace, free of international power politics, strategic power play and the role of military power to protect national interests had become minimal. It was a utopian world where reason and dialogue were believed to be the ultimate tools for the resolution of clash of interests and conflict situations. Though the Chinese did give a severe jolt and tried to shake our leadership out of their world of make belief, it succeeded only partially, because when 1965 came we found ourselves, militarily inferior to Pakistan in many key areas. There was a pathological dislike of the Indian military by the congress party which came to power at the centre on attaining independence. Herein rests the answer to the military's down-gradation in so systematic and persistent a manner soon after independence! The Bureaucracy exploited this bias of the congress to the hilt and added to it the fear and the possibility of a military take over as had occurred in some of the neighbhouring countries. It also managed to restructure the higher defence set-up to the nation's overall strategic disadvantage. Gen O P Malhotra as Chief of Defence Staff, in a note to the RM in 1981 raised the issue of down grading of service officers in the warrant of precedence (which bears on pay etc as well ) and that these down-gradations coincided with the termination of every war ( 1948,62,65, and 71. ) and this had seriously effected the morale of armed forces. A committee of three secretaries periodically revise the warrant of precedence, which is rubber stamped by the supreme commander of the armed forces, who is not known to have even once raised a query on this regular assault on the officers of his forces. In response to Gen OP Malhotra's objection, the committee of secretaries recorded, "military officers were placed unduly high in the old warrant of precedence, presumably as it was considered essential for officers of army of occupation to be given special status and authority." While it appeared to be an independent perception of a few babus, the political class, either had a similar view or were indifferent to bureaucratic machinations. Of all the people of this world, we Indians, who have been under the heels of armies of occupation for more than two thousand years, should know what such armies are like. To call Indian army of the 20th century (1900 to1947) an army of occupation was blasphemous. Congress resolution of 1942 stated "The present Indian Army is an off-shoot of the British Army and has been maintained to mainly hold India in subjugation. It has been completely segregated from the general population." These were the very years in which the British used police and not the army to ruthlessly crush the 'Quit India movement' and that Lala Lajpat Rai fell to police 'lathies' and not an army bullet. Yet the Congress heaped this ignominy on the military. From end 1939, the Indian army was out of India and nearer home involved in a desperate fight to keep the Japanese at bay. The congress leadership in 1942 had no experience of state craft or state power and could only accuse, agitate and was scared to name the police and found army a distant and easy target. Segregation of military from the local population was nothing new. It was an essential requirement for maintaining discipline and professionalism. Even within Indian forts, the soldiers quarters were segregated from the rest. The concept of 'Chawanies' ( cantonments ) in India was first introduced by Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Residences and offices of senior civil servants too were located in British cantonments established well away from civil population. Gen Malhotra pointed out that on the other hand, this committee of babus while expounding the theory of 'army of occupation " failed to realize that a high place was accorded to the civil servants in the colonial bureaucracy, because they were the trusted paladins of the imperial power.. It was the British P.M, Lloyd George, who referred to the ICS as the steel frame of the British to control India. It was the civil services and the police who were the instruments of oppression and were the willing and enthusiastic tools employed to crush the nationalist upsurge, fervour and the freedom movement. Recall that incident in Lahore where the police arrested a 'Tongawala' whose only crime was that he urged his lazy horse to move faster: at Hitler's speed. (chal Hitler di chaley). Police and civil services were more loyal than the king. The Indian Army held NW frontier for a hundred years and prevented those wild tribes from across the Hindu Kush Mountains from making periodic forays into the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Later it fought a savage war in the jungles of Burma and finally stemmed, at Imphal and Kohima, the Japanese assault on India. The Japanese army was barbaric in the extreme and our people in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and POWs, had a taste of its brutality. It is the mutinies in the Army and Navy which threw a clear signal to the British that it was time to leave. So it is highly malicious for anyone to term Indian Army as army of occupation. Consider this. The Indian government, in the first 50 years of independence, has deployed the Indian army to quell riots, maintain order etc 10 times more than the British did in their last 50 years of their rule in India. So much for the poor governance we have had all these years. A soldier is under oath and fealty to the constitution/ government of the day. There can be no grounds for him to break his oath. That is why the INA troops, and those of the Navy and Army who mutinied, could not be taken back into service after independence. However, the suspicion injected deep into the political mind of a military take over lingers. Moreover the political class continues to be in the grip of the bureaucracy or as Nirad C Chaudhury puts it so succinctly, "the political leadership is helplessly flapping its wings against the bars of the cage in which the bureaucracy has placed it." This down gradation of the military officers was even taken into armed forces headquarters, where a civilian officer in the appointment of Director equated with a Lt-Col / Col, was suddenly equated with a brigadier. This completely distorted the working equations at armed forces headquarters and had adverse impact on the working at Sercive Headquarters. Gen Rodriques, as Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee lodged a strong protest with the RM, against this chicanery of the bureaucracy, but the protests fell on deaf ears and political class appeared helpless against continued assault on the military. Since the down-gradation of the military is continuing to this day: 6th CPC being the latest manifestation of this six decade old policy, presumably the Indian military is still being perceived as an army of occupation. Military service has become so unattractive that few want to join it and those inside want to quit. 15 of the brightest colonels of the army have declined to sign up for the Higher Command Course, which is an essential stepping stone for promotions to higher ranks. In the last two years over 2000 officers have sought release from service, which includes brigs and generals. Is there similar leakage of talent in the civil services! Indian army has been in, 'no war no peace,' state since independence. Wars apart, army has lost 569 officers and over 9000 JCOs and other ranks in counter insurgency operation during the last ten years. While there is little value for human life in India, the value of soldier's life count for nothing in this country. Therefore, one wonders whose army it is anyway and who will soldier for India! We have the ambition to be a world economic power, but the vision and will of a third world country when it comes to creating strategic capabilities. Given the geo-strategic environments of the region and India's unwillingness to rise to meet the emerging challenges, the picture is getting fairly grim by the day. To complete that picture one may add the factor of de-motivation of country's armed forces.

OROP

OROP is not in sight(mailto:reportmysignalblogspot@gmail.com )but some exservieman has thanked congress in advance.Blowing ones own trumpet.CONGRESS EXSERVICEMEN CELL.

THROUGH THICK AND THIN - The government must revive the morale of the armed forces
BRIJESH D. JAYAL

Unsung lives
Through this column I would like to congratulate Manmohan Singh and his party for having provided this nation with what was most needed at this critical juncture — a stable government. While doing so I must confess that I am guilty of not being one of those who have made this possible. I chose not to exercise my franchise since the denial of the right to exercise the option of ‘none of the above’ is to my mind not being fair to the spirit of our democracy.
The subject of this article, however, is not electoral reform, but the one institution that has served the nation through thick and thin at the cost of tremendous human hardship and sacrifice — the armed forces of the republic of India. While the public still holds the armed forces in some esteem, the same cannot be said of those who govern the country. Had it been otherwise, there would not have been a progressive decline in the status of the armed forces in the national scheme of things. To quote the Kargil review committee report, “India is perhaps the only democracy where the armed forces headquarters are outside the apex governmental structure.” It would be fair to say that every government since Independence has contributed to the decline of the status of the armed forces and its veterans, either by design or by neglect.
But one needs to make an exception. There was one minister of state for defence under the Rajiv Gandhi government, whose understanding of matters military and the ethos of the armed forces was profound. He later chaired a committee on defence expenditure set up by the V.P. Singh government, and the task force on management of defence set up as a consequence of the Kargil review committee report. Both these exercises had the stamp of his understanding of the issues involved and their national implications. Had the recommendations of these committees been implemented in the spirit in which they were made, the need for this article may well not have arisen.
The nation today is faced with stark choices. The national security environment is the most demanding since Independence and deteriorating by the day. The spectrum of warfare now spans the nuclear at one end to urban and internal at the other. Decades of insurgency in the East and years of proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir are taking a heavy toll on a professional army. Incidents of fratricide and suicides are increasing alarmingly. Hostile interests are taking advantage by spreading disinformation about the armed forces — ‘psychological warfare’ in today’s parlance. We are losing dozens of lives on active duty even during peace. Our borders with both Pakistan and China are underprepared. Revolutions in military affairs demand much greater levels of technological and training skills than at present, but the pool of volunteers is fast shrinking. Yet opportunities in civil life are expanding with generous salaries and stable lives.
That over the years the status of the armed forces has progressively declined is no secret. What is less evident is that the morale of this fine institution is being sapped bit by bit. Because service ethos demands cheerful acceptance of orders, this decline has been taken as meek acceptance. As internal security challenges rise, the polity becomes more competitive, and for the 24-hour electronic media hungry for breaking news, there is a temptation to make a scapegoat of the military. It happened in Manipur some years ago, it occurs frequently in Jammu and Kashmir, and happened recently in Tamil Nadu where an army convoy was needlessly attacked. Successive service leaderships have failed to convince the government of the adverse implications of this state of affairs. The sixth pay commission has merely added another insult to the already wounded psyche of the armed forces.
For the first time in the nation’s history, veterans — from soldiers to three-star ranks — have been driven to express their anguish publicly by holding rallies across many cities, sitting in dharna at Jantar Mantar and, in a regrettable gesture, surrendering their prized medals to the supreme commander in their thousands. These unheard of incidents would have evoked instant response from the government in any democratic country. Our silence is both pregnant and deafening.
The nation needs to introspect. Why, for instance, are we the only democracy where civilian control of the armed forces has come to mean bureaucratic control? Why has there been a systematic and progressive decline in the standing of the armed forces over these last six decades? Why is it that the only living five-star rank-holder should feature in the warrant of precedence below the cabinet secretary? And why was it thought fit not to give a state funeral to a field marshal, who contributed to our 1971 war victory? One could go on; suffice it to say that slowly but surely we are robbing our armed forces of the oxygen of izzat and iqbal, shorn of which they will become mere mercenaries.
The nation under the leadership of Manmohan Singh needs to decide whether it needs professional and combat-worthy armed forces or is content with forces that will be runners-up. Military morale is a strange phenomenon. You can neither define it easily nor see it. While perceptive commanders can feel it in their bones, once it begins to evaporate, even the finest of them need godly qualities to revive it. Too much is at stake for it to be left to the very institutions that have brought us to this pass — and every arm of governance must accept the blame. The legislature for taking little interest in matters relating to the forces, unless there was some political mileage. The government for remaining a mute spectator and resisting bringing the military into the decision- and policymaking process. The bureaucracy for having converted the dictum of civilian control over the military to bureaucratic control. And finally, the armed forces leadership for sometimes failing to protect the ‘safety, honour and welfare of the men they command’ in the face of this onslaught.
The Mumbai attacks tell us how fragile the security environment is and the newer threats that are emerging. Pakistan has kept even the sharpest strategic minds guessing, but the prognosis is far from good. The West sees its war on terror as somewhat different from ours. A senior American navy commander’s recent revelation of Chinese maritime intentions in the Indian Ocean should cause us no surprise. The situations in Nepal and Sri Lanka are still evolving. In every area, without sounding pessimistic, we need to be prepared for far greater security challenges.
The nation can not afford to sit idle while our armed forces continue down a slippery slope. The time has come to opt for innovative solutions — something for which Singh is best known. Let the nation respond by setting up a ‘Blue Ribbon commission’ to look at all aspects of our armed forces. This would encompass every sphere, from the changing nature of warfare to what sort of armed forces are needed in the future, to inter-service working, to the way the forces are organized and integrated within the national decision-making process, to their place within the hierarchy and that of veterans in society, to the creating of a war memorial as well as other issues that contribute to making the armed forces of any nation a unique institution.
The ‘Blue Ribbon commission’ would include citizens known for their experience and non-partisan interests, and will give the beleaguered armed forces some level of comfort. Its recommendations must be debated in Parliament, which should then legislate on major issues determining the role and place of the armed forces in our country.
Legislative direction is the surest way to ensure that decisions that become law are implemented. Otherwise they are open to administrative sleight-of-hand. Even in the United States of America it was the Goldwater-Nichols Act that mandated the joint chiefs of staff institution, scrutinized professional military education and mandated strengthening of focus on joint matters.
It is possible that our precedent-driven administrative system will resist this as a Blue Ribbon commission approach is a departure from the norm. But Singh must have faced similar hurdles when he embarked on the bold economic reforms in 1991. The institution of the armed forces now looks up to him for similar salvation.

Shadow Cabinet

BJP must appoint one for (its own and) India’s sake.
Inspired by the way things happen at the Westminster, a Shadow Cabinet has been a long-standing demand of many well-meaning political commentators in this country. Now that most commentators are predicting the end of coalition politics in this country of last two decades, it is perhaps time for the BJP to step up and grab the space of the principal opposition party, which is willing to put forth an alternative agenda for governance. Rather than staging walk-outs from the Parliament over petty political issues and launching inelegant personal attacks, the BJP should focus on shaping the debate in parliament and influencing policy making.
A prerequisite for achieving this noble goal is for the BJP to not only privately anoint a loose group but publicly declare a Shadow Cabinet. Let Jaswant Singh take on AK Antony on issues related to national security. Let Mr. Antony answer to the nation [through Jaswant Singh] why the major recommendations of the GoM report submitted after the Kargil Review Committee haven’t been implemented so far. The parliamentary committee on defence has made many recommendations to the defence ministry and defence services in the last five years but they haven’t also been seriously considered by the government, forget about them being implemented.
Let the defence minister also explain his ministry’s pathetic record on defence spending under his watch. What, to his mind, is the optimum capital to revenue expenditure ratio for national defence? How can it be achieved, if capital spending is either being reappropriated into revenue expenditure or being returned unutilised? Should the defence spending be related to the national GDP or should there be a quadrennial defence review conducted by the government to determine the budget for the defence LTIPP?
A discussion on defence spending can only occur if the the government’s view on the geopolitical situation in South Asia is known to the nation. Where do the defence services fit in that scheme of things? Is it merely about more weaponry and more numbers — against China or whomsoever he perceives the enemy to be? What are the Indian armed forces readying themselves for? And how will they get there? Can the defence minister and the shadow defence minister agree upon a bipartisan committee or bipartisan studies to recommend the future course of action for India’s national security setup?
There are numerous other issues pertaining to national defence and security — from civil-military relations to Indian contribution to UN peacekeeping missions — that must be debated and publicly scrutinised via means of an informed debate in the Parliament. A shadow defence minister, dedicated to the subject — with a younger MP as his understudy — is sine qua non for improving the functioning of Indian democracy and holding the government accountable on serious issues of national importance. The shadow defence minister and his understudy have to be automatically nominated to the parliamentary committee on defence by the BJP, so that they can influence debate and policy making through a parliamentary fora available to the elected representatives of the country.
Such a measure will not only allow the BJP to reinvent itself as a center-right party focused on substantive issues of governance — rather than frittering its energies on frivolous emotive issues — but also act as a check on the political executive running amok. It will re-establish the primacy of the Parliament — as an institution of public debate and policy making — something which seems to have been appropriated by TV studios in this country to the chagrin of all well-meaning Indians. If the BJP can implement this, it would be doing itself and the nation a huge favour which many generations to come (and this nation’s voters) will express their gratitude for. Can the BJP rise to the occassion