“Issue notice to the CBI to inform the court about the status of the complaint and if the matter is still under progress, how much more time would be needed to finally dispose of the complaint,” Special Judge Pradeep Chaddah said.

In his complaint to the CBI Director in 2008, Singh had alleged corruption in procurement of ultra and very high frequency antennae and other communication equipment for Research and Analysis wing and Special Protection Group at exorbitant prices and without mandatory clearance.

Gen Singh had sought registration of the corruption and criminal cases against various senior officials of the two security agencies for their alleged roles in the dubious deals.

Singh said his complaint evoked no response and when he sought information under the RTI Act in 2009.

-via Deccan Herald

Rajat Pandit.

” One border-one force” might be a fine principle to propound but it’s simply not working on the ground in India, thanks to turf wars among various security agencies. The ministry of defence (MoD) and ministry of home affairs (MHA) have once again locked horns over the proposed deployment of BSF along the Indo-Myanmar border.

The home ministry wants BSF to replace the Assam Rifles along the 1,643-km border with Myanmar, which has long been a hotbed for insurgents, smugglers, drug traffickers and poachers.

But the MoD-Army combine is opposed to any move to pull back Assam Rifles – it administratively comes under the MHA as a central paramilitary force, but is under the Army’s operational control – from the border to restrict it to just its counter-insurgency operations in the hinterland.

The face-off had led to a bitter tussle between MoD and MHA last year, with the matter even reaching the PM-chaired Cabinet Committee of Security, but a workable solution was elusive, as was reported by TOI.

After remaining in cold storage for some months, the dispute has flared up again with a series of meetings being held between top officials from MHA and MoD-Army but the unseemly deadlock persists, say sources.

Army is blaming MHA for going slow on sanctioning the raising of 26 additional battalions of the Assam Rifles, which it underlines is much better geared to handle “both external and internal security challenges”, with China’s shadow looming large in the region.

Assam Rifles is not getting land near the border to construct outposts, roads, tracks and helipads for additional troop deployment. The paramilitary force has over 65,000 troops in 46 battalions, with 31 deployed for counter-insurgency operations in the hinterland and 15 guarding the border.

“With 90% of its officer cadre drawn from Army and 30% of its troops hailing from north-east, Assam Rifles is better geared for both counter-insurgency and border management. It has been working seamlessly with Army in the region, stretching from border to hinterland, in intelligence-sharing and operations. BSF will find it an alien environment,” said a MoD source.

MHA, however, feels posts of Assam Rifles should be located closer to the border to effectively prevent infiltration and smuggling. Additional battalions can be raised if the force moves closer to the border, instead of sticking to its present “company operating bases” located at a distance, and comes under MHA’s operational control. Conversely, BSF should move full steam ahead to raise 41 additional battalions for border management with Myanmar.

There is a similar pattern along other borders as well. MHA has stonewalled the Army’s proposal to take operational charge of ITBP, another of the seven central police forces, for better guarding of the Line of Actual Control with China in eastern Ladakh.

India’s long unresolved land borders with Pakistan and China continue to suffer from lack of synergy among various forces deployed in forward areas. This when the Group of Ministers’ report on reforming the national security system had underlined the importance of the ‘one border-one force’ principle over a decade ago.

-via Times of India

Saurabh Shukla.

The mother of India’s defence deals, the Rs.62,000-crore contract for the medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA) Rafale won by the French company Dassault, may become a bag of woes for the government.

Rafale bagged the deal because it was declared as the lowest bidder after the evaluation of the commercial bids of all the participating companies.

But highly placed sources said two senior officials of the defence ministry have questioned the methods adopted by the contract negotiation committee which concluded that Rafale was the lowest bidder.

The two officials – additional financial advisor and a joint secretary in the ministry Prem Kumar Kataria, and finance manager (air) R.K. Arora – are members of the negotiation committee that comprises senior ministry officials and Indian Air Force (IAF) officers.

The two officials noted that certain assumptions had been made about Rafale’s bid to declare it as the lowest bidder, but no one had validated it. The officials initially refused to sign the minutes of the committee. They later signed after making their reservations known. They put written notes on the file on January 24, according to officials privy to the negotiations.

Sources say Defence Minister A.K. Antony wants to steer clear of any controversy and has instructed that the committee should settle the issue internally.

The ministry officials are particularly cagey in the wake of corruption scandals. “We don’t want the ghost of Bofors to haunt us, so we want to make sure that all procedures are strictly followed,” an official said on condition of anonymity.

The process to acquire MMRCA was set in motion in 2001, when the IAF sent out its request for 126 jets. The defence ministry announced a formal request for proposal in 2007.

First, the submitted proposals were technically evaluated to check for compliance with IAF’s operational requirements. Then extensive field trials were conducted. Finally, the shortlisted vendors’ commercial proposals were examined and compared.

According to sources, while evaluating the commercial bids, a new system was followed that not only took into account the unit prices but also calculated the ‘life cycle costs’ – which takes into account the cost of maintenance and spares for the period, estimated at 40 years, the aircraft would remain operational. The sources said the whole formula was based on certain assumptions, which have now been questioned.

The contract negotiation committee’s report goes to the defence minister, who forwards it to the finance minister. Since the finance ministry will evaluate the MoD’s recommendation, the objections made on the file could create a problem. The government, already facing a lot of heat over several corruption scandals, will not like to be questioned over the biggest defence purchase.

However, these are early days and the signing of the contract is still a long way, as the defence minister said on Friday.

Antony said: “It will have to pass through scrutiny in eight stages. After the negotiation committee, it will come to the ministry where there will be at least four stages of scrutiny by defence finance. Then it will go to independent monitors appointed by the CVC and then to the National Security Council secretariat and the finance ministry.”

He also ruled out a review of the deal, as urged by the British PM.

-via MSN News

Karan Thapar.

I’ve deliberately waited a week because I want to be confident of my opinions before I share them with you. After all, the issues raised by the army chief’s age controversy concern an institution I hold in enormous esteem. But for that very reason it also behoves me to speak freely and, if necessary, critically.

I want to confine myself to a few points I consider paramount. First, was Gen VK Singh justified in taking his own government to court? My earlier comments may have suggested he was but I’ve come to think otherwise. Let me explain.

Like other citizens, Gen Singh, as an individual, has a right to seek justice from the Supreme Court. If captains, majors and colonels can — and even generals have — so can he. But Gen Singh is not just another soldier. He’s the army chief. As such he not only heads the army but, more importantly, personifies the institution. This imposes certain unique constraints and obligations on him. I believe in going to court Gen Singh overlooked this.

If, instead, he had resigned as chief and then sought redressal from the courts Gen Singh would have been considered both a hero and a martyr. A hero for upholding the high standing of his office at the cost of his own career. A martyr because a seemingly rigid and insensitive government had driven him to this.

But that’s not what happened. Gen Singh went to court pleading his honour and integrity were at stake. The key question he then faced was one he never answered but which continues to haunt him: was his honour and integrity not in question when, no matter how conditionally and no matter what the pressure, he agreed to accept in the army’s interest whatever his bosses deemed to be his date of birth and, then — and this is crucial — reiterated suo motto, four months before becoming chief, that he stood by that commitment?

If taking a stand on his date of birth was critical to his self-esteem surely the point at which he should have done this was 2006, 2008 or 2009, when the army raised the issue? Instead, at the time, perhaps because critical promotions would have been at risk, he found a way of accepting the wrong date. It seems it was only as chief when, presumably, there was nothing more to gain, he mustered the resolve to stand up.

Finally, what should Gen Singh have done when he lost? Remember, he was fighting for his honour and integrity. He identified this goal in terms of the Supreme Court accepting 1951 as his date of birth. But it pointedly did not. Worse, it accepted 1950 as the year the army should maintain in its service records. So, whatever sweet words the judges may have used, honour and integrity, in the terms Gen Singh defined them, were denied to him.

I think he should have immediately resigned. I believe that would have been the honourable thing to do.

Instead he left for Jaipur and then London, as if it was business as usual. Worse, he told The Indian Express the court had “upheld (his) integrity and honour” which, as I’ve explained, it had not.

I fear Gen Singh, who’s an honourable man, will live to rue these mistakes. He’ll always be known as the chief who took the government to court and lost. Sadly, some will also remember he didn’t resign immediately. That he didn’t do the decent thing.

-via Hindustan Times.

A Lieutenant Colonel of Indian Army will be court martialled for sexually abusing his helper or sahayak. Lt Col Sarup Singh Sidhu was posted as an administrative commandant at Palampur in Himachal Pradesh when a jawan who was serving as his helper accused him for allegedly indulging in sodomy.

He has been into hot waters of controversy earlier also. In 2011, an NRI settled in Australia, Kharak Singh Bajwa had filed a complaint against Sidhu. Bajwa had alleged that Sidhu had taken Rs 30 lakhs and three cellphones worth Rs 1.2 lakhs from him on the ploy of settling criminal charges which Bajwa was facing.

Sidhu had claimed to Bajwa that he had close links with the DGP and the IG (headquarters); the latter was then having a share in the Ivy Hospital located at SAS Nagar (Ajitgarh). Failing to get any relief from Punjab Police, Bajwa asked Sidhu to return his money but Sidhu started threatening him instead of returning the money. Meanwhile, Sidhu claimed that Bajwa was only an acquaintance of him whom he had met through a lawyer.

Apart from this, Lt Col Sidhu had been questioned by CBI in case of an Army contractor Darshan Lal who had been reportedly missing from Ferozepur cantonment from June 6,2004.

-via Punjab News Line

Brig Surinder Singh

Bhartesh Singh Thakur.

In the Brig Surinder Singh dismissal case, being heard by the Chandigarh bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), a mismatch in the replies submitted by the army and the ministry of defence (MoD) has come to light. A question has come up: were Kargil-related documents destroyed after being called to be placed on record by Brig Singh?

In a reply to Brig Singh’s application, dated September 15, 2010, for placing Kargil-related documents, including 11 Situation Reports (SITREPS), the army said on October 20, 2010, that these were available with 121 Infantry Brigade and were classified.

In an AFT order dated October 25, 2010, the court ruled that “the respondents (army, MoD) are directed to keep available the documents for perusal of the court on the next date of hearing.” But on March 4, 2011, a reply was filed by the joint secretary, MoD, that only three situation reports were available and the rest had been destroyed by a board of officers.

“These situation reports are related to hazardous patrols carried out by Brig Singh in the winters of 1998. These would have supported our argument that we had pre-informed about the enemy threat,” said the counsel for Brig Singh, MP Goswami.

Brig Singh is moving a contempt petition before the AFT about inconsistency in the two replies filed.

The army has already submitted before the court that a letter dated August 12, 1998, from the 121 Infantry Brigade to 3 Infantry Division, asking for satellite imagery of the enemy area, is neither available with the originator nor the addressee “as the same was destroyed by burning by a board of officers”.

Another letter written by the 121 Infantry Brigade to the 3 Infantry Division, dated November 17, 1998, asking for additional twin telescopes and procurement of satellite imagery of enemy area opposite to Kargil sector was also destroyed by “burning by a board of officers”.

An army headquarters letter dated November 23, 1998, on satellite imagery was also destroyed by burning.

-via Hindustan Times.

Fahad Shah.

I remember the day in Srinagar, fifteen years ago, during the 1996 assembly elections in Kashmir. I was playing cricket with my brothers when there was a loud bang on the iron gate, followed by the entry of a man in uniform. He was a Border Security Force (BSF) man, wearing a bulletproof waist over an olive green uniform and he had a rifle slung from his shoulder. We stopped playing and I stood there with my bat wondering who these men were as he walked in followed by several other men dressed like him. They asked for men, only ones who looked like adults. As children, we were ignored. The BSF man said, “Vote daalne chalo.” (Come to cast your vote) My father was not at home but my maternal uncle was. So they took him with them. This was not only during the elections. After that day, for years to come, forces would enter our houses, sometimes twice a week and search the entire house. They would dismantle everything inside and while the inhabitants huddled outside, even in the winter. Then it didn’t matter who you were – man, woman or child.

That day, for the first time, I understood what elections mean in Kashmir. You are forced to vote. You are forced to leave your house. Your belongings are thrown here and there. You have no choice but to obey the orders. If you refuse you can end up with red marks on your body. You might be bed-ridden for a few days. You might even find yourself in prison.

The Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act (AFSPA) signed into law by the President of India in 1990 helps the forces to treat civilians that way. As per the section 4, sub-section (d) of the act armed force men, commissioned officers, warrant officers, or non-commissioned officers, can

“enter and search, without warrant, any premises to make any such arrest as aforesaid or to recover any person believed to be wrongfully restrained or confined or any property reasonably suspected to be stolen property or any arms, ammunition or explosive substances believed to be unlawful kept in such premises, and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary, and seize any such property, arms, ammunition or explosive substances.”

They have the power “to break open the lock of any door, almirah, safe, cupboard, drawer, package or other thing, if the key thereof is withheld.”

The debate on the partial removal of the act has been going on for a long time now. But I don’t see it being removed even inside the military cantonment areas like the one in Badami Bagh. Omar Abdullah has been unable to deliver on that election promise.

On 24 November, 2011, The Economic Times wrote, “Despite the position Omar seems to enjoy in New Delhi, he appears to have failed to convince the forces who matter to even consider his suggestion that would have come as a major boost to his popularity after the major setbacks he has faced since he took over in January 2009. Curiously, the same forces opposing the move tooth and nail have always maintained that plebiscite was no longer valid due to successive elections in the state. The chief minister had won the elections on the promise of good governance and revocation of the draconian laws. So, how credible are these polls in terms of deliverance on the basic promises made to the people before these elections?”

What that article does not say is how credible are these polls. Thousands of miles away from Kashmir, most Indians just read figures reported in the media about how the percentage of voting surges with evey poll. But those numbers don’t tell the entire story where so many people have so often been forced to vote.

Whether during elections or for protests, draconian laws like AFPSPA come into handy for government forces in Kashmir. It gives the armed forces impunity. Last week on 10 February, Ashiq Hussain Rather, 22, of Lasser village of Baramulla district was killed by Rashtriya Rifles men just outside his house. On spotting the soldiers outside their house, Shugufta, his younger sister screamed in panic. Ashiq rushed out of his house. The family says that the soldiers gunned down Ashiq without any provocation. “But (the soldiers) ran away when a crowd gathered and we raised a hue and cry,” Mudassir Ahmad, Rather’s relative, told the Daily Mail.

The government has ordered a probe, like many other probes which have never reached any conclusion. With the AFSPA in the state, the armed forces men who killed Ashiq cannot be prosecuted without the sanction from the central government. The act is a hurdle in the prosecution of armed forces. It has been widely condemned but it still continues.

But in Kashmir you don’t even need the AFSPA to crack down on civilians. I remember covering the story of Omar Qayoom Bhat, 17, a class 11 student of Malik Sahib, Soura in 2010. Omar was beaten up by police and CRPF’s joint party on 20 August, 2010 and then allegedly “tortured” in the police station. On 24 August, 2010, he died after being on a ventilator for 51 hours. The hospital death certificate showed the cause of death was pulmonary hypertension with severely deranged blood gases, diffuse intrapulmonary haemorrhage and blunt trauma on chest.

When we were at Omar’s home, talking to his father, the magistrate of the area arrived. He told us, “I was at the spot on the day of protests. When the protests started a Central Reserve Police Force officer told me to allow opening fire. I refused. I thought these are little children. How can they be shot. He asked for permission again but I refused. After sometime I heard gunshots. They started firing on their own…”

I asked him, “How can they shoot without your permission?” According to the Criminal Procedure Code, it is the local magistrate who can call the army to aid civil authority. The military commissioner has to obey him.

The magistrate replied, “Well, my son, if the law is to be followed then there is a complete procedure for opening fire during protests. There is a document which has three sections and is to be filled for permission. Like section A, shooting in air; B, below waist; C, on chest. But when protests start and the forces can’t stop them, they open fire.”

That is the everyday story of Kashmir. Why do the forces even need AFSPA here? They can do anything even without laws. AFSPA or no AFSPA makes no difference in Kashmir. The main problem, the cancer, still lies there.

-via Firstpost.

Riyaz Wani.

The Police has been lauded for its stellar role in the fight against militancy in Jammu & Kashmir, but the defence ministry does not trust its investigation into human rights violations by armymen. In 19 out of the 24 cases forwarded by the J&K government for sanction for prosecution, the ministry found the probes to be shoddy. In some cases, the ministry even suspects foul play by the police and is still mulling some of the evidence gathered in other cases.

In the case against Major Raghavan R Singh, who is accused of killing a civilian in custody on 15 June 2000, the ministry has accused the police of recording “doctored statements of the witnesses” to falsely implicate the officer. “The post-mortem report reflected no injuries except a scratch on the right wrist,” argues the ministry in reply to an RTI as its reason for denying the sanction for prosecution. In a similar case against Major GK Batila of the 30 Rashtriya Rifles, the ministry terms the allegation baseless and “framed with mala fide intent to tarnish the image of the army”.

So far, there has not been a single case in which the defence ministry has found the probe adequate to grant sanction for prosecution.

The denied cases include the Pathribal fake encounter, which saw the Supreme Court censuring the army for its attempt to stonewall the trial. In 2000, five civilians were killed by the army and passed off as the terrorists responsible for the killing of 36 Sikhs in Chittisinghpora. The CBI has already concluded that it was a fake encounter.

Similarly, sanction is also awaited in the case of Major Avatar Singh, who is accused of killing human rights activist Jalil Andrabi in 1996. But the case against Singh sent to the defence ministry for sanction is not about Andrabi but the custodial death of Imtiyaz Ahmad Wani, a civilian. Incidentally, there is an Interpol Red Notice against Major Singh, now settled in the United States.

So far, the main reason for the rejection of sanction has been that the probes don’t make for a credible case against the accused. For example, in a 2003 case of enforced disappearance involving Captain Atul Sharma, the ministry says the allegation is “motivated”. “Neither was any operation carried by any unit in the area nor was any person arrested as alleged,” the ministry says.

However, human rights activists are unconvinced. “If the defence ministry thinks that human rights cases against armymen have no basis and are motivated by malicious intent, then the ministry should file a defamation suit against the police,” says Parvez Imroz, a leading lawyer and president of the Coalition of Civil Society.

At the same time, there are contradictions in the number of human rights cases. In reply to an RTI query, the state home ministry said that since 1989, it has forwarded 31 cases to the defence ministry and 19 to the Union home ministry, which gives the nod in cases against paramilitary personnel. This takes the total to 50, out of which permission has been denied in 26. In 16 cases, it is stated to be under scrutiny. Interestingly, the state’s home department says it has recommended the sanction for trial in eight other cases.

Does it mean that there are only 50 cases of human rights violations in J&K against the army in the past 20 years? According to a recent State Human Rights Commission report, it has registered 5,699 cases from 1997 to August 2011, of which it has disposed of 4,578 cases, while probes are on to determine the truth in other complaints.

-via Tehelka

Breaking the gender barrier, more women are joining the defence forces. And, the process has got further impetus after Indian Naval Academy (INA), Ezhimala, opened its doors.

Since 2009, when PM Manmohan Singh inaugurated the academy, 174 women officers have been trained in various disciplines. As on July 2011, 413 women officers have passed out from INA.

In fact, the Navy, which began inducting women in their ranks in 1992, now has about 350 women among its 5,000-plus officers. While women were initially granted commission for seven years, it was gradually extended to 14 years.

The Passing Out Parade of the 13th Naval Orientation Course (NOC) was held at INA, Ezhimala on Dec. 3, 2011. Among 238 trainees who completed their course were 70 women.

“We recruit young girls and develop them into knowledge warriors, outstanding professionals, compassionate colleagues and, above all, responsible civilians,” vice admiral Anurag G. Thapliyal said. “(But) It will be difficult to accommodate them in the combat zone (because) it will be an embarrassing situation if a woman is caught as a prisoner of war.”

As of now, women are admitted to NOC, which lasts from six months to a year. They are then drafted into the Indian Navy and the Coast Guard, Mr Thapliyal said.

But despite all this, one grievance of women officers is that while the Army and the Air Force have agreed to reinstate woman officers and consider them for permanent commission, the Navy is yet to do it.

-via Deccan Chronicle.

The Supreme Court allowed the commandant’s appeal against the GCM proceedings but recorded its annoyance over the commandant and other officers, found to be responsible for the illegal purchases, going unpunished because of procedural lethargy.

A bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Chandramauli Kumar Prasad quashed the order convening a GCM against Colonel Rajvir Singh three years after the CoI proceedings and said, “One feels sorry to see a trial on such serious charges being aborted on grounds of limitation but that is the mandate of law.”

The bench noted, “Other officers who were allegedly involved in irregular purchases for the Central Ordnance Depot, Chheoki, also seem to have got away with very light, it at all any, punishment. Major-General S P Sinha was subjected to an administrative action in which an order was passed on August 6, 2010 expressing severe displeasure (non-recordable) against him.”

It added, “Lt-Col Neeraj Gaur was finally acquitted by the GCM. Lt-Col Aloke Ghose was given severe displeasure (non-recordable) after the commanding officer found charges against him not proved. Major (now Lt-Col) M K Bawa was similarly given severe displeasure (non-recordable). Against Lt-Col Uma Shankar, no further action was taken after charges against him were not proved.”

The CoI, in its January 24, 2007 report, had indicted the appellant, Col Rajvir Singh, of flouting relevant rules in making purchases worth Rs 2.2 crore and causing a loss of Rs 60.18 lakh to the government while being posted as commandant of Central Ordnance Deport, Chheoki. Two other officers faced similar indictment.

The CoI report, along with the recommendations of the General Officer Commanding, Madhya Bharat Area, was forwarded to the GoC-in-C on April 26, 2007. On May 7, 2007, the GOC-in-C wrote a note in the form of recommendations saying there was cogent and adequate material evidence regarding cognizable acts of commission/omission committed by various officers at Central Ordnance Deport, Chheoki.

But the order for convening GCM was passed only on August 23, 2010 and it was immediately challenged by the appellant saying the order was time barred.

Justice Alam, writing the judgment for the bench, said, “Reckoning from that date, the order passed by the GoC, MB Area, to convene the GCM on August 23/26, 2010 is clearly beyond the period of 3 years, barred in terms of Section 122 of the Army Act.”

-via The Times of India.