Hat-trick for missile technologists, armed forces: India’s defence researchers had a successful week end when the nuclear capable Agni-I medium range missile(700 km) missile and two ship-based Dhanush and Prithvi-II missiles were successfully test fired. Agni-I is a 14-metre tall single stage, solid-propelled missile capable of carrying a payload of 1,000 kg. The 8.5-metre-tall Prithvi-II is a surface-to-surface missile while the 11-metre long Dhanush is a ship-to-surface and ship-to-ship system. Both are single-stage, liquid propelled missiles capable of carrying a 500-kg payload. Both missiles are under production and have been inducted into the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. Read the full story in the Hindu of March 29, 2010 at URL http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/29/stories/2010032961901100.htm
Commerce Ministry suggests 100% FDI in defence: The Ministry of Commerce has sent a note to the cabinet secretariat suggesting that global defence companies be allowed to set-up manufacturing units with 100% FDI . But will the Ministry of Defence agree? See The Hindu Marh 25 news item at http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/25/stories/2010032561000100.htm
Arjun wins against the Russian T-90: In this analytical piece defence analyst Ajai Shukla tells of the superior performance Indian designed T-90 tanks in trials carried out along with Russian T-90, which appears to the Ministry of Defence. See his March 25 hlog at http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com
The cost of Antony’s halo: In this critical piece in Business Standard of February 23, 2010 Ajai Shukla explains how defence minister AK Antony’s excessive obsession with corruption in defence procurement is costing the nation thousands of crores of rupees, delays procurement of essential weapons and puts the nation’s security at peril. See the full article at URL: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ajai-shuklacostantony%5Cs-halo/386534/
Monday, March 29, 2010
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Raw Deal for Veterans
For a long time Indian veterans have been complaining of not implementing 'One Rank One Pay'(known by the acronym OROP) scheme agreed upon by the Government of India. Nobody seems to understand the grievance on OROP. Senior veteran Lt Gen Harwant Singh explains what OROP is all about in an article published in the daily The Tribune, on March 27, 2009. It is reproduced here courtesy the Tribune.
Raw Deal for Veterans: Demystifying one rank one pension
by Lt-Gen Harwant Singh (retd) Chandigarh, March 27, 2010,
Veterans recently went to Rashtrapati Bhavan to return the sixth pack of medals to the President of India. But the President could not be there to receive the medals, so they came back disappointed. For a veteran, his medals are his most valued and cherished possession. These are heirlooms for their families.
Medals are earned under difficult conditions. Some by laying down life during war and in fighting insurgents, others for gallantry in the face of the enemy and yet some others for wounds suffered during operations. For veterans to part with their medals is an extreme step of desperation, caused by frustration and distress. Why have the veterans been driven to such a state of anguish!
Successive Central Pay Commissions (CPCs) repeatedly and viciously lowered the pay and status of defence personnel. To mention just two cases, DIG of police, whose pay and status was in between that of a Lieutenant-Colonel and Colonel now stands equated with a Brigadier for pay etc. DIG rank comes after 14 years service while that of a Brigadier after 26-28 years. So absurd has been the dispensation that a Brigadier was given more pension than a Major-General. The Sixth Pay Commission introduced a dozen more anomalies.
The Fourth Pay Commission granted rank pay up to the rank of Brigadiers. Through sleight of hand, the Ministry of Defence deducted the amount of rank pay from the basic pay. Later, the Supreme Court has finally set it right. The Supreme Court had also noted, in an indirect manner, the un-tenability of granting different pensions to persons of the same rank, irrespective of their date of retirement.
The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) at Chandigarh has drawn the government’s attention to the Supreme Court’s point and has given the Central Government four months to resolve the issue. Left to bureaucracy, nothing much can be expected. Therefore, the veterans decided to continue their struggle for One Rank One Pension (OROP).
Successive Presidents, Prime Ministers, Defence Ministers and the chairperson of the Congress party, at various times, accepted the grant of OROP. However, the bureaucracy has been frightening the political executive that giving OROP to the defence services will open a Pandora’s Box. Every other government employee will ask for the same. This is patently false and mendacious contention.
In all, 83 per cent of defence services personnel retire between the ages of 34 and 37 years. Another 5 to 12 per cent retire at the ages between 44 and 52 years. Only 0.35 per cent retire at the age of 60. While all civil employees serve up to the age of 60 years, they step up to the top of their respective pay bands, get all the three Assured Career Progressions (ACPs) and consequently not only draw increasing pay but end up with much higher pension.
The 83 per cent of military personnel who retire at 34-37 age, that is after 17 years service, do not qualify for even the second ACP which comes into play only after 20 years service. Since some may not grasp the import of this gross injustice, more appropriately a mischief, spelling out the monetary position would be in order, but a little later.
Subsequent to the ham-handed dispensation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission which drew strong response from the defence services headquarters, the government appointed a Committee of Secretaries to go into these anomalies. In the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the villain of the piece was the IAS officer on this Commission.
Now when the Committee of Secretaries was constituted to address the anomalies, the same IAS officer also formed part of this committee. Thus, it became a case where the prosecutor also formed part of the jury! The committee endlessly dragged its feet and finally omitted OROP in its recommendations.
A comparison of the total amount drawn in terms of pay and pension by a soldier and pay by his counterpart in the civil by the time both reach the age of 60 years is Rs 33.3 lakh more for the civil servant; this figure at the age of 70 is Rs 42.670 lakh. At age 75, it is Rs 47.310 lakh. In the case of a Havaldar, his equivalent in the civil, at age 60, would get Rs 20.261 lakh more and this figure is Rs 26.639 lakh at age 70 and at 75 it is Rs 29.828 lakh. In the case of a Subedar, these figures at ages 60, 70 and 75 years are Rs 13.979 lakh, Rs 18.911 lakh and Rs 21.277 lakh respectively, more for the civil servant.
A soldier retiring at 35 years of age will live through at least four Central Pay Commissions and suffer their dispensations for retirees. Whereas his counterpart in the civil will not only continue to benefit from successive CPCs while still in service for an additional 25 years, but on retirement will be effected by just one CPC, assuming 70 years as the average age expectancy. Therefore, even if OROP is granted, defence personnel will continue to suffer these gross disadvantages.
Similar figures are available for officers. The disparities are due to early retirement, delayed and extremely limited promotions in higher ranks. All these features are service imperatives. Within the defence services, earlier retirees are further disadvantaged. A soldier who retired prior to January 1, 2006 will get far less pension than a soldier who retired after this date. For a Havaldar who retired prior to this date, his pension is less than a Sepoy who retired after this date.
The ad-hoc compensation promised to the other ranks is completely inadequate and fails to address the core issue of OROP. Similar situation prevails in the case of officers. Only one with severely impaired vision, limited intelligence and/or deep seated bias can miss the incongruity in this working.
The above disparities are independent of X factor which apply to only defence personnel. About 15 per cent of soldiers get the opportunity to live with their families for a period of one to two years in their entire service. In the case of others (including officers), only 40 to 50 per cent of their service, they live with their families. Then there are other travails of service such as harsh living conditions in uncongenial and high altitude areas which results in approximately 5000 of them being annually boarded out on medical grounds. Thousands live with ailments and continue to serve.
Then there is the curtailment on fundamental rights and harsh military law to contend with. Entry into the officer cadre has become the last career choice for the country’s youth. Consequently, huge shortages persist.
Few seem to realise the strong bonding that exists between the veterans and the serving. There is continued interaction between units and their retired personnel and that is how units sustain the regimental spirit and traditions.
During leave, the serving come in contact with the retired and the dissatisfaction of the later gets passed to the serving. Therefore, there is the danger of spill-over effect of this disenchantment and disgruntlement of the veterans passing on to the serving. It will indeed be a sad day for the country when this distress is fully transferred to the serving.
The demand for OROP is fair and just and is only a part-compensation for early retirement, extremely limited promotions and a miniscule recompense for a hard and risk filled career. The political executive ought to realise the injustice being done to the soldier and accept in good grace, what is fair and what is just.
Raw Deal for Veterans: Demystifying one rank one pension
by Lt-Gen Harwant Singh (retd) Chandigarh, March 27, 2010,
Veterans recently went to Rashtrapati Bhavan to return the sixth pack of medals to the President of India. But the President could not be there to receive the medals, so they came back disappointed. For a veteran, his medals are his most valued and cherished possession. These are heirlooms for their families.
Medals are earned under difficult conditions. Some by laying down life during war and in fighting insurgents, others for gallantry in the face of the enemy and yet some others for wounds suffered during operations. For veterans to part with their medals is an extreme step of desperation, caused by frustration and distress. Why have the veterans been driven to such a state of anguish!
Successive Central Pay Commissions (CPCs) repeatedly and viciously lowered the pay and status of defence personnel. To mention just two cases, DIG of police, whose pay and status was in between that of a Lieutenant-Colonel and Colonel now stands equated with a Brigadier for pay etc. DIG rank comes after 14 years service while that of a Brigadier after 26-28 years. So absurd has been the dispensation that a Brigadier was given more pension than a Major-General. The Sixth Pay Commission introduced a dozen more anomalies.
The Fourth Pay Commission granted rank pay up to the rank of Brigadiers. Through sleight of hand, the Ministry of Defence deducted the amount of rank pay from the basic pay. Later, the Supreme Court has finally set it right. The Supreme Court had also noted, in an indirect manner, the un-tenability of granting different pensions to persons of the same rank, irrespective of their date of retirement.
The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) at Chandigarh has drawn the government’s attention to the Supreme Court’s point and has given the Central Government four months to resolve the issue. Left to bureaucracy, nothing much can be expected. Therefore, the veterans decided to continue their struggle for One Rank One Pension (OROP).
Successive Presidents, Prime Ministers, Defence Ministers and the chairperson of the Congress party, at various times, accepted the grant of OROP. However, the bureaucracy has been frightening the political executive that giving OROP to the defence services will open a Pandora’s Box. Every other government employee will ask for the same. This is patently false and mendacious contention.
In all, 83 per cent of defence services personnel retire between the ages of 34 and 37 years. Another 5 to 12 per cent retire at the ages between 44 and 52 years. Only 0.35 per cent retire at the age of 60. While all civil employees serve up to the age of 60 years, they step up to the top of their respective pay bands, get all the three Assured Career Progressions (ACPs) and consequently not only draw increasing pay but end up with much higher pension.
The 83 per cent of military personnel who retire at 34-37 age, that is after 17 years service, do not qualify for even the second ACP which comes into play only after 20 years service. Since some may not grasp the import of this gross injustice, more appropriately a mischief, spelling out the monetary position would be in order, but a little later.
Subsequent to the ham-handed dispensation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission which drew strong response from the defence services headquarters, the government appointed a Committee of Secretaries to go into these anomalies. In the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the villain of the piece was the IAS officer on this Commission.
Now when the Committee of Secretaries was constituted to address the anomalies, the same IAS officer also formed part of this committee. Thus, it became a case where the prosecutor also formed part of the jury! The committee endlessly dragged its feet and finally omitted OROP in its recommendations.
A comparison of the total amount drawn in terms of pay and pension by a soldier and pay by his counterpart in the civil by the time both reach the age of 60 years is Rs 33.3 lakh more for the civil servant; this figure at the age of 70 is Rs 42.670 lakh. At age 75, it is Rs 47.310 lakh. In the case of a Havaldar, his equivalent in the civil, at age 60, would get Rs 20.261 lakh more and this figure is Rs 26.639 lakh at age 70 and at 75 it is Rs 29.828 lakh. In the case of a Subedar, these figures at ages 60, 70 and 75 years are Rs 13.979 lakh, Rs 18.911 lakh and Rs 21.277 lakh respectively, more for the civil servant.
A soldier retiring at 35 years of age will live through at least four Central Pay Commissions and suffer their dispensations for retirees. Whereas his counterpart in the civil will not only continue to benefit from successive CPCs while still in service for an additional 25 years, but on retirement will be effected by just one CPC, assuming 70 years as the average age expectancy. Therefore, even if OROP is granted, defence personnel will continue to suffer these gross disadvantages.
Similar figures are available for officers. The disparities are due to early retirement, delayed and extremely limited promotions in higher ranks. All these features are service imperatives. Within the defence services, earlier retirees are further disadvantaged. A soldier who retired prior to January 1, 2006 will get far less pension than a soldier who retired after this date. For a Havaldar who retired prior to this date, his pension is less than a Sepoy who retired after this date.
The ad-hoc compensation promised to the other ranks is completely inadequate and fails to address the core issue of OROP. Similar situation prevails in the case of officers. Only one with severely impaired vision, limited intelligence and/or deep seated bias can miss the incongruity in this working.
The above disparities are independent of X factor which apply to only defence personnel. About 15 per cent of soldiers get the opportunity to live with their families for a period of one to two years in their entire service. In the case of others (including officers), only 40 to 50 per cent of their service, they live with their families. Then there are other travails of service such as harsh living conditions in uncongenial and high altitude areas which results in approximately 5000 of them being annually boarded out on medical grounds. Thousands live with ailments and continue to serve.
Then there is the curtailment on fundamental rights and harsh military law to contend with. Entry into the officer cadre has become the last career choice for the country’s youth. Consequently, huge shortages persist.
Few seem to realise the strong bonding that exists between the veterans and the serving. There is continued interaction between units and their retired personnel and that is how units sustain the regimental spirit and traditions.
During leave, the serving come in contact with the retired and the dissatisfaction of the later gets passed to the serving. Therefore, there is the danger of spill-over effect of this disenchantment and disgruntlement of the veterans passing on to the serving. It will indeed be a sad day for the country when this distress is fully transferred to the serving.
The demand for OROP is fair and just and is only a part-compensation for early retirement, extremely limited promotions and a miniscule recompense for a hard and risk filled career. The political executive ought to realise the injustice being done to the soldier and accept in good grace, what is fair and what is just.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
India’s War Memorial Seal the Deal
[An avoidable irritant for all service personnel is the absence of a national war memorial in New Delhi, in the nation's capital. Repeated proposals of armed forces for this have been rejected by an insensitive government on grounds of aesthetics. I feel the real reason is the low value the nation and the people attach to human lives. That is why I always maintain that the nation treats the soldier who dies fighting and the man who dies drinking hooch on par - the compensation amount is the same. But at least hooch tragedy evokes questions in state assemblies; but who sheds a tear for the soldier who dies except his family? Here is a penetrating article on the issue of war memorial by well known defence analyst Ajai Shukla, published courtesy his blog.]
India’s War Memorial Seal the Deal
by Ajai Shukla March 23, 2010
Amongst the many issues that scar relations between India’s military and its civilian overseers — pay scales and pensions; the failure to buy adequate weaponry; and the military’s marginalisation in framing security policy, to name a few — the most easily resolved is the military’s longstanding demand for a national war memorial to honour the 20,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen who have sacrificed their lives while defending independent India. A broad section of the urban public echoes this plea.
The demand is for a prominent memorial on New Delhi’s Central Vista, which can be visited freely by the Indian public, and where wreathes can be offered by national leaders on occasions like the Republic Day, and by visiting foreign dignitaries who choose to do so. The current memorial, the Amar Jawan Jyoti, is merely an add-on to the India Gate, an imposing 42-metre high British structure, built in 1921, to honour the 90,000 Indian soldiers who died in the First World War.
The irony is evident: the British exalted the memory of Indians who died for the empire; but India finds it bothersome to suitably commemorate those who fell in service of the republic.
Anyone who has travelled along India’s borders with China and Pakistan cannot have missed the lonely memorials at the places where Indian troops fought and died. Amongst the most stirring is the stark monument to Major Shaitan Singh and his 111 Kumaoni soldiers who battled to the last, holding up a major Chinese advance on the desolate, windswept plateau of Chushul. This Indian hero, a winner of the Param Vir Chakra, is honoured only in that unvisited war memorial near Chushul. No national memorial is inscribed with the name of Major Shaitan Singh.
The proposal for a “National War Memorial”, as I accidentally discovered in the Assam state archives in Guwahati, predates independent India. A confidential memo, issued on March 3, 1945, from the War Department in New Delhi (in File No. 110-C/45, entitled “Indian National War Memorial”, in the Governor’s Secretariat, Confidential Branch) declares that the Government of India (GoI) has been examining “the question of the form that an Indian National War Memorial should take”. The memo orders that “the establishment of a Military Academy on the lines of the United States Military Academy at West Point for the education and basic training together of future officers of the Royal Indian Navy, the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force would be the most suitable form for the memorial to take”.
In short, New Delhi proposed that what was to become the famous National Defence Academy (NDA), which is still the bedrock of Indian officer training, would also serve as India’s National War Memorial.
The British government of India further proposed that “funds for the academy would be provided by public subscription and supplemented by the state”. It urged all provincial governments (as state governments were then called) to support the scheme, establish scholarships, encourage the public to contribute, and to not set up any other war memorials so that the support of the public “may be concentrated on the all-India (war memorial)”.
Shortly afterwards, as the Second World War hurtled towards its denouement in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the War Department in New Delhi directed (vide memo No. F.65/45/W.1, dated June 15, 1945) that the construction of the academy be financed from a gift of 100,000 pounds, received from the Government of Sudan in gratitude for the Indian Army’s role in freeing Sudan from Italian occupation.
An Indian National War Memorial Working Committee was quickly constituted, which sent out a questionnaire to the provinces asking for their views on a range of subjects, including the setting up of feeder schools for the proposed academy-cum- war memorial. The questionnaire asked, keeping in mind the “urgent need in India for leaders in all walks of life, including the fighting services”, should “practical steps not be taken to meet the requirement of the immediate future by the establishment of a certain number of residential high schools”.
Today, 65 years later, the military community, especially officers from the NDA, will recognise that these proposals have been implemented in full. The Sudan Block, a magnificent basalt and granite structure, topped with a Jodhpur red sandstone dome, is the central edifice around which the academy stands. Generations of cadets, including this columnist, have dozed restfully through lectures in the Sudan Block’s cool classrooms. Many of those cadets entered the NDA from 19 Sainik Schools across the country, the network of “feeder schools” proposed in 1945.
Lost along the way, fortuitously, is the proposal for the NDA to constitute India’s National War Memorial. A training academy is a living organism that shapes the leaders of tomorrow; bursting with life, it is ill-suited to be a sombre memorial.
Today, with the government unwilling to concede the space for a memorial on New Delhi’s Central Vista, Karnataka MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar, has suggested a Vietnam Wall-style memorial, inscribed with the names of India’s fallen soldiers, on a 50-60 acre site alongside Mahatma Gandhi’s memorial at Rajghat. The design, which Chandrasekhar submitted to the prime minister last week, includes an eternal flame, a 24x7 ceremonial military guard, a memorial wall, a martyrs’ museum, and large, landscaped areas that would allow schoolchildren and other visitors a pleasant day at the memorial. If the army wants the country to know about and to remember its sacrifices, this is the way to do it.
Courtesy: http://ajaishukla. blogspot.com/
India’s War Memorial Seal the Deal
by Ajai Shukla March 23, 2010
Amongst the many issues that scar relations between India’s military and its civilian overseers — pay scales and pensions; the failure to buy adequate weaponry; and the military’s marginalisation in framing security policy, to name a few — the most easily resolved is the military’s longstanding demand for a national war memorial to honour the 20,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen who have sacrificed their lives while defending independent India. A broad section of the urban public echoes this plea.
The demand is for a prominent memorial on New Delhi’s Central Vista, which can be visited freely by the Indian public, and where wreathes can be offered by national leaders on occasions like the Republic Day, and by visiting foreign dignitaries who choose to do so. The current memorial, the Amar Jawan Jyoti, is merely an add-on to the India Gate, an imposing 42-metre high British structure, built in 1921, to honour the 90,000 Indian soldiers who died in the First World War.
The irony is evident: the British exalted the memory of Indians who died for the empire; but India finds it bothersome to suitably commemorate those who fell in service of the republic.
Anyone who has travelled along India’s borders with China and Pakistan cannot have missed the lonely memorials at the places where Indian troops fought and died. Amongst the most stirring is the stark monument to Major Shaitan Singh and his 111 Kumaoni soldiers who battled to the last, holding up a major Chinese advance on the desolate, windswept plateau of Chushul. This Indian hero, a winner of the Param Vir Chakra, is honoured only in that unvisited war memorial near Chushul. No national memorial is inscribed with the name of Major Shaitan Singh.
The proposal for a “National War Memorial”, as I accidentally discovered in the Assam state archives in Guwahati, predates independent India. A confidential memo, issued on March 3, 1945, from the War Department in New Delhi (in File No. 110-C/45, entitled “Indian National War Memorial”, in the Governor’s Secretariat, Confidential Branch) declares that the Government of India (GoI) has been examining “the question of the form that an Indian National War Memorial should take”. The memo orders that “the establishment of a Military Academy on the lines of the United States Military Academy at West Point for the education and basic training together of future officers of the Royal Indian Navy, the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force would be the most suitable form for the memorial to take”.
In short, New Delhi proposed that what was to become the famous National Defence Academy (NDA), which is still the bedrock of Indian officer training, would also serve as India’s National War Memorial.
The British government of India further proposed that “funds for the academy would be provided by public subscription and supplemented by the state”. It urged all provincial governments (as state governments were then called) to support the scheme, establish scholarships, encourage the public to contribute, and to not set up any other war memorials so that the support of the public “may be concentrated on the all-India (war memorial)”.
Shortly afterwards, as the Second World War hurtled towards its denouement in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the War Department in New Delhi directed (vide memo No. F.65/45/W.1, dated June 15, 1945) that the construction of the academy be financed from a gift of 100,000 pounds, received from the Government of Sudan in gratitude for the Indian Army’s role in freeing Sudan from Italian occupation.
An Indian National War Memorial Working Committee was quickly constituted, which sent out a questionnaire to the provinces asking for their views on a range of subjects, including the setting up of feeder schools for the proposed academy-cum- war memorial. The questionnaire asked, keeping in mind the “urgent need in India for leaders in all walks of life, including the fighting services”, should “practical steps not be taken to meet the requirement of the immediate future by the establishment of a certain number of residential high schools”.
Today, 65 years later, the military community, especially officers from the NDA, will recognise that these proposals have been implemented in full. The Sudan Block, a magnificent basalt and granite structure, topped with a Jodhpur red sandstone dome, is the central edifice around which the academy stands. Generations of cadets, including this columnist, have dozed restfully through lectures in the Sudan Block’s cool classrooms. Many of those cadets entered the NDA from 19 Sainik Schools across the country, the network of “feeder schools” proposed in 1945.
Lost along the way, fortuitously, is the proposal for the NDA to constitute India’s National War Memorial. A training academy is a living organism that shapes the leaders of tomorrow; bursting with life, it is ill-suited to be a sombre memorial.
Today, with the government unwilling to concede the space for a memorial on New Delhi’s Central Vista, Karnataka MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar, has suggested a Vietnam Wall-style memorial, inscribed with the names of India’s fallen soldiers, on a 50-60 acre site alongside Mahatma Gandhi’s memorial at Rajghat. The design, which Chandrasekhar submitted to the prime minister last week, includes an eternal flame, a 24x7 ceremonial military guard, a memorial wall, a martyrs’ museum, and large, landscaped areas that would allow schoolchildren and other visitors a pleasant day at the memorial. If the army wants the country to know about and to remember its sacrifices, this is the way to do it.
Courtesy: http://ajaishukla. blogspot.com/
Media Byte on Recovery of Explosive Material in Aircraft
According to media reports the explosive was found in the cargo hold of the aircraft. The material weighing 10-15 gms was wrapped in a Malayalam newspaper in the shape of a ball. It was detected by airline staff when they carried out a routine check after baggage was unloaded. Police are carrying out further investigations at both Bangalore and Thiruvananthapuram airports.This is a paraphrased version of my comments made on the ND TV-Hindu on March 22, 2010.
Question:
A package containing explosive material was recovered from the aircraft flight KF 4731 from Banglaore when it reached Thiruvananthapuram yesterday. Does it not show security measures at our airports have failed? What is your take on this?
Own comment:
No security arrangement at airports can be one hundred percent fool proof at all times. But having said that, the incident shows there is a security lapse somewhere. There could be a number of reasons for this. The problem with our security is whenever an incident like this is reported, all security measures will be tightened and enforced properly. But after a few days we tend to slacken our measures and take a number of short cuts.
The airlines security staff also has a responsibility for security (in addition to airport security staff). I don’t know how much coordination is there among the different staff responsible for various aspects of security. Unless such co-ordination exists you cannot successfully enforce security measures. So security check of routine items like food containers for passengers, courier packages, daily newspaper parcels, courier’s bags etc. tend to slacken.
Another aspect is people listed as VIPs who are allowed pass through without any security check. Their baggage also is passed without security check. And the list of VIPs is big. Unless we enforce airport security measures without any such special treatment, you cannot be successful.
Enforcing every day such security measures for every flight in airports is a time consuming and tedious process. It also costs money. However, we will have to put up with it all if we are to ensure fool proof security. Are we ready?
Question:
A package containing explosive material was recovered from the aircraft flight KF 4731 from Banglaore when it reached Thiruvananthapuram yesterday. Does it not show security measures at our airports have failed? What is your take on this?
Own comment:
No security arrangement at airports can be one hundred percent fool proof at all times. But having said that, the incident shows there is a security lapse somewhere. There could be a number of reasons for this. The problem with our security is whenever an incident like this is reported, all security measures will be tightened and enforced properly. But after a few days we tend to slacken our measures and take a number of short cuts.
The airlines security staff also has a responsibility for security (in addition to airport security staff). I don’t know how much coordination is there among the different staff responsible for various aspects of security. Unless such co-ordination exists you cannot successfully enforce security measures. So security check of routine items like food containers for passengers, courier packages, daily newspaper parcels, courier’s bags etc. tend to slacken.
Another aspect is people listed as VIPs who are allowed pass through without any security check. Their baggage also is passed without security check. And the list of VIPs is big. Unless we enforce airport security measures without any such special treatment, you cannot be successful.
Enforcing every day such security measures for every flight in airports is a time consuming and tedious process. It also costs money. However, we will have to put up with it all if we are to ensure fool proof security. Are we ready?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Strategic Snippets
Defence acquisition
1. An ideal Defence Acquisition policy K Subrahmnayam, well known strategic analyst, discusses India’s defence procurement problems and remedies for timely acquisition of modern weapon systems in this article published in the Business Standard on March 19, 2010.
URL http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/k-subrahman yam-an-ideal-defence-acquisition-policy/389072/
2. India-Russia ties: Strong with irritants As Russia has continued to be India’s an important source of modern weapons this March 18th article by Ajai Shukla discussing this aspect in post Putin visit is of interest.
URL http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/ mar/18/india-russia-ties-strong-but-with irritants.htm
India’s missile systems
3. Vertical launch of BrahMos missile successful This news item in the Hindu, March 22, 2010 gives details of the successful test firing carried out at sea on Sunday. URL: http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/22/stories/2010032260770100.htm
4. First phase of ballistic missile shield to be deployed in 2012 This news item in the Hindu of March 22, 2010 is about the hopes of V.K. Saraswat, Director-General, Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) and Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister, to deploy India’s own Ballistic Missile Defence System to intercept and destroy incoming enemy missiles in the next two years. URL http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/22/stories/2010032263061300.htm
1. An ideal Defence Acquisition policy K Subrahmnayam, well known strategic analyst, discusses India’s defence procurement problems and remedies for timely acquisition of modern weapon systems in this article published in the Business Standard on March 19, 2010.
URL http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/k-subrahman yam-an-ideal-defence-acquisition-policy/389072/
2. India-Russia ties: Strong with irritants As Russia has continued to be India’s an important source of modern weapons this March 18th article by Ajai Shukla discussing this aspect in post Putin visit is of interest.
URL http://news.rediff.com/column/2010/ mar/18/india-russia-ties-strong-but-with irritants.htm
India’s missile systems
3. Vertical launch of BrahMos missile successful This news item in the Hindu, March 22, 2010 gives details of the successful test firing carried out at sea on Sunday. URL: http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/22/stories/2010032260770100.htm
4. First phase of ballistic missile shield to be deployed in 2012 This news item in the Hindu of March 22, 2010 is about the hopes of V.K. Saraswat, Director-General, Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) and Scientific Adviser to Defence Minister, to deploy India’s own Ballistic Missile Defence System to intercept and destroy incoming enemy missiles in the next two years. URL http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/22/stories/2010032263061300.htm
Sri Lanka: No Action on Core Issues
After five weeks of absence from Sri Lanka watching, the country's political scene on the run up to the April 8 parliamentary poll strangely appears to follow the same rut of words rather than action. The country has been witnessing the same during the last two decades. The recriminations are similar, and the rulers callousness so repetitive. Only the show case trial of General Sarath Fonseka and of course, pre-election violence show a greater degree of viciousness unlike the presidential elections of the past.
The trial of General Fonseka appears to be aimed at deconstructing his image as a national war hero and remove his potential to politically challenge President Mahinda Rajapaksa or tarnish status as the arch priest of victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). With this aim in view three streams of investigation and prosecution appear to be underway. The first one under the military law relates to his participation in political activity while in service, and the second is a corruption charge in military purchase deal, presumably in collusion with his son-in-law.
But these two are not as damaging to the General’s ‘hero status’ as the third charge not yet levied on him. It is spoken of only through innuendos of his role in plotting to overthrow the elected President through a military coup and seize power.
Thus in addition to the General and his family, the entire pantheon of his friends and admirers among retired and serving armed forces personnel, government officials, media men and politicians is likely to be dragged down in this process. Thus, now we have in Sri Lanka vendetta politics on its worst display.
The Rajapaksa government appears to have succeeded in what it set about doing by arresting the General. Whether the charges against the hapless General, who dared to contest against President Rajapaksa are proved or not, his arrest has effectively taken him out of campaigning during the general election. This may well the objective of prosecuting him now, rather than on more serious charge of attempted coup when more details are collected.
His removal from the electoral scene has deprived the opposition parties the only rallying point on which they could come together to fight the ruling coalition. However, lacking a Plan B after the General’s arrest, the opposition parties have started speaking in many voices dissipating their short lived unity of purpose.
The President’s huge mandate from Sinhala population in the presidential poll has placed him in a unique position to resolve the ethnic problem. He had also kindled general expectation that he would take up this after his election.
President Rajapaksa had painted the LTTE led insurgency as the root cause of all evils. If it had been so, ethnic divide should have vanished with the demise of Tamil Tigers. He has offered neither a creative solution nor a chalked out a time bound path for reconciliation. So ethnic divide is still very much alive; and it is at the root of most evils bugging the country. In fact, the elections have given a fresh lease of life to the ethnic issue.
Even after the new parliament is elected no one is sure a political package would be offered as promised by the President. So many promises in the past have remained only that – promises. No one seriously believes political promises anymore, it seems. In the process it has turned the limelight on a whole lot of internationally embarrassing issues including those of governance, transparency, accountability and human rights.
The Rajapaksa stratagem appears to be to play out for time; otherwise it is difficult to understand the purpose of appointing yet another committee “to study the root cause of the ethnic conflict, lessons learnt by the island-nation since sections of Tamils took to militancy in a bid to gain their rights and aspirations, and the challenges faced by the country.” There are enough studies and papers written on the subject already. A historian rather than a committee should be adequate to cull out nuggets of wisdom from them. Committees have a survival instinct and elastic existence.
It seems appropriate that Mahinda Samarasinghe, the Minister for Disaster Management and Human Rights (a curious, but appropriate, combination of portfolios as Human Rights require disaster management now), announced the news of the proposed commission. Despite the lofty objectives proclaimed, the real reason for its creation is probably more mundane - a knee jerk reaction to the UN General Ban Ki Moon’s intention to appoint a commission of experts to probe possible human rights abuses and violations during Sri Lanka's civil war.
As neither the UN nor international community is likely to impressed by such a move, it is also probably an expediency to buy time for political maneuvering rather than address core issues. This is so typical of the ‘Band Aid’ strategy of Sri Lanka government had been following for sometime now.
Sri Lanka’s inability to address the core issues is understandable. Sri Lanka has to unlearn rather than learn a few things that have cramped its style and prevented it from addressing the core issues. These “interlopers” have sapped its strength and turned politics into a circus of short lived daring acts. These “interlopers” are: adoption of “emergency politics” as a political stratagem, erosion of rule of law, and continuing threat to fundamental freedoms including human rights, freedom of expression and the right to dissent.
These issues affect the entire population rather than any specific ethnic group. Unless they are rooted out there will be no credibility in the political process including conduct of free and fair elections. The fall out of lack of credibility of government and rising public cynicism can prevent evolution of democratic solutions to national problems. Such societies become incubators of insurgency movements. The bottom line is the Tamil ethnic issue cannot be resolved unless structural issues are addressed with an open mind without political paranoia.
Unlike the presidential poll, there is a clear lack of public enthusiasm in the parliamentary elections. In his detailed interview to the editor of The Hindu (published on February 13) President Rajapaksa sounded supremely confident of winning the parliamentary election “very comfortably.” In fact, the President talked of the ruling United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) getting a two-thirds majority or “close to that.”
Proportional representation system in parliament makes it difficult for any single party to gain absolute majority. Out of the 225 members of parliament, 196 members are elected directly. The remaining 29 members are appointed from the National List based upon the percentage of votes secured by the contesting parties. So despite Rajapaksa’s confidence, and weakening of the opposition, UPFA securing two-thirds majority may not be such a simple equation.
In this context, Rajapaksa’s seemingly humorous remark on the subject made in the interview is significant. He said “finally, Ranil Wickremasinghe's crowd is there to come back and join me.” It is much more than humour; welcoming deserters from the UNP to UPFA coalition had been part of his electoral calculus in the past. In the process of attracting defectors in the outgoing parliament, he managed to split almost all parties and benefited from its fall out. And we can expect this to happen now also.
Proportional representation system in parliament makes it difficult for any single party to gain absolute majority. Out of the 225 members of parliament, 196 members are elected directly. The remaining 29 members are appointed from the National List based upon the percentage of votes secured by the contesting parties.
The Tamil Diaspora still appears to the dreaming of Tamil Eelam. Dreams do not become reality unless they related to the real world. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has metamorphosed into Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK) reverting back to the Federal Party days when the Tamil Tigers were not born. But this cosmetic change is not enough. The historical moment for reincarnation of Federal Party is probably over. The ITAK cannot have the cake and eat it for the Tamil Diaspora support. It has to make hard choices and it appears to be in no mood to do so.
ITAK has to evolve a strategy to deal with the emergence of Mahinda Rajapaksa as an unchallenged leader. He has used a mix of leveraging circumstances, back room deals, arm twisting and street smart political moves to reach this position. Unless ITAK shows it can deal with him effectively to get the best deal for Tamils, it is likely lose its flock. Its dissipation of followers will also probably see the slow dismantling of other exclusive Tamil parties as national parties pick up their cadres offering carrots of power and position.
Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group
URL: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes6%5Cnote573.html
The trial of General Fonseka appears to be aimed at deconstructing his image as a national war hero and remove his potential to politically challenge President Mahinda Rajapaksa or tarnish status as the arch priest of victory over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). With this aim in view three streams of investigation and prosecution appear to be underway. The first one under the military law relates to his participation in political activity while in service, and the second is a corruption charge in military purchase deal, presumably in collusion with his son-in-law.
But these two are not as damaging to the General’s ‘hero status’ as the third charge not yet levied on him. It is spoken of only through innuendos of his role in plotting to overthrow the elected President through a military coup and seize power.
Thus in addition to the General and his family, the entire pantheon of his friends and admirers among retired and serving armed forces personnel, government officials, media men and politicians is likely to be dragged down in this process. Thus, now we have in Sri Lanka vendetta politics on its worst display.
The Rajapaksa government appears to have succeeded in what it set about doing by arresting the General. Whether the charges against the hapless General, who dared to contest against President Rajapaksa are proved or not, his arrest has effectively taken him out of campaigning during the general election. This may well the objective of prosecuting him now, rather than on more serious charge of attempted coup when more details are collected.
His removal from the electoral scene has deprived the opposition parties the only rallying point on which they could come together to fight the ruling coalition. However, lacking a Plan B after the General’s arrest, the opposition parties have started speaking in many voices dissipating their short lived unity of purpose.
The President’s huge mandate from Sinhala population in the presidential poll has placed him in a unique position to resolve the ethnic problem. He had also kindled general expectation that he would take up this after his election.
President Rajapaksa had painted the LTTE led insurgency as the root cause of all evils. If it had been so, ethnic divide should have vanished with the demise of Tamil Tigers. He has offered neither a creative solution nor a chalked out a time bound path for reconciliation. So ethnic divide is still very much alive; and it is at the root of most evils bugging the country. In fact, the elections have given a fresh lease of life to the ethnic issue.
Even after the new parliament is elected no one is sure a political package would be offered as promised by the President. So many promises in the past have remained only that – promises. No one seriously believes political promises anymore, it seems. In the process it has turned the limelight on a whole lot of internationally embarrassing issues including those of governance, transparency, accountability and human rights.
The Rajapaksa stratagem appears to be to play out for time; otherwise it is difficult to understand the purpose of appointing yet another committee “to study the root cause of the ethnic conflict, lessons learnt by the island-nation since sections of Tamils took to militancy in a bid to gain their rights and aspirations, and the challenges faced by the country.” There are enough studies and papers written on the subject already. A historian rather than a committee should be adequate to cull out nuggets of wisdom from them. Committees have a survival instinct and elastic existence.
It seems appropriate that Mahinda Samarasinghe, the Minister for Disaster Management and Human Rights (a curious, but appropriate, combination of portfolios as Human Rights require disaster management now), announced the news of the proposed commission. Despite the lofty objectives proclaimed, the real reason for its creation is probably more mundane - a knee jerk reaction to the UN General Ban Ki Moon’s intention to appoint a commission of experts to probe possible human rights abuses and violations during Sri Lanka's civil war.
As neither the UN nor international community is likely to impressed by such a move, it is also probably an expediency to buy time for political maneuvering rather than address core issues. This is so typical of the ‘Band Aid’ strategy of Sri Lanka government had been following for sometime now.
Sri Lanka’s inability to address the core issues is understandable. Sri Lanka has to unlearn rather than learn a few things that have cramped its style and prevented it from addressing the core issues. These “interlopers” have sapped its strength and turned politics into a circus of short lived daring acts. These “interlopers” are: adoption of “emergency politics” as a political stratagem, erosion of rule of law, and continuing threat to fundamental freedoms including human rights, freedom of expression and the right to dissent.
These issues affect the entire population rather than any specific ethnic group. Unless they are rooted out there will be no credibility in the political process including conduct of free and fair elections. The fall out of lack of credibility of government and rising public cynicism can prevent evolution of democratic solutions to national problems. Such societies become incubators of insurgency movements. The bottom line is the Tamil ethnic issue cannot be resolved unless structural issues are addressed with an open mind without political paranoia.
Unlike the presidential poll, there is a clear lack of public enthusiasm in the parliamentary elections. In his detailed interview to the editor of The Hindu (published on February 13) President Rajapaksa sounded supremely confident of winning the parliamentary election “very comfortably.” In fact, the President talked of the ruling United Peoples Freedom Alliance (UPFA) getting a two-thirds majority or “close to that.”
Proportional representation system in parliament makes it difficult for any single party to gain absolute majority. Out of the 225 members of parliament, 196 members are elected directly. The remaining 29 members are appointed from the National List based upon the percentage of votes secured by the contesting parties. So despite Rajapaksa’s confidence, and weakening of the opposition, UPFA securing two-thirds majority may not be such a simple equation.
In this context, Rajapaksa’s seemingly humorous remark on the subject made in the interview is significant. He said “finally, Ranil Wickremasinghe's crowd is there to come back and join me.” It is much more than humour; welcoming deserters from the UNP to UPFA coalition had been part of his electoral calculus in the past. In the process of attracting defectors in the outgoing parliament, he managed to split almost all parties and benefited from its fall out. And we can expect this to happen now also.
Proportional representation system in parliament makes it difficult for any single party to gain absolute majority. Out of the 225 members of parliament, 196 members are elected directly. The remaining 29 members are appointed from the National List based upon the percentage of votes secured by the contesting parties.
The Tamil Diaspora still appears to the dreaming of Tamil Eelam. Dreams do not become reality unless they related to the real world. The Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has metamorphosed into Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK) reverting back to the Federal Party days when the Tamil Tigers were not born. But this cosmetic change is not enough. The historical moment for reincarnation of Federal Party is probably over. The ITAK cannot have the cake and eat it for the Tamil Diaspora support. It has to make hard choices and it appears to be in no mood to do so.
ITAK has to evolve a strategy to deal with the emergence of Mahinda Rajapaksa as an unchallenged leader. He has used a mix of leveraging circumstances, back room deals, arm twisting and street smart political moves to reach this position. Unless ITAK shows it can deal with him effectively to get the best deal for Tamils, it is likely lose its flock. Its dissipation of followers will also probably see the slow dismantling of other exclusive Tamil parties as national parties pick up their cadres offering carrots of power and position.
Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group
URL: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes6%5Cnote573.html
Security: Media Byte on Recovery of Maps in Baggage
By Col R Hariharan
[This is a paraphrased version of my comments made on the ND TV-Hindu on March 21, 2010.]
Question: Customs officials at the Chennai Port are reported to have recovered detailed maps and plans of vital defence establishments [A total of 54 items such as blueprints of the Naval Dry Dock, Visakhapatnam, Air Force Academy, Hyderabad and a road map of Muzaffarpur and Meerut] in the unaccompanied personal baggage of a retired army officer sent for shipment to the U.S. Can a retired officer be in personal possession of government documents? Can he be prosecuted for violation of Official Secrets Act as these documents are said to relate to sensitive defence establishments like Air Force Academy and Vizag Naval Dock Yard?
Own comment: I am not aware of the complete details of the case except for what is reported in media. There are three issues involved in this.
Firstly, no government servant - serving or retired - can be in possession of official documents [of course, unless they relate to him]. This regulation applies not only to officers of security forces but all government servants. And such possession of documents classified as RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET or TOP SECRET will be in violation of Official Secrets Act.
Secondly, according to the media report the officer is said to be 78 years old. Considering that a service officer retires around 54-55 years, the documents in his possession would be pretty old - at least by 23-24 years. Are these documents still classified as secret or have they been downgraded to unclassified since then? This aspect has to be examined before deciding whether the act is a violation of Official Secrets Act. We should remember that this is an era when images of vital installations are available on the Internet. Sometime back, news papers carried the Google satellite image of Kahuta atomic establishment in Pakistan! So we have to view the issue in current perspective.
Third issue relates to enforcement of Official Secrets Act. We are not properly enforcing the Act. [Classified documents are not declassified or destroyed even when they are obsolete.] I remember in the Army Headquarters as late as 1980 there was a reconnaissance report of Iraq written by Lord Wavell as a Major in 1916-18 [when Iraq was called Mesopotamia!]. It was classified TOP SECRET! So before jumping to any conclusions these issues will have to be examined in depth as it involves the character of a retired officer. I am sure the Defence Intelligence authorities will be going into these details before deciding on further action. I should add that personal possession of any official document – classified or otherwise – is a violation of government orders.
[This is a paraphrased version of my comments made on the ND TV-Hindu on March 21, 2010.]
Question: Customs officials at the Chennai Port are reported to have recovered detailed maps and plans of vital defence establishments [A total of 54 items such as blueprints of the Naval Dry Dock, Visakhapatnam, Air Force Academy, Hyderabad and a road map of Muzaffarpur and Meerut] in the unaccompanied personal baggage of a retired army officer sent for shipment to the U.S. Can a retired officer be in personal possession of government documents? Can he be prosecuted for violation of Official Secrets Act as these documents are said to relate to sensitive defence establishments like Air Force Academy and Vizag Naval Dock Yard?
Own comment: I am not aware of the complete details of the case except for what is reported in media. There are three issues involved in this.
Firstly, no government servant - serving or retired - can be in possession of official documents [of course, unless they relate to him]. This regulation applies not only to officers of security forces but all government servants. And such possession of documents classified as RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET or TOP SECRET will be in violation of Official Secrets Act.
Secondly, according to the media report the officer is said to be 78 years old. Considering that a service officer retires around 54-55 years, the documents in his possession would be pretty old - at least by 23-24 years. Are these documents still classified as secret or have they been downgraded to unclassified since then? This aspect has to be examined before deciding whether the act is a violation of Official Secrets Act. We should remember that this is an era when images of vital installations are available on the Internet. Sometime back, news papers carried the Google satellite image of Kahuta atomic establishment in Pakistan! So we have to view the issue in current perspective.
Third issue relates to enforcement of Official Secrets Act. We are not properly enforcing the Act. [Classified documents are not declassified or destroyed even when they are obsolete.] I remember in the Army Headquarters as late as 1980 there was a reconnaissance report of Iraq written by Lord Wavell as a Major in 1916-18 [when Iraq was called Mesopotamia!]. It was classified TOP SECRET! So before jumping to any conclusions these issues will have to be examined in depth as it involves the character of a retired officer. I am sure the Defence Intelligence authorities will be going into these details before deciding on further action. I should add that personal possession of any official document – classified or otherwise – is a violation of government orders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)