Defence personnel: resort to court not desirable

  APPROACHING civil courts for the redressal of grievances for promotion to the ranks of Rear Admiral, Vice-Admiral and Admiral has become rather a common practice in the Navy for a decade.

In recent times court proceedings had character assassination as a strong element in accusations and counter-accusations. All this must have caused a serious damage to the defence services’ culture. Naval personnel must have felt that matters at the naval hq are not being dealt with in a fair and just manner. The dismissal of Admiral Bhagwat somehow falls in line with this thinking.

The blame for his unceremonious dismissal, in my opinion, lies as much as at the doors of the naval hq as also on the MoD, which has all along been aware of the manner in which its personnel are handled.

To a large extent the Admiral has to blame himself, being a party to the unhealthy trend in which senior naval officers have allowed the faith in the Navy’s hierarchy to be lowered.

The intervention of defence personnel’s wives in service matters is an unethical practice, to say the least. Mrs Bhagwat’s taking up the cudgels on behalf of her husband through the media is undesirable.

AIR MARSHAL P.K. JAIN (retd)
Chandigarh

* * * *

Spare the forces

The case of summary dismissal of this great country’s Naval Chief is worse than that of an industrial worker, in whose case an employer is required to follow certain set norms, procedures, rules and regulations as per law.

The Defence Minister, with his past experience as a trade union leader, should have known that there is a thing called “principles of natural justice”. Why did the Prime Minister or the Defence Minister not think it prudent to talk over the whole matter (now shrouded in mystery) face-to-face with the Admiral and thus have it sorted out confidentially, without having to wash the dirty linen in public?

It has rightly been said that running the sensitive Defence Ministry is not like running any trade union. It certainly is not enough on the part of Mr George Fernandes to claim that the Admiral had become a security risk to the national interests.

Equally unfortunate is the unwanted and unhelpful meddling in of politicians opposed to the BJP-led government. The politicians may kindly spare our esteemed armed forces from being dragged on the road of unending controversies, for their own political ends.

J.L. DHAR
Bahadurgarh

* * * *

Villains all

Can one ever imagine a plot which has only villains, and no hero at all. Well, the dismissal of the Chief of Naval Staff, which is unprecedented by any standards, is one such theatrical exercise in which villains appear on the stage, play their roles and leave the audience baffled. Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat had all the qualifications to be the hero, but like a gambler he threw away the chance when he did not put in his papers when Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh was appointed Deputy Chief of Naval Staff, against his recommendations. Further, the Admiral’s failure in not being consistent in his interpretation of the rules and the Constitution, which is at variance with his own views mentioned in his writ petition filed in 1990, exposed him to be a man of double standards. The Admiral will now live to rue the day.

The second villain is Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh, who, by his proven disloyalty, abusive and collusive demeanour towards his superiors, has proved himself utterly unfit to hold any responsible position in the Navy, including his present assignment.

Most regrettably, the third villain in this sordid affair is the Prime Minister, who by accepting the hospitality of Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh at Port Blair immediately after Admiral Bhagwat was removed compromised his spirit of impartiality as also the chairmanship of the ACC. What kind of signal did the Prime Minister want to send to the officers and men of the armed forces?

About the fourth and last villain, in the words of Shakespeare, “the rankest compound of villainous smell that ever offended the nostril” emanated from the Ministry of Defence presided over by the then Defence Secretary, Mr Ajit Kumar. His handling of the affairs of the MoD deserves closest scrutiny, and the government should not hesitate to wield the same sledge hammer with which it has dealt a blow to the Naval Chief.

BALJIT RAI, D.G., Police (retd.)
Chandigarh

* * * *

Taxing troubles

The salaried taxpayers had been allowed a standard deduction at the rate of one-third of their gross salary income subject to a maximum limit which was raised from time to time. And this principle was applicable to all such tax payers irrespective of the difference in their annual income.

The BJP-led government has, through its very first budget, introduced a novel formula whereby the maximum limit of standard deduction has been raised to Rs 25,000 for persons with a gross salary income upto Rs 1 lakh only. In case of those whose income is more than Rs 1 lakh but not over Rs 5 lakh, the maximum limit for the standard deduction would continue to be Rs 20,000 and those with a higher income are not allowed any deduction at all.

This is not only unfair but also illogical. The addition of just Re 1 to the income of a salaried taxpayer will make a big difference to the standard deduction. For example, a person with an annual income upto Rs 1 lakh would be entitled to the maximum deduction of Rs 25,000 whereas the one whose income is just Rs 1 lakh plus Re 1 would be eligible for only Rs 20,000. And the one with an income of Rs 5,00,001 would not be entitled to any deduction.

It is being strongly felt by the affected people that the same principle of standard deduction should be made applicable to all salaried taxpayers. The maximum limit fixed would take care of the requirement of socialism, if any, in that a person with an income upto Rs 75,000 would get deduction at the maximum rate of one-third whereas for a person with an income of Rs 1 lakh, the rate would be one-fourth.

DALIP SINGH GHUMAN
Chandigarh