The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

A new Air Chief
The force needs govt’s full attention

Air Chief Marshal Norman Anil Kumar Browne has assumed charge as Chief of Air Staff at a time when the Indian Air Force (IAF) is in the midst of a major induction and integration phase and, along with, is also on the verge of transforming itself into a potent strategic force. The IAF (along with the Navy) is increasingly being seen as vital for both enhancing India’s military capability and as a source of power projection.

Successive US military engagements the world over in the last two decades have repeatedly proven to the world the vitality of air power in military engagements. The 1991 Gulf War, the subsequent display of airpower in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan, and, of course, the recent stealthily executed killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan are some of the operations that combine to reinforce the importance of air power. The IAF, which lagged behind in acquisitions, upgrading and modernisation during much of the 1990s, has for the first time in recent years added to its arsenal strategic force multipliers such as fuel refuelling aircraft, which has enhanced the range of its fighter fleet, and airborne warning and control systems (AWACS), which, with its long distance surveillance capability, serves as an eye in the sky.

But Air Chief Marshal Browne is also faced with several challenges. These include depletion in the fighter squadron strength; problems with basic trainer aircraft that has affected training of pilot cadets; and delays in the induction of the indigenously manufactured light combat aircraft (LCA) meant to replace a vintage MiG-21 fleet. The Air Chief’s remark that personnel must receive the highest attention is equally, if not more, important. For, the IAF continues to suffer a shortage of officers, including pilots. Along with this, there is the necessity to ensure induction of quality manpower for an increasingly high technology air force. Surely, it is not easy to be heading the world’s fourth largest air force. Air Chief Marshal Browne has his hands full and decisions that he will take will be critical in determining the future direction of the force.

Terrorists sans frontiers
Now China sees Pak hand in extremism

AS terror ripped apart the fragile peace in the Xinjiang province of China, it left 19 people dead in Kashgar, a major town of an area that was once on the historic silk route of China. Instead of silk and spices, what is moving along in the northwest corner of China that shares borders with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia and Kazakhstan, is training and indoctrination in terror.

The indigenous Muslim Uighur community is now in a minority, a consequence of a policy as a result of which ethnic Han Chinese have been settled in the region and given jobs. The Uighurs view the Hans as outsiders and resent their presence. Fuelling anger is the perception of discrimination against the Uighurs in jobs, as well as the destruction of ethnic buildings that are being torn down to make way for modern apartment complexes. The Uighurs are of Turkish ethnicity and most of them are Muslims. They have often complained about the denial of basic political and religious freedom. With the discovery of oil in the region, and an influx of ‘outsiders’, tension has reached a flash point from time to time, much to Beijing’s embarrassment. The regime would be well advised to be more sensitive to local aspirations of the people of various ethnicities, more so in the month of Ramazan, which is widely observed by Uighurs even though its observance is censured in China.

That the separatist Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement has found support in Pakistan and among the Al-Qaeda terrorists is widely acknowledged, and now one of the terrorists captured by Beijing has confessed that he received training in Pakistan, prompting a rare public statement by the authorities that lay blame on Islamabad, and that too at time when the ISI chief is visiting China. Even as the US is smarting at the cost of doing business with Pakistan and grudgingly accepting the reality of the ISI-terror nexus, China too is now realising that terror has no boundaries.

Thought for the Day

Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names. — John F. Kennedy

ARTICLE

Not a happy state of affairs
Matters military need urgent attention
by Inder Malhotra

FOR the first time in many years, the media was barred from the ceremony at which the outgoing chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, Air Chief Martial P.V. Naik, handed over charge to the Naval Chief, Admiral Nirmal Verma. The stated reason was that Defence Minister A.K. Antony had expressed displeasure at the proclivity of Service Chiefs to talk out of turn publicly.

It is sad that this should have happened on the verge of ACM Naik’s retirement that has since taken place. But it is only fair to acknowledge that Mr Antony had good reason to do what he did. Ironically, the outgoing Air Chief himself had made two statements that were found unacceptable. First, at his farewell Press conference, in reply to a question he had said that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal did not worry him because if Islamabad uses nuclear weapons, India’s retaliation would be “massive”.

On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with this statement, which reflects the ground situation. But, as the Defence Minister underscored, no Service Chief should have said so just before the arrival of the Pakistan Foreign Minister, Mrs Hinna Rabbani Khar, for talks with her Indian counterpart, Mr S.M. Krishna. What lent a sharper edge to the episode is that on the day ACM Naik addressed the Press, the Defence Minister had presided over the 12th anniversary of the Kargil war where he took care to declare that he didn’t want to say anything that might “spoil the atmosphere” for the Foreign Ministers’ talks.

Secondly, a few days earlier the outgoing Air Chief had publicly rubbished the idea of having a Chief of Defence Staff. To this a great many people concerned about national security had legitimately taken exception. A Service Chief is within his rights to argue his case on any issue in the inner councils of the government, not in public. The retired Air Chief is not alone in crossing the Lakshman rekha. The Chief of the Army Staff, General V.K. Singh, also erred when, after the elimination of Osama bin Laden by the American Special Forces at the Pakistani garrison town of Abbottabad under the nose of the Pakistan Army and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), he declared that India had the capacity to do what the Americans had done but Indian policy was not to undertake such operations. This became an inducement to several others — including, surprisingly, the head of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Mr V.K. Sawant — to follow suit. In heaven’s name, if we have a certain capacity, let’s use it, if and when necessary. Why brag about it?

Unfortunately, the malaise is not new. It has gone on unchecked for some time. Some years ago, when the Pay Commission’s report and the government’s decisions on it had caused dissatisfaction within the armed forces, the then Navy Chief had gone public and even sent an unclassified signal to the entire naval personnel. When his action invited widespread criticism, he felt offended.

That apart, there are even more worrying elements in the situation that do not necessarily find their way into the media but of which all concerned are aware. Yet no one is doing anything about these. Without beating about the bush, let it be said that things within each of the three armed forces are not of the best, and so are in inter-Services relations. Relations between the Services and the civilians are worse. Strange though it may seem, even the unfortunate dispute over Gen. V.K. Singh’s date of birth has had ugly repercussions. Within the Army, almost across the board, there is a feeling that with the government’s rejection of the General’s claim by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), their Chief has been treated “shabbily”. The civilian decision makers feel, on the other hand, that Cadet V.K. Singh himself had given his date of birth to the National Defence Academy and on joining it. Nearly three decades later, when his appointment as the Chief was almost certain, did the dispute arise. Is there a lesson here for laying down a policy for the future?

Moreover, there are disturbing shortages of officers, equipment and even ammunition in the Services, especially the Army. It needs to double its present sanctioned strength of officers by 2025, and yet it continues to be nearly 12,000 officers short. There is yet no sign of a medium gun to replace the Bofors. And the contrast between our infrastructure at the India-China border and that of China is stark.

Overriding all these difficulties is the wider problem of reviewing the reforms in higher defence command, intelligence cooperation, coordination of border management and so on brought about 10 years ago thanks to the Kargil Review Committee, headed by the late K. Subrahmanyam. Even a cursory glance at the situation shows that there are a lot of gaps between what was attempted and what has actually
been achieved.

Luckily, there is now a competent task force to review the entire gamut of national security, internal and external. It will do the country a great and long overdue service if it takes a firm decision on the appointment of a Chief of Defence Staff and integration of the three Service headquarters and the MoD, as is the case in all mature democracies. In any case, it is inconceivable how, in this day and age, wars can be fought without inter-Service integration and theatre commands. In their absence the Integrated Defence Command is like an arch without the copingstone.

CDS was an integral part of the higher defence structure suggested by the Kargil Committee. The Group of Ministers, headed by Mr L.K. Advani, also endorsed it. Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the then Prime Minister, did not reject it but deferred a decision on it. Privately, he explained that he did so because the Air Force had created “too much bad blood” — nine former Air Chiefs had gone to him to protest — and he was so advised by former President R. Vekataraman and former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, both of whom had earlier served as Defence Minister.

When I asked how long the decision would be delayed, he replied: “Not more than a year.” That was exactly a decade ago. Isn’t it time this dithering settles the issue once and for all?

MIDDLE

Fast and furious
by Rachna Singh

Fast and Furious aptly describes the Indian psyche today. We are in a perpetual rush to reach our destinations be it the office, the gym or just the club. The ‘need for speed’ seems to be the mantra of this harried generation. So we have the young as well as the ‘not-so-young’ whizzing past on high-speed bikes or monster SUVs.

The denizens of Chandigarh have also joined the speed bandwagon with great aplomb. And like all converts the Chandigarhites have adopted the religion of speed with more energy and enthusiasm. In spite of the ubiquitous police presence whispers of ‘drag racing’ and night-time bike racing willy-nilly reach our ears. Newspapers carry stories of young lives snuffed out in search of a momentary adrenalin surge. At an intellectual level these stories made me concerned but never emotionally involved. But this was before I was witness to the tragic fallout of speed addiction.

I was returning from a satisfying game of golf on a leisurely Saturday afternoon. Waiting for the red light to turn green I lazily took in the sight of two labourers industriously painting the pillar of the traffic lights. They had parked the cart with their work implements near the divider to warn unwary drivers of their presence. Even while I soaked in their happy camaraderie at work, I saw a blur of movement. As I watched in shock a black SUV careened into the cart and hit the labourers with a force that threw them into the air like rag dolls.

The out-of-control SUV flew across the road and slammed into the traffic lights with a force that tilted the pillar to an ungainly angle. People gathered around the driver, a young man dressed in the latest fashion with hair in a pony-tail, who attempted desperately to explain the mishap. He had probably been trying to cross at breakneck speed before the lights turned red and somehow lost control of his vehicle. The result: precious lives maimed and lost and a chastened young man who will spend his entire life with a guilty and traumatized conscience as well as the legal fallout of his mad rush.

Surprisingly the incident did not feature in any of the newspapers the next day. Perhaps such accidents have become so routine that they are not newsworthy enough and just become a part of the city statistics.

Writing the middle was cathartic for me but I wonder if the victims and their families had any such simple outlet for their grief. So I guess the only remedy seems to be a big thumbs down to speed. Car racing is best left to the Formula One experts like Schumacher and Karthikeyan.n

OPED-DEFENCE

Age row: At stake is the dignity of the office
The Army Chief seeking a change in his date of birth at the fag end of a distinguished career has kicked up a storm. Considering the stature and sensitivities involving the office of the Chief, it would have been prudent if the Ministry of Defence had handled the issue more discreetly and pronounced its verdict with greater speed rather than letting it drag for several months
Dinesh Kumar

IT is not usual for government officers to seek an amendment in their date of birth especially after they have attained the highest rank in their service and are close to retirement. In an unprecedented move, a serving Army Chief has become the first Service head to seek a 'correction' in his year of birth based on a birth certificate that shows him a year younger to what he had entered in his recruitment form over four decades ago. The claim, which has been recently overruled by the government, would have enabled General VK Singh to continue in service for another year until 2013 thus permitting him to serve for a little more than the maximum permissible period of three years.

Chief of the Army Staff, Gen V.K. Singh (right), chairs the Army Commanders’ Conference in New Delhi, with the Vice Chief and GOsC-in-C of commands in the backdrop. A change in the chief’s date of birth will give him an year’s extension, which would have an impact on the present line of succession

Considering the stature and sensitivities involving the country's Army chief, it would have been prudent if the Ministry of Defence had handled the issue more quietly and discreetly and pronounced its verdict with greater speed rather than letting it drag for several months on end. What would have been even better is if the Army Chief had willingly allowed himself to be advised to announce the government's decision thereby gracefully putting the issue to rest and not allowing his office to become a subject of national headlines. This way, both the Ministry of Defence and General Singh would have upheld the dignity of the high office of the Army chief, which must always be above controversy. Instead, the office of the world's third largest Army has become a subject of media debate and threatens to remain so should General Singh decide to file an appeal.

What is equally strange, if not ridiculous, is that the Army's Military Secretary's branch (entrusted with promotions and postings) had entered 1950 as General Singh's year of birth whereas the Adjutant General's branch had entered 1951 as his year of birth. Considering that there are conspiracy theories doing the rounds, this anomaly ought to be a subject of an internal inquiry to discover how and why it occurred so as to determine whether it is indeed a conspiracy or simply a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is up to that so very typifies the government.

What would be interesting to know is what General Singh has been writing as his year of all through his career. It is difficult to believe that General Singh was unaware of this anomaly. In the last four decades, General Singh would have had numerous occasions to recount his date of birth including when he would have applied for a passport, a driver’s licence and a PAN card to name a few essential documents. During his career in the Army, General Singh would have filled his date of birth in various forms at the National Defence Academy, the Indian Military Academy and on numerous other occasions. Besides, his date of birth has been figuring in the Service List year after year. Even though three retired Chief Justices of India, who General Singh consulted, have upheld his claim, the question remains why he chose to raise it only after he was appointed Army chief. And if it is true that General Singh had given a written undertaking in 2008 accepting his year of birth to be 1950 over 1951, which he is now claiming, then his subsequent claim raises questions of propriety and of unnecessarily bringing his high office into adverse limelight. If the Army Chief gave such an undertaking under duress, then that is indeed a serious matter and needs to be investigated separately. Then duress rather than age becomes the more serious issue for discussion and investigation.

Until the early 1970s, government rules stipulated that an officer could seek correction in his date of birth “within a few years” of his joining service. Thereafter, the rules were amended and officers were given two years from joining service to seek a correction in their date of birth. But for reasons best known to him, General Singh did not avail this opportunity. It could have been arguably understandable if General Singh was trying to make a case had he been overlooked for promotion to the rank of Chief of Army Staff on the basis of age. But General Singh faces no such situation. He has had a distinguished career in the Army sans any controversy until now and has made it to the highest rank on the basis of seniority, which, in this country, is a key criteria for selection to the top most post unless either politics or a blemished record is at play.

General Singh has already made it to the top post and currently has an assured tenure of slightly over two years. Had he succeeded in his request for a “correction”in his year of birth (or still manages to if and when he files an appeal), he will at best gain another year in service. Instead of retiring in May 2012, he will do so in 2013. But what General Singh ought to have kept in mind here is not the fact of his year of birth, but rather the image of the office of the Army Chief - an image that has unnecessarily come under media scrutiny and public discussion; all for one more year in service. Then again, there is the possibility that if 1951 has to become his year of birth, then perhaps General Singh may not have become Army Chief in the first place. That honour could have gone to another Lt General. What should the government do if that Lt General makes a claim to be made the Army Chief? The last thing that the country of the size and importance of India needs is the Chief of the world's third largest Army wanting to stick to his post for another year on the basis of a document that he has “discovered” over half-a-century later.

An honest General in the line of fireBrig Arun Bajpai (Retd)

IT is national shame that of all the people it is the Pakistani media that is speculating on the age controversy of the current Indian Army Chief, Gen V.K. Singh, and its affect on the morale of the rank and file of the world’s second largest army. This is happening when this entire issue is actually a non-issue.

It is common knowledge that the SSC, Higher Secondary or the 12th standard board certificates serve as unimpeachable records confirming one’s date of birth. The Supreme Court, too, has ruled so in unambiguous terms. Gen Singh entered the Birla Public School with his date of birth (DOB) showing as May 10, 1951. His provisional matriculation certificate also carries the same date. The date change controversy originated with one of his teachers, B.S. Bhatnagar, who was keen on sending the maximum number of students to the National Defence Academy (NDA). Forms with the wrong birth date, May 10, 1950, were filled by him. Bhatnagar went on to become principal of Lawrence School, Lovedale, and has since admitted that the error was his.

In the army, right from the time an officer enters the training academy till he retires and even after that, all records are maintained by the Adjutant General’s (AG) Branch. It is this branch that enjoys the legal sanctity on age authentification. The AG’s Branch, based on his matriculation certificate, has all along recorded Gen Singh’s age as May 10, 1951. So where is the controversy then?

The controversy was created by the Military Secretary’s Branch in 2008, whose Army List depicts Gen Singh’s DOB as May 10, 1950. This branch works in close coordination with the Army Chief and only a very trusted hand of the Army Chief gets posted as the Military Secretary, one of the Principal Staff Officers at Army Headquarters. He deals with postings, promotions, courses, deputations and retirement of all officers and is not the legal repository or otherwise of personal and family details of an officer. In other words, the Army List does not get precedence over the records maintained by the AG’s Branch.

In the Indian Army, after the rank of Major, all promotions are done by a system of deep selection. Each such selection is made by a promotion board. To reach the rank of Lieutenant General and then GOC-in-C of the Eastern Command, Gen Singh underwent six promotion boards. In each of these boards his DOB was shown by the MS Branch as May 10, 1951. Then why this controversy now?

Reasons are not far to see. When Gen Singh took over as the chief, the Indian Army was buffeted with the famous Sukna land scam, whereby a private party was given the right to set up an educational institution on government land. Since the Army had an important corps stationed near Sukna, its NOC was vital to this project. The person who allegedly played a key role in the scam was the then Military Secretary himself. He, along with many other senior officers, is currently facing trial by a court martial. All these were the blue-eyed boys of the then Army Chief, Gen Deepak Kapoor, of the Adarsh Society scam fame.

Further it was Gen V.K. Singh who then was the Eastern Army Commander under whose jurisdiction the Corps based near Sukna came. He enjoys a very upright and honest image. Against very heavy pressure to let go these “scamsters” lightly, he insisted on heavy punishment to set an example. Needless to say, this was against the wishes of Gen Deepak Kapoor, who initially wanted only administrative action. It was only after the intervention of the Defence Minister, A.K. Antony, a politician with a clean image, that Kapoor had to relent.

It is apparently this lobby that is involved in these behind-the-scene maneuvers against Gen Singh. They have been rattled by this upright and honest team of Defence Minister Antony and Gen Singh. When he took over as the Army Chief, Gen Singh had pledged that he would cleanse the army of scams and underhand deals. Till now he has lived up to his promise. Gen Singh is also proving an anathema to those arms dealers, their political masters and lobbyists who are unable to get shady deals through. Reportedly, some ambitious senior officers who immensely benefit from Gen Singh’s early exit are directly hob-knobbing with the Law Ministry for his early departure.

One fails to understand why the current UPA Government is allowing this controversy to rage, thereby affecting the morale of the army and impinging on its discipline. If Gen Ashfaq Kayani, the Pakistani Army Chief, can get a three-year extension, the Cabinet Secretary of India can get one-year extension, then what stops the government from accepting the legitimate age of Gen V.K. Singh as May 10, 1951? Let there be no delay now. Let our enemies not benefit from this most important national security issue.