India’s response to Mumbai 26/11 attacks has been nothing more than whining and complaining as a hapless victim which neither deters future attacks nor does it inspire confidence in her own security apparatus. 

Karan Kharb

Mumbai 26/11 was an aggression that had all the ingredients of a ‘covert military operation’ innovatively planned, meticulously coordinated and audaciously executed through un-uniformed Pakistani ‘soldiers’ – call them mercenaries if euphemism be so necessary for those un-enrolled combatants trained and motivated under the aegis of Pakistan Army, Navy and ISI. Quite understandably, it comforts Pakistan to disown these ‘soldiers’ and label them as ‘non-state actors’ absolving itself of any involvement in the anti-India crusade. Pakistan’s mask of innocence has, however, been ripped off by confessions made by Kassab – the pawn in the forefront on 26 November 2008 and other irrefutable evidence already aplenty. More revelations from David Headley and Rana picked up by the FBI in the US have added more substance to it. If more was still needed, it is now overflowing from Syed Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal whose depositions have now exposed how the entire operation was being remotely guided and controlled from the ‘Control Room’ in Karachi. 

               Somehow, India’s response has been embarrassingly feeble despite overwhelming evidence. We started by sending lists of Pakistani individuals identified as culprits in the episode to the Pakistan Government and quite naively expected them to punish them. On which principles of statecraft do we expect that the Pakistan Government (read ‘Army’) would ever admit its complicity in the crime and proceed against those it hired, trained and sent to do what they did? ‘Patriots all, they deserved highest of the awards on earth and zannat in the heavens’ - that’s how their masters in Karachi and Islamabad would seem to think. Little wonder that every piece of evidence supplied by India has been trashed by Pakistan. Surely, there must be better ways to deal with aggressions like these.

               Every sovereign state is entitled to defend itself against all kinds of aggression or inimical actions with all its might. India too must act in a manner that Pakistan is made to genuinely believe that the retaliation to any misadventure originating from her territory would be sure, swift and severe. Look how we have decimated our own credibility in the recent past. After the attack on our Parliament in December 2001, the Army was mobilised and deployed all along Indo-Pak border – but only to return home empty handed after nearly a year of un-fought Op Parakram. Registering our protest against Pak sponsored terror attacks, we have frequently disrupted the summit meetings and Samjhauta bus service only to resume again without extracting much from our protests.  We have created enough precedence on the basis of which India’s response to future such attacks can be foreseen and predicted.     

The world, however, has better models and precedents to go by in dealing with such hostile acts by rogue states. Israel, for example, has developed her model of credible deterrence and frequently demonstrated her resolve through severest counter-blows to the originators of crime, no matter where they hid. Fear of hostile international opinion has not discouraged her bold initiatives and in preserving her sovereignty Israel has never shied away from delivering crippling blows often to the consternation of even her trusted ally, the United States.  Now, compare ‘Operation Entebbe’ with India’s response to India’s shameful ‘Operation Kandahar’ in December 1999.     

               Another model is the United States of America. Whole world watched how the US responded to the al Qaeda terror attack on her vital installations on 11 September 2001. The US carried the war to the land from where it had originated and not only wrested Afghanistan from al Qaeda-Taliban clutches but continued the pursuit until Osama bin Laden was raided and killed in his den deep inside Pakistan. China, Russia, France, Germany, UK and many others have often carried out swift surgical operations by mobilising their Special Forces and striking cross border targets leaving the harbouring country under awe. Even countries like North Korea and South Africa have clearly defined and unambiguously declared policies which have been reinforced by their actions.  India too has a highly trained set up of Special Forces with capabilities to swiftly move and strike anywhere across the globe. What we do not yet have is an unambiguous national policy to deal with acts of terror and covert attacks like Mumbai, Red Fort, Parliament et al.

               The Pak doctrine of covert military operations is not new.  It dates back to 1948 and has been resorted to nearly in all conflicts between the two neighbours since then. What could be more shocking than the fact that Pakistani soldiers were infiltrating in the guise of local shepherds to occupy heights in Kargil at a time when the two Prime Ministers, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Nawaz  Sharif, were signing the Lahore Declaration in Feb 1999 promising to find solutions to problems through peaceful means with mutual cooperation.  The Indian Army had to fight a limited war and sacrificed precious lives to beat back this military adventurism of Pakistan. Nawaz Sharif is on record having admitted that he was kept in the darkness by his Army Chief, Gen Parvez Musharraf and the Army’s Kargil misadventure did not have his Government’s approval. Going by the post-Mumbai official posturing, how ridiculous would it seem if India were to despatch nominal roll and proofs of the Pakistani soldiers killed at Batalik, Tiger Hill and other Kargil heights requiring their commanders including Gen Parvez Musharraf to be prosecuted for their misdeeds? 

               If the Army could ignore their Prime Minister in 1999, the Pak Government is in far worse disarray today and, therefore, there is every likelihood of the Army/ISI having acted on their own in planning and deciding Mumbai 26/11. Remember President Zardari had offered to send the ISI Chief to Delhi soon after the Mumbai attacks. Next morning he was over ruled by the Army Chief, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani who said there was no question of the ISI Chief or any other official going to Delhi to assist in investigations or give clarifications. Imagine a Government having to maintain its sober countenance with such an over assertive and insolent Army on one side, hard-core Islamists and pro-Taliban maulvis on the other, and a hyper-active Supreme Court gunning for the President from the top. Logically prudence suggests that while meaningful negotiations would run through complexities in such a chaotic environment, lightning commando strikes on pre-selected targets like the ‘Control Room’ complex in Karachi and Terrorist training camps deep inside Pakistan could have achieved better results with stunning effect.           

Sadly, however, India’s response to Mumbai 26/11 attacks has been nothing more than whining and complaining as a hapless victim which neither deters future attacks nor does it inspire confidence in her own security apparatus. Anyway, the time and opportunity for quick and meaningful retaliation has been lost long ago. Asking and expecting the Pak Government to prosecute Pak citizens found involved in the Mumbai attacks is too much. But not all is over yet. At this belated stage too, India can still proceed decisively in a manner that would display her resolve and competence to deal with the guilty – be it the state or individuals – effectively.  There is an immediate need for India’s top politico-bureaucratic policy makers to make themselves abreast with the capabilities and limitations of the Armed Forces and other security agencies. Integrating them in the process of decision making, planning future safeguards, pre-empting enemy plans and delivering a swift and decisive retaliatory blow in the event of any future attack can go a long way not only in fine-tuning our response system but also in building up our credibility as an emerging global power.  Likewise, even as we move ahead in the now-on now-off Indo-Pak confidence building parleys, it is strategically vital to introduce there an implicit suspicion – rather, belief – that India can choose any means of reprisal to avenge any recurrence of Pak exported or assisted attack.  Alongside, Pakistan must also be made to visualise two aspects very clearly: One, Pakistan stands to gain far more from peace, friendship and cooperation with India in revitalising her economy through trade agreements and cheaper transit costs. Two, her policy of unleashing terrorism on India will hereafter become dangerously disadvantageous and highly unaffordable to it. These two aspects should be highlighted and projected to Pakistan and the world in absolute unambiguous terms sooner than later.    

Have Peace, Not Justice

In what came to be called an ‘unprecedented step’, the Army Chief, Gen VK Singh had gone to the Supreme Court seeking justice against a Government order dated December 30, 2011, which had rejected his statutory complaint seeking resolution of a conflict in his service records that showed two dates of birth – 10 May 1951 as per the records held by the Adjutant General’s Branch (AG) and 10 May 1950 as per the records held by the Military Secretary’s branch (MS) at the Army Headquarters. All legally tenable evidence like birth certificate, school leaving certificate and prior legal advice from three or four former Chief Justices of India pointed only to one date – 10 May 1951 as the correct year of Gen VK Singh’s birth.

                In the first hearing on February 3, the apex Court reprimanded the Government for its ‘vitiated decision making process’ which had resulted in rejection of Gen VK Singh’s statutory complaint. Throwing back the Government order of December 30, the honourable judges also offered the Government counsel to either withdraw this order or else they would quash it, as reported in the media. In the second hearing on February 10, even as the Government withdrew its impugned order, the Court surprisingly upheld the same Government decision that had rejected the General’s contention and maintained 1950 as his year of birth. It also ticked him off for reneging on his earlier commitments accepting the date he was now challenging. The General withdrew his petition.

                The case has thrown up some significant issues, which must engage public attention and concern.   

Law Vs Ethics

                As far as the petitioner and public curiosity are concerned, of the two dates in his service records, one was correct and the other wrong – whatever the reasons. The Court was expected to adjudicate and give a verdict on the right and wrong in the case before it. Instead, the honourable judges chose to discuss the good and bad in the case. Thus in what appeared to be an ethics-before-law approach, they sought to invoke the General’s conscience by suggesting that it did not behove of a virtuous leader of men like him to question the date he had earlier accepted – for whatever reasons. Ethically, yes, it does indicate a lack of moral courage in a man who commands world’s second largest Army to give in to duress and blackmail. More serious than this human fallibility, however, is the fact that his seniors were audaciously deceitful and scheming to extract his acceptance of a date of birth they knew was false. Is it not legally expedient to expose and suitably punish those who indulged in such unethical and illegal machinations at such high levels?  

                A natural fallout of this brokering at the Supreme Court is the likelihood of government employees using it as a precedent to justify unauthenticated dates of birth given carelessly or cunningly at the time of recruitment by just signing ‘undertakings of acceptance’ some time later in service ignoring or even refuting the primary documents like birth certificate and school leaving certificate. Birth is a natural occurrence, which is impossible to be altered humanly. How can even Gen VK Singh be required or authorised to accept or reject such an inalterable date, time and space ordained by Providence? Had the honourable judges proceeded to look into it, they would have found that 1951 was indeed the correct date. It was most frustrating that on February 10, India’s Army Chief was again coerced to accept what was legally and factually wrong – a false date of his birth – and agree to an armistice letting justice remain elusive and beyond his reach even at the country’s highest altar of justice. A wrong appeared being helped to triumph over the right; falsehood over truth.

‘Vitiated Decision making Process’

                What was so bad in the Government order of December 30 that the honourable Supreme Court treated it unworthy of acceptance and forced the Government to withdraw it? It was essentially a reiteration of the Government’s earlier decision maintaining 1950 as the year of Gen VK Singh’s birth, which he had challenged. If the December 30 order was bad and vitiated, so would be the earlier government orders communicating the same text.  But surprisingly, these very orders pushing 1950 as his year of birth have been now upheld.  

Logically a decision that flows from a vitiated process cannot be fair. What beats human prudence, however, is that the same vitiated decision that was thrown back at the Government has been implicitly allowed to prevail.  What should be a cause of concern here, this case was not an odd casualty of the ‘vitiated process of decision making’ in the offices of MoD. Many proposals and recommendations from the Armed Forces on vital issues concerning national defence, security and state of the Forces have been treated shabbily. One of the causes is lack of professional awareness and inability of bureaucrats to understand the urgency and operational significance of military recommendations.

This handicap could be offset in two ways. One, military officers should be posted in various departments of MoD to aid, advise and streamline the decision making process which requires a professional orientation especially when the world looks at India as a rising global power. Two, bureaucrats earmarked to be posted to MoD should be required to qualify in appropriately structured courses at the Military training establishments and do field tenures with military units and formations deployed in active operational areas so as to understand operational military environments in their proper perspective. Such exposures will integrate the Forces Headquarters with the MoD more effectively.  

Authority Vs Accountability

                A protectionist environment has gradually come up in departments where officers misuse their authority in several ways. Keeping enquiries inconclusive for years on, overstaying tenures, ignoring complaints and not acting upon recommendations of authorities like CVC and CBI are common. As corruption spread to high government positions, it became easier for office functionaries to buy and sell favours with impunity. More and more officers began working for selfish motives ignoring their official responsibility. Money, they found, could influence inquiry and justice could be bought too. Official equation of senior-junior has been turned upside down in the evolving environment where the junior is now a partner of his boss in a common pursuit where they share the exploits mutually. The junior has thus emerged more audacious and stronger, whereas the senior has become more timid and susceptible to blackmail.    

Expressing concern at the rising malaise recently, the Supreme Court had to stipulate a three-month time limit for the Government to give its decision on requests for sanction of prosecution against delinquent officials failing which the prosecution shall commence without further waiting.  The Supreme Court’s indictment of the ‘vitiated process of decision making’ in the MoD should lead to inner systemic cleansing and revamping offices and departments to make them more responsive.

Larger Ramifications of the Case

                In the unseemly legal battle between the Army Chief and his own Government, both – the victor and the vanquished – share each other’s gain and loss, honour and disgrace. Irrespective of who wins in such a scenario, the nation loses. The apex Court and the Government both lauded Gen VK Singh’s honesty, integrity and abilities to lead the Army and allowed him to withdraw his petition. Hindsight now suggests that even though the law entitles everyone to seek redress of grievances through courts of law, it would perhaps be more honourable for officers in such high positions to either accept the Government decision or, if unable to digest such a decision, resign and fade away honourably. 

                Currently, there is an uneasy calm and eerie whispers in the corridors of South Block that this case might further vitiate the already tenuous civil-military relationship. An atmosphere of animosity between the warring individuals and their departments might persist for some time and, therefore, the need for initiating conscientious efforts to restore and reinforce the elusive trust and goodwill between the MoD and Army Headquarters. In the event of Gen VK Singh offering to resign now, it would be a great gesture on part of the Defence Minister and senior MoD officials to show magnanimity and accord all honour and decorum to him while bidding him farewell. Such a gesture would go a long way not only to iron out the surficial suspicions but also in restoring and strengthening the civil-military relationship.

Democracy under Stress

Judiciary, of late, has been very critical of the Executive as is evident from the rising number of Government actions failing to stand judicial scrutiny. In the rising multitude of indictments, the latest was cancellation of 121 licenses in 2-G spectrum scam, soon followed by the Supreme Court’s yet another rebuke to the Government over its ‘vitiated decision making process’ in the case of Army Chief’s age goof-up. The parliamentary process has been virtually at a standstill without any worthwhile legislative business being conducted in the last two sessions.  Having failed to implement some of its choicest policies like FDI recently, the ‘Roll back Government’ has also demoralised the otherwise upswing corporate India, as indicated by a Group of eminent citizens including former judges and corporate leaders like Azim Premji, Deepak Parekh and Narayan Vaghul who wrote to the Prime Minister in October last year exhorting him to act against the "strong nexus between certain corporates, bureaucrats and power-brokers – the most serious threat to Indian economy.” The scenario is worrisome – is the Government collapsing?

Irony is that despite a growing economy, terrorism on the ebb and borders relatively calm, Indian Democracy is facing its worst threats from within. While a number of factors can be blamed for the on-going deterioration, three main causes that need to be immediately attended are briefly discussed here. Once they are fixed, rest of the malady will automatically get fixed because it draws life from these three.

Degeneration of Political Parties

Political parties in India have largely lost their representative character and metamorphosed into family controlled fiefdoms – a phenomenon that is audaciously blunt and open throughout the country. Distribution of tickets has nothing to do with people’s opinion about the candidate or his/her personal qualities and abilities.  All that is required is his ‘loyalty rating for the Party’ (read Family) and ‘winnability’ which means ‘muscle power and/or money power’ in the local area. A survey by ‘Association for Democratic Reforms’ (ADR) shows that all Parties have more or less equal share of criminals in the polls. Party high commands thus surround themselves with a select group of loyalists who settle down in power positions to serve the ‘boss’ for the coming five years.  Today, there are cabinet ministers who are in their seats not because of their abilities or grass-root level powerbase but because of their proximity to the Party boss.

Therefore, to make Party nominations more representative and genuinely democratic, it is desirable to make it mandatory for all parties to follow a streamlined procedure whereby the most popular grass root workers win Party nominations to contest elections as true representatives of the people. Electoral reforms have been much debated yet overdue.   

Power without Accountability

                India has the distinction of having world’s most learned Prime Minister. What an irony that Mr Manmohan Singh has also been labelled as the most ‘dysfunctional Prime Minister’ and as ‘an honest Prime Minister of the most corrupt Government’. A serious handicap of the coalition government being experienced is that coalition partners often indulge in blackmailing the lead Party and take their independent decisions ignoring the Prime Minister who has had to reluctantly acquiesce to uncomfortable decisions.  A Raja issuing 2-G licenses is a case in point.

                Besides the coercive coalition partners, two power centres outside the Government have emerged so domineering that the institution of Prime Minister has been further degraded. The power of the Government has drifted from South Block to 10, Janpath from where Sonia Gandhi’s countenance carries more compelling power than Prime Minister’s directions to his ministers and officers. Rahul Gandhi, in his rehearsals for his future role, is seemingly overseeing the Prime Ministerial functions.  These extra-constitutional centres of power have created peculiar problems in the Government functioning because those who have all the accountability have no power, and those who have all the power have no accountability whatsoever.  This has not only imbalanced the government’s power structure but also marred intrinsic responsibility, speed and efficiency at the highest levels.

                Given their awesome stature in the Congress Party and an unelected Prime Minister heading a coalition Government, it is impractical to visualise the Government functioning free from the Sonia-Rahul influence.  If so, it is even more desirable that the duo should join the Government and bear accountability for their roles in decision-making.  Secondly, institutionalising a strong and independent Lokpal with its own investigative arm is essential to redeem the government from diarchy and restore its fading credibility.

Callous, Inefficient and Arrogant Bureaucracy    

                Numerous panels convened by the Government including Administrative Reforms Commission, Police Reforms Commission, Law Commission, Election Commission and others have recommended significant steps to revamp the administrative structure that could provide an honest, efficient and responsive system to ensure good governance. All those recommendations are today collecting dust in backrooms of departments concerned and, what is surprising, the government does not seem to bother about these despite reminders from the Supreme Court. One wonders at the temerity of the government functionaries not attending to Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and the CBI requests for prosecution of delinquent officers for years and decades. As revealed by the CBI sources, requests for prosecution are pending against 169 officers – 147 of them being senior bureaucrats – for over a decade! Such a system naturally promotes corruption and inefficiency as the culprits feel immune and beyond law. Again, it had to be the Supreme Court to lay down a four months’ time limit for the Government decision failing which the prosecution can commence without further waiting for the Government sanction.  

                Another vital aspect is the bureaucracy lacking in specialisation of the departments they are required to manage and coordinate. It is common to find IAS officers of various seniorities shifting from one ministry to another without much consideration as to how they fit in the new job ahead.  Little wonder that they keep decisions pending and whenever a crucial decision is taken, it often leads to embarrassment to the Government.  The Supreme Court’s rebuke to the government for its ‘vitiated decision making process’ in the case of country’s Army Chief’s age controversy exposes the naiveté of senior bureaucrats in the Ministry of Defence where they specialise more on tourism and commerce without much idea about national defence, security and military affairs.  

                These are times of high-speed decision making keeping vigil on internal and external repercussions.  It is therefore necessary that technocrats, professionals and experts must replace the generalists – jack-of-all-trades, master of none – in key positions in the ministries and departments. By the time IAS officers acquire a particular level, say Director level, they must be required to opt for a specialised field like Finance, Defence etc whereupon they would be required to hone up their expertise through appropriately structured courses field tenures for on-the-job exposure before they are called upon to manage and coordinate departments and ministries.   

                Governance in India needs immediate inner cleansing – perhaps a thorough servicing and overhaul – to save itself and the country from a veritable disaster.  

Army Chief has date with Honour

The debate in the media about the Army Chief’s date of birth has developed in a manner that points and counter points have been brought before the public in ample measure.  However, for some inexplicable reason a few periodicals (eg, India Today, January 16) have not hesitated in twisting facts and projecting a one-sided view to the public. In a series of articles more recently published in ‘The Tribune’, events and documents, including classified, have been quoted to establish only one thing: that Gen VK Singh’s UPSC form bears 10 May 1950 as his date of birth and that he later had ‘accepted’ the same as correct even though his actual date of birth as per his birth certificate and school leaving certificate bear 10 May 1951. Interestingly, the MS Branch relied more on the ‘UPSC Form’ (10 May 1950) whereas the AG’s Branch has relied on documents that are legally required and accepted in all government departments – school leaving certificate and birth certificate (10 May 1951).  What it implies is that the Army HQ had two sets of Gen Singh’s date of birth and that the officer is said to have ‘accepted’ the one ‘preferred’ by the MS Branch. The unfair inference being sold is that the General has reneged on his ‘acceptance.’  These misgivings need to be clarified.

Who’s seeking the ‘Change’?

Gen VK Singh has never sought any ‘change’ in his date of birth. Actually, he has been all along resisting the ‘change’ that the authorities have sought to make in his service records in an arbitrary manner. He is actually questioning why his authentic date of birth (10 May 1951) is repeatedly being sought to be amended to read as ‘10 May 1950’ – the latter being an error rectified long ago.  Yet, how strange that the authorities have relied more upon what he as a boy of 14-15 entered in his UPSC form for the NDA entrance examination in early sixties and not upon documents that are universally accepted as legal proof of facts like date of birth like his School leaving Certificate and Birth Certificate issued by a Military Hospital where he was borne. 

Interestingly, the Master Data Sheets (MDS) – a crucial document prepared by the MS Branch (Army HQ) in respect of officers under consideration for promotion by the Selection Board – have all through shown the correct date of birth (10 May 1951). Strangely, the same MS Branch started raising questions on this date from 2006 onwards.  When the MS wrote to him informing that ‘19 May 1950’ would be treated as his correct date (year) of birth and not ‘1951’ and that the AG’s branch was being advised to amend their records accordingly, Gen VK Singh wrote back questioning why his date of birth (1951) was sought to be changed/amended. 

On being asked by the Army HQ, Gen VK Singh only expressed his confidence in those who were his superiors then and expected them to resolve the anomaly by maintaining what is correct and authentic in all respects. Normally, a ‘change’ is requested by those in whose cases the records have a date different from what they have to offer.  In Gen VK Singh’s case the Army HQ had a conflict within – the AG’s Branch records showing it as 19 May 1951 while the MS Branch (having insidiously re-invented an obsolete date rather late) started showing it as 10 May 1950 from 2006 or so onwards. The General’s simple and single contention has been ‘let the true and actual date of birth remain. If the authorities had any doubts about his certificates, they could have got them verified/re-verified rather than deciding in a highly questionable manner.  Rather than seeking a ‘change’, he is merely trying to prevent a ‘change’ that is being unfairly imposed upon him.

Has the General reneged on his Undertakings?

The claim that Gen VK Singh has ‘reneged on his undertakings’ is also grossly false and nothing more than a maligning campaign against the General. Photocopies of operative portions of communication between Gen VK Singh’s and the Army HQ published in Outlook (January 30) and ‘The Tribune’ have exposed the dirty games and treacheries at work in the highest corridors of power at South Block. Far from ‘accepting’ 1950 as his year of birth, the General has said enough against the move to alter his date of birth in very candid yet respectful way. “I have been greatly hurt and pained by the aspersions cast on my integrity and military reputation….Thus I have no qualm in giving in writing whatever I was asked for, despite my reservation,” (his letter dated July 1, 2008 to Gen Deepak Kapoor, the then Army Chief, as quoted in Outlook, Jan 30). In another letter dated November 12, 2009, he reaffirms his stand on the issue thus: “I have taken your directions in letter and spirit…..after the MS wrote that this function is of the AG branch, I have treated this issue as closed.  I am sure you are well aware of these facts.”  Succinctly, Gen Singh’s much publicised ‘acceptance’ ran thus, “…whatever decision taken in organisational interest is acceptable to me.” Far from giving his ‘acceptance’, these respectful submissions carry enough pain and resentment against the MS Branch machinations and yet he reposed great faith and trust in his ‘Chief’ (Gen Deepak Kapoor) because he believed that organisational interests would be best served by upholding the truth which in this case was his date of birth (10 May 1951) and which, so he thought, Gen Deepak Kapoor would honour. Alas! his faith was betrayed. 

Further, is it not weird that departing from official norms and laid down rules, the authorities proceeded to obtain ‘undertakings’ and ‘acceptance’ for deciding upon a date of birth from the affected officer himself? How can government officers be called upon to choose and ‘accept’ or ‘deny’ their own date of birth? How can a factual date of birth be changed on any account whatsoever, ‘undertakings’ and ‘acceptance’ notwithstanding? Out of the three documents – UPSC Form, Matriculation Certificate and Birth Certificate – prudence dictates acceptance of the latter two, the UPSC Form being no more than an application form submitted by the individual concerned while the other two are from authorities legally authorised to certify facts of truth. The question of Gen VK Singh reneging on his ‘acceptance’ is therefore fundamentally fallacious and grossly misleading. 

Dignity of the Office of India’s Army Chief

  There is a category of people who feel that by suing the Government in the Supreme Court Gen VK Singh has ‘lowered’ the dignity of the high Office of the Army Chief. This again is a propaganda being inspired by those who have an axe to grind. There are innumerable cases of government officers pending in courts against the Government. Also, it is neither illegal, nor unbecoming of a Chief’s position in any manner to seek redress of grievances in accordance with the law of the land and in full adherence to the procedures prescribed by the Government itself. Therefore, it is not merely a question of seeking redress and relief for himself but also his moral duty to vindicate the honour and dignity of the high Office he holds by showing to the Army and the Nation that he does his best to vindicate the honour and dignity of the office he holds.

Gen VK Singh knew that both the dates were OK for him and could have lumped what was being thrust on him.  But he refused to accept what he believed was factually wrong even at a time when stakes were crucially high for him. As an Army Commander he proceeded against some very senior officers for their misdemeanour without fear or favour much to Gen Deepak Kapoor’s discomfiture.  His courage has contributed to restoring and fortifying the honour and dignity of the Office he holds and the trust reposed in him.       

Now, just to mark the contrast, sample this communication from a ‘Joint Secretary’ (Major General’s equal) to the Gen Deepak Kapoor about a Lt Gen who is tipped to be Army Commander soon:-

‘Bimal Julka, Joint Secretary (G/Air), MoD, in his letter of 21 January 2008, warned the Army HQ that MoD would reconsider its proposal to promote him (Gen VK Singh) as Army Commander if he persisted with “an attitude apparently questionable and not reflective of the qualities expected from any Army Commander”.’ (As quoted by Raj Chengappa in ‘The Tribune’).

The contents of this communication fall in the category of ‘warning’ and ‘admonition.’ As per the established practice in government departments, junior officers – civil or military – do not ‘tick off’ seniors and those who in protocol enjoy a higher status. If such a warning/admonition was ever warranted, it would be more appropriate if it was signed by the Defence Minister or in any case not by any officer lower than the Defence Secretary. That such a letter came to the Chief from a ‘joint secretary’ who had no compunction to restrain himself from using such objectionable language against a potential Army Commander, and the Army Chief not only tolerated but seemed to pass on the ‘threat’ to a General who would subsequently replace him as India’s Army Chief has surely smothered the high office. The least the Army Chief (Gen Kapoor) should have done was to write to the Defence Secretary enclosing the Joint Secretary’s letter and expressing his disapproval of the impropriety of the JS using the language and matter unbecoming of his position.

And even as the case is sub-judice in the Supreme Court, an errant Babu at the MoD has audaciously assumed the role of Providence and, intervening in the internal Service matters, asked the AG Branch (Army HQ) to ‘change’ their records so as to read ‘1950’ (the impugned date/year) as the year of Gen VK Singh’s birth. It is this kind of bureaucrats who, acting on behalf of the Government, erode people’s faith in the Government, tarnish its image and destroy its institutions.  

Discipline for Fauj, Indiscipline for Mauj

Siddharth

At dinner last night, Gen. V.K. Singh, the chief of the Indian Army, came up in conversation. Regrettably, but also inevitably, it wasn’t because of what he may or may not have accomplished in his four decades in uniform, but because of his date of birth. As is the norm in this great democracy of ours, the Armed Forces only find mention in the national dailies in one of two situations. The first, in times of war, when it is but natural to be swayed by the spirit of nationalism and populist fervour and report the heroics of the men and women who go into battle. The second, and this is the more frequent by far, is when there is some sort of “scam”. Whether it is isolated incidents of Army personnel selling fuel, generals being involved in loosely defined “land scams” or Chiefs trying to get their dates of birth changed, as far as most normal members of civil society are concerned, that is all there is to it. 

So going back to this dinner time conversation last night, the general consensus was that Gen. Singh was bringing dishonour to himself and to the Army by going to court over his date of birth, whereby he would keep the job for another year and by extension, get to live in the beautiful Army House in New Delhi till that extended term was over. 

My only question then, as it is now, is why the men and women in the Armed Forces should hold themselves to a higher standard than anyone else in this country has ever been asked or required to. And why every Indian considers it his right to hold these men and women to standards that he may not hold himself to. I was told that in India, the Army (when I say army, pls read armed forces. I mean no disrespect to the other services, it’s just easier to type) is the only institution in the governmental fold that has maintained a sense of discipline, efficiency and integrity and that civilians look at the army with respect and expect its members to conform to the high standards it has set in the years since 1947, blah, blah, blah. All of this is, of course, true. And the central point of my argument is that by consistently setting itself higher standards than the rest of the nation, the army has done itself the greatest disservice possible. 

The “respect” for the army is the first point of contention. This so-called respect exists in the drawing rooms of a very limited set of individuals who have some sort of social or emotional connect with the armed forces. As a nation, there is anything but. That the armed forces have been systematically removed from the nation’s decision making matrix by a largely self-serving bureaucracy and intelligence establishment is neither new, nor remarkable. But having achieved the initial objective of keeping the upper echelons of the services out of this decision making process even in matters of national security, the civil establishment was not done demonstrating its “respect”. From the third pay commission onwards, the system has systematically screwed the army and skewed the balance heavily in favour of the civil administration. The army has now been reduced to fighting for one rank one pension, a battle that has been summarily ignored by the nation’s free media. As individuals, pensioners have been reduced to beggars, pleading an apathetic government to give them what is rightfully due after decades of service. We can go on and on about longevity of service, virtually guaranteed promotions, corruption… but the point of this little rant is not to criticise the way the civil administration functions, but to actually pat them on the back suggest to the upright men in olive green (or Air Force blue or Navy whites) that the way forward is not to consider themselves above the other organs of government and their political masters. The way forward—the only way forward—is for the armed forces to get into playing the same game. 

How many cases have there been of MLAs, MPs, ministers or even members of opposition parties occupying accommodation in prime locations even when they are not entitled to? How many other cases have there been of civil servants holding on to government accommodation in New Delhi while on posting elsewhere? Does it even merit a story in a newspaper? Does it lead to esteemed national newspapers calling for their resignation? Probably not. It just isn’t a big enough deal. We know bureaucrats and politicians are corrupt. So then why bother talking about what they are doing wrong? We can’t expect any better from them. But the army? Now that’s a different ball game. Those guys should know better than to try and hold on to house for a year longer than they are allowed to. It is, after all, the only institution that has any respect in this country. The men and women who form its ranks are brought up in a different India—an India where there is safe drinking water, no poverty, education for all and the integrity of men in unimpeachable. What’s that? They aren’t? They go to the same schools and colleges as us and exist in the same socio-cultural milieu? Really? To use a borrowed phrase, “whodathunkit”?

Forget about MPs and MLAs. Let’s talk about common people. Let’s say a constable in the Delhi Police. How can he (even if he is a head constable), on his government salary of six kilos of peanuts and two dozen almonds a month, afford to drive around town in a brand new car, complete with four wheels and a CD player? At that rank in the army, you can barely afford a two-wheeled contraption propelled by said army man’s feet at the pedals. But where’s the story there? Cops are corrupt. Everyone knows they are. The guy joined the Army to serve the nation. So if he sold a few litres of military issue diesel in the black market to send his daughter a new dress for her birthday, I say we should lynch the bugger. 

The point is that I don’t know what Gen. VK Singh’s motivation for getting his date of birth changed is. I’ve never had the opportunity to meet the man, and if I do I will ask him. Gen. Singh came in for more criticism when he said the government was treating him like the chief of the Pakistani Army. Would that he were so lucky. Had he been doing the same job on the other side of the border, god knows he would have to answer to anything as absurd as a civilian government. 

I am by no means an expert, but I do hold the opinion that in this great democracy of ours, everyone has to fight for what he wants. Just like the bureaucracy has spent the last sixty or so years setting itself up for retirement in luxury, and politicians have been getting fat at the cost of everyone else, it is time for the army too to realise it owes allegiance only to itself. As long as the armed forces continue to complete the tasks they are mandated to with the unparralled efficiency that has become their norm, let other matters not be of their concern. As long as the officers have the respect of the men under their command (which is all you have anyway, don’t let anyone fool you into believing otherwise), why should they be bothered about earning the respect of the businessman who doesn’t know the difference between a subedar major and a major general? Or the babu who might pay 5 crore for a posting so that he can make 50 crore when he gets the job? Or the pot-bellied, fat-arsed journalist (that’s me) who claims to be free and fair, but in truth is only serving the same political master he goes to bed with? 

I do not know what will happen of Gen. Singh, but I do hope his tryst with destiny and the date of his birth will open eyes and open doors. I do hope that every man and woman in uniform will fight (using democratic means, of course) to hang on to that house that they waited two years to get in the first place, and for every rupee of that pension that you or your brothers in arms shed their blood for. And if you can hold on to it for one day longer, get one rupee more, you will be a hero in my book. And you will have played the game—and won.
--

Chief Vs Mischief - a Question of Civil-Military Trust Deficit

Karan Kharb

Suddenly, the media is on fire calling Gen VK Singh’s petition to the Supreme Court ‘unprecedented in the history of independent India’ as if it were also ‘awfully unlawful’ for him to seek justice through a constitutionally defined legal recourse at the country’s most honourable Supreme Court. Some have hinted at his ‘greed to hang on for a few months more’ by getting his date of birth changed from 10 May 1950 to 10 May 1951.  Of these two dates, the aggrieved General says, the former is wrong and the latter correct – a simple issue of an error that was settled long ago at the time of his admission to the National Defence Academy. It is genuine ambition, not greed, in every promising youngster to climb to the top of his career – government services or private.  Likewise for a youngster commissioned in the Defence Forces, there is no harm in his aspiring to reach the top. In fact, an earnest quest to excel is very much needed and rightly fuelled in young officers everywhere for better overall accomplishments and evolution of future leadership.  Once you reach the pinnacle of your ambition, your aspirations are largely fulfilled and a few months more or less in chair do not matter. In Gen VK Singh’s case, he was fully entitled to be where he is today irrespective of which of the two dates is taken as the basis of consideration for his promotion. Therefore, change or no change in the dates, his position remains unaffected. The question, however, is if there are two dates, which one is right and which one wrong? Only the right one must be kept, the ‘wrong’ must be removed from all records. Legally or ethically, is it ‘wrong’ to fight for what is ‘right’?

If ‘greed’ were his motive, the General had much more to gain from the post retirement sinecures like a gubernatorial or ambassadorial appointments reportedly offered to him in bargain for letting the matter lie.  That he could not be won over by such allurements only goes to prove that there is something more meets the eye in the vitiated atmosphere of Civil-Military trust deficit scenario between the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Armed Forces.

Whatever the outcome of the legal battle, it raises some pertinent questions. The way a minor issue like an error in his date of birth has been allowed to snowball, it appears a deliberate mischief against the Army Chief. The promotion process in respect of army officers is very comprehensively defined.  No ‘undertaking’ is ever taken from any officer at the time of his Promotion Board. It appears weird that making a departure from its own established conventions the Army Headquarters proceeded to extract an ‘undertaking’ from VK Singh prior to granting him promotion. If there was an ambiguity about the correctness of the date in his records, a Court of Inquiry (C of I) should have been ordered to investigate what was wrong and the cause thereof. Why did the authorities hesitate to order a C of I? An obvious inference is that concerted efforts were in progress to suppress rather than reveal facts at that time. Two facts that the C of I could have revealed were: 1) that his correct date of birth is 10 May 1951 and not 1950; and 2) that the error was settled long ago, which rendered any document showing 1950 obsolete and irrelevant. But rather than uncovering the truth, the authorities chose to impose their choice on an upcoming meritorious officer by way of extracting an ‘undertaking’ from him before clearing his promotion. If not blatant and outright blackmail, what will you call it?

Some more questions also prop up alongside. Who will be held responsible if the Government loses the case? Will the Government be magnanimous to treat Gen Singh honourably if he wins the case or will a witch-hunt be unleashed to fix him somehow? May be the government will go slow for now for two reasons – one, the case being currently sub judice, the Government will be wary of the Supreme Court staying its hostile move against the General; two, any hasty action at a time when five states are going to assembly polls which are viewed as a precursor to the general elections due in 1914 will be politically inopportune for the Congress. The adversity does, however, offer an opportunity, ironically though, to the Government to rise above the narrow lanes of its maligned bureaucratic wheeling dealing and accept with magnanimity whatever judgement the Supreme Court gives. The verdict, even if against the Government (as appears likely), can be used as an opportunity to show the world that ‘rule of law’ has indeed arrived in India and the Government has the capacity not only to endure it but to nourish it at a time when public is crying hoarse for good governance and inner cleansing. Logically, the Ministry’s legal advisors who tendered legal advice and the bureaucrats who rejected the General’s plea will have to be sternly dealt with in a manner that becomes an example of fair, transparent and speedy dispensation at the highest level.  It is becoming increasingly expedient to introduce accountability in our bureaucratic functioning because rampant corruption has only encouraged inefficiency, sycophancy and destroyed governmental credibility.   

Sadly, bigger issues have remained buried under the debris of murk and mirth dwarfing an illustrious soldier by frustrating his efforts for an honourable resolution. In times like these, on-going civil-military acrimony can seriously harm our national interests from within as is clear from the long pending modernisation programmes, mass dissatisfaction in the Armed Forces against what is largely perceived as short shrift, step-motherly treatment by the 6th Pay Commission, repeated Government appeals against High Court/Supreme Court rulings favouring ex-servicemen, non-implementation of recommendations given by Parliamentary Committees on issues concerning soldiers and ex-soldiers are some indicators of a stubborn attitude that helps none but eats into the vitals of nation’s last resort – the Armed Forces.

At a time when India is aspiring for a higher global role the need is intimate cooperation, trust driven cohesion and integrated work culture between the MoD and the Service Headquarters of the Armed Forces.  This need becomes even more acute in view of the worsening security scenario across India’s western borders. China too will contest India’s quest for a global role as was evident from her objections to Indian naval ships at the South China Sea and her newfound interest in the Indian Ocean, even as her claim over Indian territories and military posturing across the Line of Actual Control continue unabated. The internal security environment too is worsening with militancy spreading to newer areas. When, if not now, will India wake up to realities?

It is high time the Government decided to effectively implement the pending integration of the Armed Forces with the MoD, which has been always staffed with officers shockingly bereft of basic concepts of national defence and elementary knowledge about military matters. No other developed or developing country in the world has such a slip-shod Defence Organisation as India’s Ministry of Defence. Nations that humble their armies are doomed to be humbled by adversaries within and without. India’s proud achievements on the industrial front notwithstanding, she will not be acknowledged as a ‘global power’ unless she wields a credible coercive military power. Soldiers’ demands for genuine welfare and better treatment are therefore not so much for their personal comforts but most crucial for the nation’s honour, safety and wellbeing.         

The ‘age row’ – Coup against the Army Chief

The ‘age row’ – Coup against the Army Chief

Karan Kharb

                Dust kicked up in the media has the Army Chief’s date of birth at its core even though it is not the real issue.  Sadly, the Government authorities including ministers have sought to portray it as if Gen VK Singh were greedy to hang on to his chair longer by seeking a ‘change’ in his date of birth.  If it was so, why should the Government try to bargain with him by dangling ‘compensatory package’ in the form of post retirement sinecures like appointing him ambassador or governor ‘if he agreed’ to retire in accordance with the wrong date of birth? These offers reported widely in the media have not been denied by the Government until now – a live fact that lends credence to the existence of a more sinister intrigue squirming beneath the innocuous looking ‘date of birth ruckus.’  

Gen VK Singh has a proud record of unimpeachable credentials as an officer and a gentleman. Even his enemies, if there were any this side of the borders, would find it hard to question his integrity. For a man who has served the country with selfless devotion, any suggestion of greed guiding his petition is not only unfair to the country’s Army Chief –  proud symbol of nation’s military might, but also  utterly bad for the country and its military where officers lead by personal example. And Gen VK Singh’s personal example has been undoubtedly the most outstanding in all respects all through his long service career. If the general was greedy, he would grab the sinecures offered and oblige the authorities but his principles do not allow him to give up unless the wrong is set right – no matter how lucrative the offer in lieu.    

The argument of ‘personal greed’ pushing for a ‘change in the date of birth’ also gets demolished by the fact that Gen VK Singh was fully qualified to be where he is today because neither of these dates would come in the way of his promotion to general’s rank.  The ‘change’, if ever it was required, was settled long ago before his admission to the National Defence Academy when the UPSC had sought clarification about the variation in the date birth given in his UPSC application form (10 May 1950) and the date given in his School leaving Certificate (10 May 1951).  Having fully satisfied itself from his clarification then, the UPSC had accepted the date given in his School Certificate as the correct date of birth and closed the matter. Everybody knows that legally and conventionally the School Leaving Certificate is the accepted authority for date of birth in all government departments. In the instant case it has also been reinforced by his ‘Birth Certificate’ issued by a Military Hospital.  Where is the scope for doubt?  Further, at the Indian Military Academy (IMA) when merit list of the passing out course is drawn, dates of birth of each gentleman cadet (GC) is scrutinised while fixing the seniority and allotting Service number to the newly commissioned officers. They are then issued with their Service Identity Card that carries the officer’s date of birth. The IMA authorities too recorded 10 May 1951 as VK Singh’s date of birth in all his documents, which continued without any shade of ambiguity from any quarter until he was seen as a possible contender for the post of Chief of the Army Staff (COAS). Had there been even an iota of ambiguity in his date of birth, he would not have been granted Commission.        

                Now, as the storm gathers more dust it raises many intriguing questions. When did the second date of birth first appear in the MS Branch records? How did a wrong date of birth erased by the UPSC long ago creep in surreptitiously in the Officer’s service documents at the MS Branch so many years later? Why was no question raised on his annual confidential reports (ACRs) which carry date of birth and are submitted to the MS Branch every year? Why also were no questions raised on other periodical submission of service documents, reports and returns received from the officer’s Unit/Headquarters showing the same date of birth that came to be challenged by the MS Branch years later? Why was the confirmation given by the Adjutant General’s (AG’s) Branch not accepted by the MS Branch even though it is the AG’s Branch that is the official custodian of personal records of officers of the Indian Army? Why did the Ministry of Defence retract its initial decision to order an investigation in the matter? If the General’s contention is wrong, why are the authorities trying to placate and ‘rehabilitate him honourably’?   

It is well known in the Services that senior officers of the rank of major generals and above routinely weigh their inter-se probability of rising to higher positions and appointments in the coming years. In a milieu involving course mates and known equals in the Service, it is easy to calculate as to who is in the run for the top rung and who will miss out by superannuating before the incumbent Army Chief retires. Being Chief of an Army which is world’s third largest is naturally a very prestigious and enviable distinction for an Army officer.  Besides the lustrous embellishments of the high appointment, the position also has unique authority and an assurance of due prominence in the annals of India’s military history. Obviously, the position of the COAS is lucrative enough to make many in the queue aspire for the high position. However, if there be an unscrupulous person in this queue, the systemic process can be manoeuvred and manipulated especially in times when some very senior army officers including an MS have been recently court-martialled for unbecoming conduct. It is therefore relevant to ask whose interests are served most if Gen VK Singh’s date of birth is altered from 10 May 1951 to 10 May 1950? And who misses his chance to be considered for the top job if his genuine date (10 May 1951) is accepted as actual? The answer to these simple questions will provide you the thread that leads you through the weave to the coterie that conspired and connived to vitiate and circumvent service records of an unsuspecting soldier like VK Singh.

It is the General’s magnanimity that he is simply asking for removal of the ‘mischief’ in his record and not raking up the issue to unravel its cause. An enquiry into the matter might embarrass his predecessors and the Government. Therefore, Gen VK Singh’s is not a case of ‘change of date of birth’ as is being projected in the media. It is becoming more obvious that the entire case is actually a conspiracy that was hatched at the Army Headquarters (MS Branch) to pave the way for some ‘favourite’ who would otherwise have to retire as a lieutenant general unless something is done to force VK Singh out of office in a manner that would appear normal retirement on a date desired by the ‘coterie’.  Hence the mischief and fudging of his service records at the MS Branch (Army Headquarters) – and lo, even the Government appears to be conniving in the plot after initial wavering – the Law Ministry upholds one date, the Attorney General upholds another! 

Sadly, these are dirty times marked by endless high profile scams in the Government.  Even the Army’s image stands smeared by some of its own generals who drifted and succumbed to allurements in a couple of cases of unbecoming conduct.  At the time of assuming the office of the Chief of the Army Staff, Gen VK Singh had declared that he would clean up and improve the ‘inner health’ of the Army.  True to his word, he has acted against the malaise swiftly and sternly without fear or favour. This healthy trend to restore inner efficiency and professionalism of the Army must continue.

The need of the hour is honest and upright commanders at the top because officers given to manipulation and intrigue for self-advancement can wreak havoc for the country if assigned sensitive offices of high authority in the Armed Forces. It is desirable that absolute and fairness and transparency is observed by the Government in tackling issues concerning military leadership and morale of the Forces.  Prudence suggests that truth and justice alone must be allowed to prevail in the Armed Forces, even if such recourse appears unpleasant and bitter for the time being. The on-going ‘date of birth row’, as it has come to be known, must be quickly resolved in a transparent and judicious manner by accepting the General’s actual date of birth as actual and he must continue to serve his full tenure with full dignity and honour that is due to him.

Army losing its Sheen – Who’s Responsible?

Army losing its Sheen – Who’s Responsible?

Karan Kharb

Soldiers in uniform and those who have come out of it are all unhappy.  We hold bureaucracy squarely responsible for all our major troubles. This is evident from the spate of angry mails flying across the Net inventing hard-hitting, even filthy adjectives against the bureaucracy where indeed much dirt, intrigue and corruption lie. To be candid, however, is it fair to always put the blame always on them for all our problems? Honest introspection is needed.

The aam admi on the street had lots of respect for the Army and, tired and harassed under the rampant corruption in the Civil Administration, expectantly looked towards the Army with an abiding faith that someday it would shake its magic wand, cleanse the system and deliver him from the malaise.  Sadly, this faith of the Nation has been badly injured by our very own officers who were entrusted to inspire and lead the fighting units and formations. Scams like Sukna land deal, Adarsh Society bungling, rations and some other supply contracts have torn through the martial embellishments of top military brass, regrettably including three chiefs – two from the Army, one from the Indian Navy. A very highly honoured nonagenarian Gandhian, Shambhu Dutta Sharma ji, one day remarked to me at a meeting in the midst of retired judges, bureaucrats and social activists, “Until now the country had pinned hopes on two institutions that would rescue us - Army and Judiciary – if corruption and inefficiency in our polity and bureaucracy arose to threatening levels.  But today, I’m sorry, Col Kharb, the disease of corruption has infected even these two pillars of our national honour and pride. Where do we go from here?”  Used to hearing only appreciation from civilians, this was the most disconcerting comment for me. Everyone looked at me as if they could reach out to the tainted generals by piercing through me.

                Arun Shorie in his address at the USI had once expressed his anguish at this state of affairs.   “I often hear senior army officers complaining helplessly about the stubbornly anti-military posturing of the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Defence.” In somewhat similar words he continued, “Arre Sahb, hamne to yeh dekha hai ki jab koi bhi aaphat bureaucracy ya Civil Administration ke kabu nahin aati to ve sab Army ki madad mangte hain. And lo, the Army has always triumphed over the crises that were insurmountable for the bureaucrats. It is a strange paradox that the most potent power of the Nation should be complaining against those who mostly depend upon the Army to manage their critical situations! Logically it should be the bureaucrats who should be complaining against a bossy Army.”  

Military leadership has failed to assert its rightful position in the role constitutionally assigned to it. Armed Forces have a vital responsibility to the nation, which they must boldly assert on all matters having a bearing on national security environment. Likewise, India’s relationships with her immediate neighbours, border management and strategic options to ensure lasting peace - all call for regular and intimate involvement of the Armed Forces in policy planning processes at the highest level. India’s aspirations to be a global power can neither be fulfilled nor sustained by keeping the Military in darkness.

                There is no alternative to creating your rightful niche through simple, direct and determined assertion to reclaim the lost dues. A widely acclaimed adage is: “No one can make you feel small unless you accept it.” Not all generals have been like Thimaya or Manekshaw.  As men of high integrity they had clarity of vision and matching courage of conviction to put their foot down.  Sadly, personal ambitions, greed and post-retirement goodies have taken toll of our strengths.  No Chief or Army Commander level officer has had the courage to resign in protest against the Government’s apathy towards the Armed Forces, which consume the largest chunk out of the national budget. (Much more, though, is needed to make them effective and responsive in the evolving global scenario).  

                Interestingly, whereas there has been a spate of sharp criticism of the bureaucracy from serving and retired military officers, often loaded with repulsive abuses and cheap sarcasm – all expressive of bitter hatred, there has been no matching riposte from the ‘dirty lot’ even after Sukna, Adarsh and other scams in our own camp. Nobody has contradicted the fact that corruption is rampant in police, bureaucracy and politicians.  Yet, some strains of great character, integrity and courage can be found even in these corridors of high corruption.  They had no Chetwode to give them a powerful motto to serve the nation selflessly.  Yet the created their own style and changed what we continue to think cannot be changed! Let’s mull over the role of these great bureaucrats:

(a)          TN Seshan was an IAS officer.  Prior to his arrival as CEC, many Election Commissioners thought they were powerless to control booth capturing and violence during elections.  Seshan charged like a bull dog and changed the ways elections used to be conducted in India leaving the politicians crying hoarse.

(b)          Vinod Rai, the present Comptroller and Accountant General (CAG) is an IAS officer too (1972 batch, Kerala Cadre). We hardly know his predecessors who came, served their masters and went. Most feared by bureaucrats and politicians, Vinod Rai is mercilessly charging through the power alleys of corruption and has not spared even the Prime Minister in exposing corruption at the top. He would be remembered as a catalyst for systemic change in the governance of this country. And all this without seeking limelight on himself!

(e)          E Sreedharan, the Metro Man already had rich credentials as a perfectionist Railway Engineer for doing projects always ahead of time before assuming his role as the boss of Delhi Metro. In an atmosphere of cynicism, he not only created history in accomplishing the herculean task but has left behind a rich culture of efficiency, discipline, cleanliness, public safety and security so unique that Metro India is a class different from India outside Metro stations! If it were not for this man, Metro would be just another Railway.

(f)           Kiran Bedi – the Super Cop has been known for her daring to take on the powerful goondas, lawyers and Netas. Resolutely enforcing ‘Rule of Law’ she did not spare even Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s car and had it towed away for violating parking rules. Denied her rightful chance to be Delhi’s DGP, she resigned and without bickering over it dedicated herself to a number of social pursuits empowering commoners. She is currently part of the Anna Hazare Campaign for Lokpal in their bid to end political, bureaucratic and judicial corruption.  

None of them sought any favours, privileges or powers. Obviously, it is not the type of office, cars, flags or perks that get you noticed and respected in modern India.  It's the inner power – your very own guts – that lift you.  We need to introspect and reposition ourselves to be in tune with the current realities. Whereas there is every logic for acceptance of OROP, too much noise on this single point campaign at a time when the nation is crying at high decibel against issues like corruption, callous civil administration, terrorism, communal divide, prices etc makes us appear self-centred unmindful of national problems.

Also, our call or campaign will acquire the right punch if we remain objective in our criticism. The danger of angry writing is that the main issue gets buried under the deluge of emotions and sludge of abuses turning the reader against the writer.  There is need to be guided by our traditional virtues of chivalry, courtesy and decorum.

Evasive Justice, Invasive Risks

Lingering court cases and the blow-hot blow-cold style of CBI inquiries has disappointed the people and wasted tons of nation’s money ever since Bofors, Fodder, Hawala et al without leading to convictions for only one reason – all the accused in these cases were powerful people. In cases like crimes of 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Bhopal gas tragedy or even the likes of BMW hit-and-run case, the pain of the victims is only heightened manifold when children rendered orphans by the crime grow up watching the criminals responsible for the crime not only roaming free from harm under the protection of the establishment. Decades lost in wait for justice is not merely delay – it is crime repeating itself over and over.

While the war against political and bureaucratic corruption rages, not enough has been talked about corruption in the judiciary, especially the higher judiciary even by the civil society groups, which are spearheading the tirade against corruption. In democracy it is the Judiciary that enjoys special constitutional powers and privileges as one of the three organs of State. Judiciary is the ultimate repository of trust and faith of the people who look towards it as their saviour against all kinds of exploitation and injustice. Sadly, there are many in the robes of ‘Justice’ who, succumbing to temptation or duress, have given questionable judgements and, thereby, robbed the Judiciary and their Lordships of the aura and honour they once exuded. It is very unfortunate that some of the Chief Justices of the honourable Supreme Court have also been exposed as men of smaller virtues to give in to temptations. Recently, we saw how two senior judges – one Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court, the other a senior judge of Calcutta High Court – arraigned for impeachment on charges of corruption and misdemeanour, manoeuvred their way out of the impending punishment. The question now arises: is resignation an escape or punishment for their misdeeds?

What is most astonishing is the increasing contradiction within the judiciary which often manifests in the quality of judgements. Judgements of lower courts are turned upside down without showing much of the basis for converting conviction to acquittal or vice versa as has been seen in some of the cases where the accused came from influential backgrounds like Manu Sharma, Vikas Yadav, Haryana Police ex-DG SPS Rathore, IG (Prisons) RK Sharma, Sanjiv Nanda and so on. Variance in the quantum of the award is understandable in any two judgements where the appellate court may alter the award either way. However, verdicts that turn death or life sentence to outright acquittal or vice versa need explanation to justify the absolute contrast. It is also expedient to determine as to which of the two judgements is aiding crime and preventing justice from its natural course. Punitive and corrective actions against the erring judges need to be incorporated in the system through appropriate judicial reforms to inspire prudence and reign in recklessness in the field of justice.

When ‘Equality’ is ‘Inequality’

The current inflationary market trends have hit our judicial system too. Cost wise, justice has become unaffordable for majority of the people. A host of questions about systemic inadequacies in our judicature have acquired urgency to set things right through comprehensive judicial reforms. The principle of ‘Equality before Law’ itself makes it ‘unequal’ for the poor who has no option but to accept his victimisation itself as fait accompli. Features like high counsel fees, prolonged trials, multiplicity of appellate stages – all favour the rich and resourceful but perpetuate the victimisation of the poor. The scene for the rich, however, is not as gloomy, for he can afford to pay and choose his time and verdict – at least in some cosy courts with judges more affable.

In judicial dispensation, the phenomena of time and finance, delay and cost, have a striking variable – the loss of the poor becomes the gain of the rich. Poorer the victim, faster he needs the justice because his suffering becomes more acute with each passing day. Delay frustrates his witnesses impedes the normal course of life. Also, everyone knows how even the eyewitnesses retracted their depositions against the accused who later proved to be too mighty. Threats and rewards that can be packaged by the rich to scare away prosecution witnesses and win over evidence in defence has become a routine in the courts.

The more a court case drags, the more relief its delay brings to the rich and powerful while the poor exhausts his life’s resources in his pursuit for the mirage of justice. So simple and yet how strange that the epithet ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ is not always so in all cases. A sample of lingering court cases suggests that ‘justice delayed’ is an advantage to the rich and powerful but a cruel denial to the poor and hapless. Even if justice accrues to the poor at the lower court, the fruit of justice tantalisingly eludes the beneficiary as the case continues through tortuous appellate stages to be one among millions of cases pending for years and decades.

Flawed Onus of Evidence

Who has the courage to depose against killers who chase and they prey in broad daylight in a busy market teeming with humanity? Who deserves ‘benefit of doubt’ genuinely – the accused or the victim or the nation? ‘Benefit of doubt to the accused’ helps only the mighty because giving evidence against Netas and criminals requires special courage and assured protection which is missing in our context as is clear from the high rate of killings of whistle blowers and RTI activists in the recent past. Signal from the crime lobby is clear: ‘It’s highly perilous to question high-end wrongs’.

The principle of treating the accused ‘innocent until proved guilty’ in cases where the accused is a powerful person also weighs heavily against the victim of crime. Firstly, echoing the colonial era the victim of the crime is not even a party in the criminal case, which is left to the police to steer. Secondly, even the eye-witnesses get scared once they realise that the accused on the other side is an influential VIP. In rare cases if at all some witnesses do come forward in the initial stages, they also retract and turn hostile in due course, thanks to the influence from the opposing side.

Therefore, in cases involving high profile accused, due weightage must be given to circumstantial evidence. In high profile cases where circumstantial evidence indicates complicity of the accused, it is expedient to reverse the above mentioned principle and hold the mighty accused ‘guilty until proved innocent’ placing upon him the onus of proving himself ‘innocent’. In addition, there must be effective safeguards to protect witnesses from every kind of coercion, temptation or blackmail from the opposing party.

Unfair Compensation Awards

Courts grant relief to aggrieved parties to compensate their loss and mitigate and suffering on the one hand and to penalise the offender on the other. To be effective, such awards should serve two purposes in effect – compensation for the aggrieved and retribution for the offender. However, whereas the compensatory effect is always clear and pointed irrespective of where it comes from, the punitive effect loses its pointedness and effect when the amount of compensation is paid by the Government departments and agencies because being paid out of public funds such a penalty pinches nobody’s pocket.

To illustrate the malady, consider the compensation award in the case of Delhi’s Uphaar Cinema tragedy. The Delhi High Court held Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) and the licensing authority ‘guilty of negligence’ and, awarding a Rs 25 crore compensation, directed that 45 per cent of this award would be borne equally by MCD, DVB and the licensing authorities, the rest 55 per cent being borne by the Cinema owners. Now, no doubt that the aggrieved parties would be the genuine beneficiaries of such compensation (amount somewhat reduced later by the Supreme Court this year), penalising corporations and institutions serves neither corrective nor punitive purpose because officials ‘guilty of negligence’ remain unaffected even as the penal amount is paid out of the public money held by the departments concerned.

When the court indicts a government, corporation or institution holding it ‘guilty of negligence’, it implies there are specific human functionaries upon whom the blame and accountability must stick. Therefore, it will be a more effective reformative measure if a substantial part of the compensation is deducted from the salary and service benefits of such erring officials and functionaries. Otherwise, the compensation amounts so ordered are an unnecessary burden on the public exchequer.

Prolonged Detentions

Delay in conviction turns criminals into heroes. Keeping those who are awarded death sentence and kept waiting even after disposal of their review petitions at the Supreme Court waiting for long periods have been at times exploited by social activists, communal manipulators and politicians to promote their own vested interests as has been recently seen in the case of Rajiv Gandhi’s killers and the guilty man of attack on India’s Parliament, Afzal Guru. Official callousness and inefficiency become useful tools for the criminals to escape from their deserved fate – their Nemeses. Political and communal lobbyists whip up public passions and, casting aside all national security concerns, they demand leniency for the most dangerous convicts who have exhausted all their legal rights and options from the lowest to the highest levels.

Prolonged detention of high value under-trials or those sentenced to death carries other risks as well like the risk of jail-break, escape and chances of criminals blackmailing the government through more serious terror actions like the infamous Kandahar episode. It is most depressing to visualise another plane hijack with some high value VVIPs on board the aircraft taken this time to Waziristan and Haqqanis mediating between the Indian Government and the hijackers demanding safe deliverance of Afzal Guru and Kassab in exchange for the hostages. Today it might be easy to dismiss such conjectures but if and when such probability becomes real, it might put the Government in a quandary because any decision will have serious ramifications ranging from questions marks on national security and existence of the government itself. There are good reasons, therefore, for faster disposal of court cases, quicker Presidential decisions on clemency petitions, and prompt compliance of the final verdict especially the capital punishment.

Endless wait for justice, unaffordable costs and questionable judgements are seriously undermining the prestige and credibility of Judiciary. After the final verdict, the government inaction mars whatever is left of public faith in the legal and administrative processes. There is a crying need to revamp these processes and impose accountability at all levels so that efficiency is put on smooth rails. At a time when the raging political and bureaucratic corruption is threatening our national security, unchecked rise in judicial corruption can be catastrophic.