1. Hey, what's happening.Is the Indian Army and MoD is on the same page? Is it the Supreme Court to wield the stick and put the record straight while telling : "Why are you saying that people who lost their lives were sluggish? It is very unfortunate. Is it not a sad reflection on their supreme sacrifice? You are now saying that they died because they were sluggish," the bench said. "What about sluggishness in coffin purchase," it added.
The court was reacting after additional solicitor general Maninder Singh told the bench that the Ajai Vikram Singh committee appointed by the Centre had concluded that Indian soldiers were "sluggish" and had recommended several measures to make the Army more efficient.
Singh said the government did not want to demean the sacrifice of soldiers but the casualties would have been much less had Army personnel been more active in the 1999 war. On the coffin purchase, the ASG replied that it was a case of "over activeness". [ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Dont-demean-Kargil-heroes-SC-to-Centre/articleshow/47021459.cms?]
2. For your benefit I am reproducing two news reports of yesterday, TOI and Hufflington Post.
3. I hope you have read Ajai Vikram Sigh's response. Please see http://strategicstudyindia.blogspot.in/2015/04/av-singh-slams-army-for-distorting.html
4. May I request for your comments.
Don't demean Kargil heroes: SC to Centre
Amit Anand Choudhary
Apr 23, 2015,
The Supreme Court on Wednesday slammed the Centre for saying soldiers were sluggish in their response to the Pakistani army’s invasion in Kargil in 1999.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday slammed the Centre for saying soldiers were sluggish in their response to the Pakistani army's invasion in Kargil in 1999.
A bench of Justices T S Thakur and R Banumathi said it was very unfortunate that soldiers who gave their lives were not being respected by the government and even brought up the 'coffin scam' which took place during the war when the then NDA government had purchased caskets for soldiers from the US at an exorbitant price.
"Why are you saying that people who lost their lives were sluggish? It is very unfortunate. Is it not a sad reflection on their supreme sacrifice? You are now saying that they died because they were sluggish," the bench said. "What about sluggishness in coffin purchase," it added.
The court was reacting after additional solicitor general Maninder Singh told the bench that the Ajai Vikram Singh committee appointed by the Centre had concluded that Indian soldiers were "sluggish" and had recommended several measures to make the Army more efficient.
Singh said the government did not want to demean the sacrifice of soldiers but the casualties would have been much less had Army personnel been more active in the 1999 war. On the coffin purchase, the ASG replied that it was a case of "over activeness".
The bench was hearing the Centre's petition challenging an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal, which had restrained the Army from implementing a command-and-exit policy by which colonels would serve as battalion commanders for two to three years and exit to a non-command post by the time they reached the age of 40. The policy was recommended by the A V Singh committee.
The bench said the government had to place on record that it had accepted the recommendation and oral acceptance would not be sufficient. The court asked the Centre to file an affidavit stating that it had accepted the recommendation.
"You make a responsible statement on command-and-exit policy. You have to be clear in your view as services of many officers are at stake. You file an affidavit by April 29," the bench said.
The government's petition said the A V Singh committee found that the age of colonels, who command a battalion comprising 800-odd soldiers, was a little over 40 years while the same for Pakistani and Chinese armies was 37 years. It said 1,484 additional posts would be created to bring down the age to 37 years.
The committee was set up on July 16, 2001 by the then NDA government to look into manpower planning and suggest ways to restructure the officer-level cadre in the armed forces
Supreme Court Blames Govt, Says Age Made Army's Response Sluggish In Kargil
IANS
Posted: 23/04/2015
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the government to spell out whether it has cleared the army's promotion policy to have a combat unit commanded by a colonel at the age of 37 years who will exit after commanding the unit for two and a half years.
The bench of Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice R. Banumathi sought the government's response asking if it had told the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) that the new promotion policy for commanding the combat unit was approved by it.
The court took exception to the government saying that the army's response in the Kargil war was sluggish. It said the response was sluggish all over.
The court asked why there should be younger officers in the combat unit only and why not for those who carry ammunition and put up bridges in difficult locations.
Giving a week's time to the government, the court said the government's response should come either from the defence secretary or by the officer authorised by him stating whether the government had accepted the Ajay Vikran Singh Committee's recommendation entrusting the command of the combat unit to a colonel at the age of 37 years.
The court also asked the government to give details of the promotion policy being followed by the army and if the recommendation of the committee was not accepted by the government, then how was it being carried out by the army.
The government had embarked on the course of entrusting the command of the combat unit to a colonel at the age of 37 on the recommendations of the committee, which besides other things had gone into the question "why was our response sluggish in the Kargil war?"
The court sought the government's response after it had challenged the March 2, 2015 AFT order quashing the army policy under which newly created 750 posts were not to disbursed across the army on pro rata basis.
Under the 2009 policy, a larger chunk of the newly created 750 posts of colonels was to go to the infantry, mechanised infantry and the armoured corps.
In the last hearing, the court was told that initially 750 of colonels were created in 2004 for improving the age profile of infantry, mechanised infantry and the armoured corps in the combat area but was mistakenly disbursed across the army on a pro rata basis.
Since the pro rata disbursement of the newly-created posts did not achieve the desired objective of improving the age profile at the command level of the unit, the court was told that as a consequence in 2009, the pro rata distribution of another 750 posts was not followed.
The AFT on March 2, 2015, had quashed the January 21, 2009 policy which weighed in the favour of infantry, mechanised infantry and the armoured corps in combat area, saying it was violative of Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution.
The AFT by its order had said the government would create supernumerary posts to accommodate Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary and other officers who were denied promotion on the basis of quashed policy subject to merit.
The government had told the court in the last hearing that it embarked on the policy of giving the command of a combat unit to a colonel at the age of 37 after the examination of the question "why was our response sluggish in Kargil?" found that while a colonel at the age of 41 was commanding a combat unit in the army, in the Pakistani and Chinese armies, the age of the colonel commanding a combat unit was 37 years.
AV Singh slams army for distorting recommendations on new promotion policy
Manu Pubby, ET Bureau Apr 14, 2015,
NEW DELHI: Slamming the army for distorting and manipulating his recommendations on a new promotion policy that is now at the center of a widening rift within the service, former bureaucrat AV Singh has said that a section of officers have been unfairly favoured against the spirit of the committee report that he had drafted. Singh, who led the AV Singh Committee (AVSC) that looked into lowering the age profile of commanding officers in the Army after the Kargil war, has broken his silence on the matter, saying that negative repercussions could emerge due to the perceived discrimination. A wide rift has emerged between officers of the infantry and artillery and those from other arms over a 2009 promotion policy for Colonels.
The policy, derived by the army from the 2004 AVSC report, has created a disproportionate amount of new ranks for the infantry and artillery against other arms like the armoured corps, signals, engineering and mechanized infantry. Singh, who retired as the Defence Secretary, says the policy he drafted was never aimed at favouring a particular section of the army. "There was no reference to a specific arm or service in the report. The single point charter was how to bring down the age of commanding officers and brigade commanders," Singh told ET
