Home arrow Archives arrow Defence Notes arrow Defence Notes 2007 arrow Rising Indiscipline In Armed Forces:URGENT NEED FOR REMEDIAL MEASURES,Col(Retd) PK Vasudeva,3 Dec 07
 
Home
News and Features
INFA Digest
Parliament Spotlight
Dossiers
Publications
Journalism Awards
Archives
RSS
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rising Indiscipline In Armed Forces:URGENT NEED FOR REMEDIAL MEASURES,Col(Retd) PK Vasudeva,3 Dec 07 Print E-mail

Defence Notes

New Delhi, 3 December 2007

Rising Indiscipline In Armed Forces

URGENT NEED FOR REMEDIAL MEASURES

 

By Col. (Retd.) P. K. Vasudeva (Ph.D.)

Prof, ICFAI Business School Chandigarh

Of late it has been observed that indiscipline and discontentment in the Armed Forces due to supersession, cases of moral turpitude, scams and corruption are at its highest ebb. This is a matter of grave concern to all the right thinking people in general and the defence forces in particular.

There have been more than 600 court marshals since 2001 and more than 10,000 complaints against the supersession in various ranks. The decision-making authorities need to undertake a serious rethink and take remedial measures, lest it is too late.

In 2006 alone, there have been more than 105 court marshal cases. Out of these, 11 court marshals have been on account of rapes, 8 for murders, 12 for violation of human rights, 5 for sexual abuse, 35 for indulging in scams and corruption, 7 for firing incidents and 27 due to other civil offences including stealing affections of brother officers’ wives.

Alarmingly, on an average there have been 50 to 60 court marshals every year for the last one decade. Clearly showing that either the intake of officers has been of poor quality or the promotions have been of undeserving officers that needs a serious analysis.

Some of the cases of the important court marshals that have come to light due to various conspicuous reasons are as follows: One, a Major General of the Army Ordnance Corps of the South Western Command in Jaipur was booked by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) last month for having assets worth over Rs 50 crore, disproportionate to his income. The investigative agency during its raids carried out in Delhi, Jaipur, Shimla, Gurgaon and Mumbai unearthed a large number of properties in his and his wife’s name.

Two, a former Director General of Army Service Corps Lieutenant General, indicted on 12 charges, is presently facing disciplinary action in Jalandhar for alleged financial irregularities. One of the charges against the senior officer pertains to the construction and furnishings of a house for his son at a cost of more than Rs one crore.  Other charges include the misuse of funds for his personal use to the tune of crores of rupees.

Three, the on-going General Court Martial (GCM) trial of a Major for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman officer of the same unit at Tibri. The Major is facing charges of improper physical contact with the woman officer, who was posted to the same unit. She had also levelled charges of sexual misconduct against her Commanding Officer also, who was tried by a GCM earlier. The charges against the Colonel could not be proved and the GCM had, in its special findings, reprimanded him for using improper language in the officers’ mess.

Four, according to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, in 2002 huge funds earmarked for combating militancy were found to have been diverted by the Eastern Army Command (EAC) authorities to purchase vehicles, television sets, VCRs, computers and generators. Making a scrutiny of the allocations for the first time, the CAG said the EAC purchased consumer goods worth Rs 6.79 crores over a period of three years from 1998 to 2001 from the Rs.10 crore annual funds given to Army Commanders by way of special financial powers.

"These funds are allocated to meet urgent and immediate requirements of counter-insurgency operations and internal security duties," the CAG observed as it indicted the Army for diverting the funds to purchase consumer goods saying that these should have been purchased under normal overheads.

Five, the infamous Sekhon case, wherein the spate of comments on his “honourable removal” from service for seeking political patronage for career enhancement brought to the fore attempts at the politicisation of the Armed Forces and related issues. It highlighted as never before the question of military ethics vs. politicisation.

A sitting MP from Air Marshal Sekhon’s community, allegedly labelled, the Chief Minister Badal as an inept administrator. Not only that. He alluded to an inspired leak of Sekhon’s letter addressed to Badal, to get Air Marshal Bhatia of the hook (since removed from Western Air Command) for violating Pakistan’s airspace and nearly starting an Indo-Pak war. 

Six, in a case relating to the supersession of two Air Marshals in December 2004, the Government on behalf of the Indian Air Force approached the Supreme Court against the order of the Delhi High Court that had given the decision of the restoration of promotion to the Air Marshal.

The Apex Court upheld the judgment of the Delhi High Court, passed strictures and also criticised the Air Force. It stated that the promotion policy of the Indian Air Force was biased and arbitrary. Importantly, this caused great embarrassment to the IAF and the Government.

Besides these, there are a large number of cases pending in the civil courts against the Courts Marshal orders and supersession in ranks and other offences. A General Court Martial sentenced a Sepoy to death for killing his officer in October 2006. The verdict, pronounced lately, is at least the fourth case in recent times of a soldier being given capital punishment by a Court Martial.

The judgment is seen as an indication of the fate that awaits some two dozen soldiers currently facing Courts Martial for killing colleagues. More. The Army has handed death sentences to soldiers in 1990, 2000, and 2005. The cause more often than not is killing a colleague.

In 1993, responding to increasing criticism of human rights violations committed by its security forces, the Indian Government established the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) through the Human Rights Protection Act (HRPA). The National Human Rights Commission has repeatedly said that certain provisions of the HRPA need to be re-examined, “as they were, in fact, tending to militate against the purposes of the Act itself.”

Take Section 19 of the HRPA. When the Commission receives a complaint of a human rights violation by the Armed Forces, it cannot independently investigate the case but can only seek a report from the Central Government and make recommendations. 

The Indian law permits members of the Armed Forces, accused of crimes, to be prosecuted by either the military or civilian justice systems.  However, various Statutes make trial by the civilian courts unlikely in practice. 

Moreover, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and other provisions noted above, require prior approval of the Central Government for civilian prosecutions of military personnel. And under the Army Act, the military may transfer a soldier from civilian to military custody for offenses that can be tried by a Court Martial.  

Available information shows scant evidence that the military is fully and effectively prosecuting soldiers and officers for abuses committed in Jammu and Kashmir.  In May 2004, the then Chief of Army Staff, Gen. N.C. Vij, informed the National Human Rights Commission that 131 Army personnel, including officers, had been punished for rights violations in Kashmir since 1990 (fewer than ten per year).  These included sentences of two life imprisonments, 59 “rigorous” imprisonments, and 11 instances of one year’s imprisonment and dismissal.   

Increasing incidents of indiscipline have made it clear that the Indian Army is in need of introspection. It is essential that the Army investigates these incidents and comes out with solutions. An analysis of why things go wrong would be in order, whether it is fake killings, human rights violations or the increasing tendency to go to civil courts to seek redress.

We need to accept that there is a decline in discipline, culture and ethics of the Army. There are two reasons for this.  Firstly, the poor standards of intake of Armed Forces personnel because of the poor pay and allowances commensurate to their hazardous service conditions. Secondly, there is no uniform system of promotions resulting in poor leadership. ----- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)

< Previous   Next >
 
   
     
 
 
  Mambo powered by Best-IT