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)
|