Coupe

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bls31

New member






Ex IAS Officer raise the bogey of possible coupe by defence forces
bls31



In a seminar held at Delhi on police reforms recently, Director IDSA Mr. N.S. Sisodia an IAS Officer said that if Defence Forces are given more powers, they will seize power like Pakistan and Bangladesh. Such statements by bureaucrats of the status of Director IDSA are highly objectionable and to say the least are totally unfair to the most patriotic Defence Forces who have very strongly held the flag of democracy flying high in our country. The relevant part of the written script of the Director IDSA is as under :-

“Heavy reliance on armed forces weakens civilian authority. Their frequent use enhances their power and influence in the polity. This enhanced power can become a threat to democracy as we have seen in the cases of Pakistan, Bangladesh and other countries which have suffered military coups. The extent of democratic control is inversely proportionate to the democratic governments dependence on the armed forces.”

 
Sir, I agree it is quite a ridiculous argument. Indian armed forces have always shown exemplary behavior in not seeking a political role for themselves and deferring to the democratically chosen leaders even if they are crap. The danger to Indian democracy comes more from the politicians who time and again show contempt for the rule of law and would go to any extent to seek power. The only time democracy went for a toss in India was during emergency in 1975-77, and that was because of a politician, Indira Gandhi. In fact, the armed forces showed remarkable restraint even in that period.

Even the rationale used by Mr. Sisodia is quite weak. If his "inversely proportional" logic has to be taken at face value, then is he arguing that a strong democratic state is based on weak armed forces? That is counter-intuitive, as if you don't have strong (and disciplined) armed forces, then you run into a danger of having local militias, strongmen, insurgents and what not. Indeed, the problems seen locally in many parts of India like Naxalism, private armies or insurgency are in part due to the weak state police. Moreover, he discounts the diverse nature of Indian army itself. Most armed dictatorships can be traced back to a strong ethnic bias and/or homogenous nature of the dominant force- Pakistan has Army controlled by Punjabis, Saddam had Baathists who were Sunni Muslims, etc. Indian armed forces have regional, ethnic as well as institutional diversity. Apart from Army, Navy and Air Force, where it would be difficult to argue which one is supreme, there are also lots of paramilitary forces like CRPF, BSF, ITBP, etc. And all these forces have ethinc/regional diversity in their ranks between and within themselves. It becomes very difficult for anyone to organize such a diverse force for an unconstitutional act like a coup (of course making a leap of faith assumption that someone actually has that intention).
 
Biggest threat are Bureaucrats!!!!

I think the biggest threat to the country is from bureaucrats. For their greed, they have made corruption in the country the NORM, by using different names for the bribe they take. They have shown a sense of partriotism on number of occassions, by not doing their job with intelligence and in detail. Two glaring examples for the national security are the Tashkand Peace Treaty and the Simla Agreement. During Tashkand Peace Treaty, they should have insisted that the "Hazipir Pass" was not to be given back. In any case any gains by either side in Kashmir are not required to be handed back since it is not the voilation of International borders for there is none that exists. The definition of Line of Control (at that time Line of Actual Control) means that. Hazipir was and is a strategic peace of terrain for our interests in Kashmir.
The second example was Simla Agreement. We had the upperhand during that time. What did we trade? One line in the agreement making all previous agreements 'Null and Void" would have given enough room to the future governements to prevent Pakistan to talk about UN Resolutions of 1947 and so on.

The defense forces the serving Generals must strongly oppose such statements. Actually, the concerned official must be brought to the live show where he needs to apologize to the Defense Forces. May be he could be arrested for driving a wedge between the Defense Forces and Civil Authorities. Since he is retired, some actions must be taken to find out the assets he has and how did he get what he has from the known resources of his income during the years of his service.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Sisodia should be dipped in boiling hot patila of sambhar in the army langar.
He is a typical, annoying, dime a dozen desi conspiracy theorist uncle.
 
.

Indeed, highly ridiculous statement by Sisodia. How dare he is to talk utter nonsense like this?

Btw, second with Col uncle's suggestion here, Army should not take such argument lightly.

Shame on sucha bureaucrats, who're doubting the integrity n' patriotism of Great Indian Army.

raj2rif said:
The defense forces the serving Generals must strongly oppose such statements. Actually, the concerned official must be brought to the live show where he needs to apologize to the Defense Forces. May be he could be arrested for driving a wedge between the Defense Forces and Civil Authorities. Since he is retired, some actions must be taken to find out the assets he has and how did he get what he has from the known resources of his income during the years of his service.
Click to expand...
 
Totally outrageous statement by Mr Sisodia. These statements are there to put our forces on the defensive and it should be countered viciously that no one in future dares say anything like this. It is the IAS which has staged a silent coup (see babu shenanigans during 6th pay commission) and will degrade (or try to degrade) Armed Forces since they are the only one's who can match and exceed them as an institution.
Civilian authority, which Sisodia mentions, is missing when a young kids fall into uncovered borewells and finally it is the army people who are called in. Do we need these useless creatures if "civilian authority" cannot do little jobs like above mentioned on its own? My own fear is, Armed Forces have for too long listened to gas-bags like Sisodia and have just responded defensively. Ghar mein ghuss ke maaro, not literally, but tell the IAS of their own failures since 1947.
 
With an infinite respect to all defence personals here, I just want to ask about hulla-ballo over defense deals, which often smells a mountain of corruption. Though I am not aware of channel through which it has been finalised. Senior ex-defense can show some light.




http://www.3dsyndication.com/showarticle.aspx?displaytype=n&nid=DNMUM141801

This article says something too:-

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India has come down harshly on the government and the navy for agreeing to pay around Rs5,000 crore more than the amount agreed to in 2004 for the purchase of the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov from Russia.
Calling the warship a "second-hand" carrier with "half the lifespan of" and "60% more expensive than a new one", the CAG said in its annual report that the centre has not been cooperating with its audit for several months.
It said, in the best possible scenario, what would be India's biggest weapons platform will be available only after 2012, when it is needed now. "The objective of inducting an aircraft carrier in time to fill the gap in Indian Navy has not been achieved," the CAG report said. The Gorshkov deal was signed by the NDA government in January 2004.
The detailed audit raises serious questions on whether the fiasco was a grave error of judgment on the part of the naval headquarters, ministry of defence and cabinet committee on security or if there was organised manipulation at play. The MoD's silence and some of the outrageous price hikes only lend credence to theories of a scam behind the carrier purchase.
For example, the cost of sea trials for the carrier is being hiked from a mere $27 million (Rs135 crore) agreed to in the 2004 agreement to a whopping $550 million (Rs2,750 crore).



Thanks.
 
What I recall, I left army in 1985, all the deals are finalized by the Ministry of Defense and Defense finance .

Major deals area approved at higher level.

Service HQ project their requirements along with Qualitative Requirements.

Possibly some politicians may be in a better position to satisfy you. bls31
 
The Defense Forces can't wash their hands

Although, I had been all my service time in the field formations except one tenure as Instructor at The Infantry School, I have little idea about the QR being projected and the trials carried out before an item is procured.
SD directorate in the army is pretty much involved in procurement process. I know we did reject the HMG's after trial by The Infantry School, yet they were purchased and phased out in two years. To say the least, Senior Defense Officers can't wash their hands with any deals that materializes. Either they become party to kickbacks or they are spineless to object any poor procurement. Blaming every thing and any thing to civilian officials of defense ministry is not going to solve our problems and neither it is going to prove us innocent.
Weapon procurement is not the only area of corruption. We do have rampant corruption in the armed forces wih EME leading the clot. Be it spare parts of the vehicles, clothings or even the basic thing Ration, people who are responsible are either spineless and let it happen under their nose, or take the payout and turn their back. The biggest problem is that we the defense forces blame others but we are ourselves responsible for most of our miseries. After all defense services people come from the same society.
One thing good I had seen in my career. If you are honest, not many people would take chances with you and that makes doing services even more interesting. People in defense forces who say that they can't stop it are telling lies. How many of them have raised their voice? and if not then why? If they did not raise their voice because of their career being affected, then they forgot the oath they took at the time of passing out: "their own personal interests come last always and every time."
 
Don't see what's so objectionable here. It seems like a pretty legit thing to say.

As it is, isn't there some sort of policy that the three defense chiefs can't
meet alone without the presence of the PM...or something to that effect...
I think that in-itself should be way more objectionable....though I don't
think it to be.

We should always have protections in place.
 
This is misinformation. There is the Chief's of Staff's Committee presided over by the Chief with longest tenure that meets regularly and PM is not a member of the Committee BLS31
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top