Many a tricky query…
.
GIVEN the huge importance attached to prestige, protocol and status (pique too), the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament asking the Service Chiefs to appear before it in person is decidedly unusual, and is likely to cause much misgiving in the military community. For while the “army” has always extended full respect to parliamentary institutions, it does not hold individual MPs in equal esteem ~ so the Chiefs being quizzed by politicians (generally perceived in poor light) will hardly be appreciated. Hence it would be appropriate for the PAC to spell out why this time around it deviated from the norm of the Defence Secretary and the Vice-Chiefs assisting its inquiries. Surely the PAC must be aware that the Chiefs have no personal or direct role in procuring rations. Was it because, as some reports suggest, the Service Headquarters had not responded to its queries based on the CAG’s observations on foodstuffs supplied to soldiers? In that case the MoD too could be faulted for not keeping the brass in line and responding on the military’s behalf, as has been the practice. But what causes disquiet even beyond the military are suspicions that the government is asking the Chiefs to go before the Committee as part of a strategy to accord exaggerated status to the PAC only to negate the Opposition demand for a Joint Parliamentary Committee to probe the 2G Spectrum scam. That would be dragging the Services into the murky arena of politics, and merits the most severe of condemnation. Yet if the CAG can be slammed by UPA-II, what’s to prevent it from sacrificing the dignity of the Chiefs when covering-up its shortcomings? If the Chiefs feel they are being thus misused they must place the honour of the uniform above all else and make their unease known to the Supreme Commander ~ the President. A major precedent is being set, all implications must be duly weighed. Never before ~ not after the 1962 debacle, Bofors or the IPKF misadventure ~ were the Chiefs personally queried by a parliamentary panel. The defence minister/ministry was “answerable” to the legislature. Why the change?
.
This complex “development”, however, ought to generate deep introspection in the military, veterans included. For it is a reflection of how recent involvement of senior defence officials in a series of unsavoury activities ~ corruption, sexual misconduct, dereliction of duty, fake encounters, land scams and so on ~ have corroded the aura of probity that once shielded the military from normal public scrutiny. Who would have dared “summon” a Cariappa or Manekshaw?
Dear Veterans:
ReplyDeleteThis Editorial that appeared in The Statesman today (January 11). It seems to be quite balanced and objective in its assessment of the pros and cons surrounding the humiliation sought to be heaped on the three Service Chiefs by summoning them to appear before the PAC, something that has not happened before. I at least became a bit wiser and a lot sadder after going through it. Are we meant to be goats, I mean scapegoats, to bale others out?
Do our top brass sometimes care to know about these writings--on the wall, if you like--or the angst expressed by many amongst us? "CARRY ON REGARDLESS!"
Warm regards.
Wg Cdr SC Kapoor, Veteran
Thanks to Wg Cdr, Subhash for sharing this piece of news item.
ReplyDeleteI think, we need not be defensive but activate the Defence legal and constitutional experts to do their job with top quality and come out with such a rebuttal that netas, babus, media and public come to know the devious designs of the Govt playing hand in glove between politicians and babus to subvert the strong foundation of the armed forces and attempting to make it a statue of bronze with feet of clay. All this to hide the failure of the state which today is full of rampant corruption perpetrated by babus, police, judiciary, netas and some corp houses. In fact, babus are solely responsible for this state as they can not be prosecuted thus enjoy immunity for all crimes. Let the people and media continuously ask them on national TV as to why they have not implemented National
e-Governance Plan, not for birth records, land records, rail res etc which is only 40% of governance being implemented by babus at a ridiculous snail's pace. The real e-governance is making tendering, responses, evaluation, ordering, contracting, payments and monitoring face less without any in person meetings. If in person meetings are required then these should be only on video conf. Video conf would retain indelible record of discussion and catch the corrupt persons with proof so that judiciary also awards punishment to guilty even after death of the accused and the world comes to know of the true character of the person. This acts such a deterant that 98% corruption will vanish. 2%, the Govt can handle.
Granted that PAC may have pointed out some anomaly but asking service chiefs to appear before politicians dominated PAC is not the answer to the problem. The real answer is tightening of administrative procedures so that URCs function within the laid down norms.
With warm regards,
Mahesh Khera