Social media and the Armed Forces : Need to refrain from knee-jerk reactions

The Indian Navy’s Facebook incident has again brought into light the subject of serving defence officers and the use of internet.

Though not in favour of making cyberspace free for uninhibited travel, I feel that the issue needs to be tackled in a holistic manner by maintaining an adequate amount of discretion but at the same time not losing touch with the necessities of modern life.

Press reports suggest that some kind of action is in the offing against the naval officers involved in the episode. In my opinion, two things need to be examined before the Navy proceeds in the matter. One, whether the information shared was such which was not already available in any public domain including the net or any military-related publication or journal, and two, whether there was any intention on the part of the officers to disseminate such information to persons who should not have been privy to the same.

More often than not, the call for action related to interaction of serving officers over the internet emanates from over-sensitive and touchy seniors who are not tech-savvy. Usually, such actions are merely knee-jerk reactions which are not in tune with the reality of the times.

So what is the way out? I feel there has to be a democratic inter-service debate on the issue and it should be discussed threadbare as to how broad guidelines could be incorporated which bring about a certain amount of cyber security taking into account our requirements of maintaining confidentiality in some areas, but at the same time not overly imposing an embargo on individual freedom and human interaction.

If this report is to be believed, then defence personnel are soon going to be asked not to comment on government or military policies. This attitude itself, in the past, has led to the constant derailment of military service from the pecking order as well as the absence of the military from the wish-list of job-seekers. Lack of discussion on issues affecting service-members has direct linkage with ignorance further leading to absence of exercise of rights where required and denial of benefits– the Sixth Pay Commission and its aftermath bears testimony to what I say. No, ignorance no longer remains bliss. If we continue treading this path, the future is not difficult to predict. Even otherwise, the statutory rules in this regard are surprisingly not archaic, despite the fact that these were promulgated in the 1950s. For example, the only prohibition in the Army is that, inter alia, service information is not to be communicated to the press or published in any book, letter, article or document without sanction of the Govt or an officer specified in this behalf (See Army Rule 21). Hence, there is no restriction whatsoever on discussion of any topic under the sun on any forum, the restriction is only on publication. Moreover, with the advancement of time, discussions on the internet or social networking sites are mere substitutes of drawing-room talk of the yesteryears. Times have changed and organisations must also march on.

Till the time our own decision makers (read imposers) become tech-savvy and net-educated, our military shall remain embodied in a time-warp. The US Army, which is handling much more sensitive missions domestically and abroad, and which has its fingers in many pies, has constructively used technology for betterment and openness. They have an official Army Blog and so do most of the other arms and services. The US Army also has a major presence on twitter while we are mulling banning the entire spectrum of social media.

While writing this, I am reminded of a tweet this morning by a retired officer. He felt that banning or curbing social media could become a major demotivating factor for youth aspiring to join the Army at all levels. This very important aspect is actually a point currently not even on our radar. We must find a practical and balanced solution in consonance with the times which would not only ensure personal freedom but also hands-on adherence to security requirements. If social media is taken as an enemy of security then so could be normal day to day human interaction, all types of computing devices and mobiles. Would be, or could we ban those too?

Courtesy: Maj Navdeep Singh

The much awaited Parliamentary Committee Report on Military Pensions submitted

The Parliamentary (Rajya Sabha) Committee on Petitions submitted its report today.

For those who want to peruse the full report may click here to download the entire copy.

As a keen observer of developments in the field, my observations are as under :

A. The Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) of the MoD, with Ms Neelam Nath at the (then) ceremonial helm, and with two Under Secretaries actually and practically running the entire show, has been less than truthful with the committee with its inputs. The first proof of the same being the figure of Rs 3000 crore per year for OROP projected by the said department which tacitly has been contradicted by the Department of Expenditure which in turn has pegged the annual expenditure for the first year at Rs 1300 crore.

B. The DESW had put forth the reasons of financial, administrative and legal impediments in implementing OROP. While projecting administrative difficulties, it was pointed out that the information regarding pensioners was not available since military documents are weeded out after 25 years. This, my friends, is a bundle of lies. Firstly, the 25 years limit applies to non-pensioners and not to pensioners. Secondly, naturally OROP is to apply to pensioners only and if a person is a pensioner, he or she would obviously be in receipt of pension based on a PPO which would contain all requisite information such as the length of service and rank which is all that is required.

C. Even the legal difficulties expressed by DESW have no legs to stand upon. The DESW commented that the Supreme Court had upheld the implementation of cut-off dates in pensionary matters in various cases. However, what DESW did not mention is the fact that there are many more decisions in which cut-off dates have been deprecated, including very recent ones.

D. The representatives of the Army, Navy and Air Force supported the cause of OROP. A mere reading of the report also seemingly indicates that while the representatives of the Services were very much present in the initial meetings and very fairly assisted the Committee, they were probably not present during the final meeting of deliberation when the Secretaries were again heard on 14 Nov 2011. Perhaps chary of the proper and fair assistance provided to the Committee by the Services, the military reps were not brought in by the DESW on the penultimate date. This is the impression that I get, perhaps the Services HQ would be able to elaborate if my guess is correct.

E. The findings of the Committee were appreciable and pro-veteran. The Committee has observed that the demands of veterans were included in Election Manifestoes of various parties but not given effect. The Committee has also observed that OROP was existing in a way till 1973 when it was withdrawn in an ex-parte manner by the 3^rd CPC which linked the pensionary system of the armed forces with that of civilian employees. The committee also observed that there was no comparison with civilian employees and defence services faced much harsher conditions coupled with an early retirement age. The committee also observed that given the economy of the country, Rs 1300 crore per year was not a heavy figure.

F. However, most importantly, the following observations of the committee summed up the essence of the entire exercise :-

“…They (defence services) serve the nation with utmost devotion and selflessness but their demands are consistently being ignored, not by the heads of the Armed Forces, but by bureaucrats. It’s a typical example of bureaucratic apathy. To continue this apathy, the Ministries apprised the Committee that if OROP were to be implemented, similar demands may be raised from civilian employees. This argument the committee finds is a baseless apprehension...The defence personnel in the PBOR category retire when they are around 35-40 years of age. Even the officers retire when they are around 55 years of age. That is the time when they have family and social responsibilities to discharge for which they need sound financial support. This is certainly not the case with civilian work force where the age of retirement is 60 uniformly…The committee is not convinced with the hurdles projected by the DESW in implementing OROP for defence personnel…”

Courtesy: Major Navdeep Sing

Sukna land scam: Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash found guilty, dismissed from service

Former military secretary Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash was on Saturday found guilty on three counts by an Army court here in the Sukna land scam case following which he was dismissed from service.
The dismissal means he will not get any benefits like pension.
However, the court gave Lt Gen Prakash, the senior-most Army officer to face court martial, benefit of doubt on the fourth count of committing a civil offence.
Prakash was held guilty of misusing his position under the Army Act section 45 (conduct unbecoming of his position as an officer) and section 52 (intent to defraud) by the General Court Martial at the 51 sub area of the army station at Narengi.
The court martial was conducted after Prakash was indicted by an Army court of inquiry early last year for his role in the illegal transfer of 71 acres of land adjacent to the Sukna military station near Siliguri in West Bengal to a private realtor for constructing an educational institution in 2008. He is the third Lt Gen rank officer to have been punished in a case related to corruption. Lt Gen S K Sahni was cashiered from service for his role in the ration scam and Lt Gen P K Rath was given a punishment in the Sukna case earlier. While Prakash and Sahni were punished after their retirement from service, Rath is still serving in the army.
The scam dates back to 2008 when the alleged move to transfer the land in Siliguri district of West Bengal to a private educational trust came out in the open, leading to the Army initiating disciplinary proceedings against senior Army officials, including Prakash and Rath.

Happy Deepawali

An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind –

Mohandas Gandhi

Layman's 10 Commandments

Someone has written these beautiful words. Must read and try to understand the deep meaning of it. They are like the ten commandments to follow in life all the time.

1] Prayer is not a "spare wheel" that you pull out when in trouble, but it is a "steering wheel" that directs the right path throughout.
2] A Car's WINDSHIELD is so large & the Rear view Mirror is so small? Because our PAST is not as important as our FUTURE. So, Look Ahead and Move on.
3] Friendship is like a BOOK. It takes few seconds to burn, but it takes years to write.
4] All things in life are temporary. If going well, enjoy it, they will not last forever. If going wrong, don't worry, they can't last long either.
5] Old Friends are Gold! New Friends are Diamond! If you get a Diamond, don't forget the Gold! Because to hold a Diamond, you always need a Base of Gold!

6] Often when we lose hope and think this is the end, GOD smiles from above and says, "Relax, sweetheart, it's just a bend, not the end!
7] When GOD solves your problems, you have faith in HIS abilities; when GOD doesn't solve your problems HE has faith in your abilities.

8] A blind person asked St. Anthony: "Can there be anything worse than losing eye sight?" He replied: "Yes, losing your vision!"
9] When you pray for others, God listens to you and blesses them, and sometimes, when you are safe and happy, remember that someone has prayed for you.
10] WORRYING does not take away tomorrow's TROUBLES, it takes away today's PEACE.

If you enjoyed this, share with others. It may brighten someone's day...