Thursday, December 16, 2010

IESM and Internal Democracy II

Dear  Col RP Chaturvedi,

I have serious doubts about your understanding of  the import of issue I raised about the internal democracy and freedom of expression of the members and officials of a Society of retired veterans. As veterans, we are as much concerned about the society and its ability to influence  events. It is in fitness of things that I raise some uncomfortable questions.

I raised a number of issues here:  http://indianmilitarynotes.blogspot.com/2010/12/iesm-and-internal-democracy.html

The following are facts/questions I raised:
  1. A couple of ESM members including office bearers and founders of IESM were dismissed from IESM.
  2. They were dismissed for "disobeying  the decisions of the Governing Body".
  3. So, the governing body is empowered to issue  "official commands" to you, the member.
  4. What does it mean? Is it a "Registered society" or a mafia expecting its members to abide by its decisions ? Unconditional obedience is the hallmark of mafias and not  "societies established for the promotion of literature, science, or the fine arts, or for the diffusion of useful knowledge, or for charitable purposes" for which you can form registered societies.
  5. Why should a Registered society demand unconditional obedience from its members beats me unless it functions  worse than even a  mafia.
  6. If  "command and obedience" are terms by which we define ourselves and shape our  behavior in a "society", there is a serious problem there. Demanding unconditional obedience to the decisions of the governing body itself is a problematic clause. I do not want to surrender my freedoms to a "Society". A "Society" can not impose its will over me as a free citizen. Not even a nation, the government of the time can demand that from a citizen. If it it does, it will be human rights violation.
  7. Next is the code of silence! Some one urged such code of silence on the matter of dismissal of 4  members(one of them a General Secretary!) This can also be traced to a mafia practice: Omertà: the code of silence.
  8. What if the society asks me to return my medals and I "disobey" the command, will I be dismissed?
  9. To say that the misguided officers were engaged in anti ESM is ridiculous. What is pro ESM and what is anti ESM is a value judgment and the governing body of a society has no monopoly on these judgments.
  10. The only justification for repressive institutions is material and cultural deficit. But such institutions, at certain stages of history, perpetuate and produce such a deficit, and even threaten human survival. Noam Chomsky
  11. "Among people who have learned something from the 18th century (say, Voltaire) it is a truism, hardly deserving discussion, that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended. Advocacy of the right to express ideas that are generally approved is, quite obviously, a matter of no significance. All of this is well-understood in the United States." Noam Chomsky.
  12. You never need an argument against the use of violence, autocracy, confinement, dismissal from institutions etc., you need an argument for it.
  13. We should be striving for openness, debate, discussion and constant interaction and influencing each other with logic and reasoning and not demand Code of Silence.
Instead of addressing the issues, you are dismissing the claims arbitrarily saying "We are all sufficiently heard, and take decision by consensus.". Are you suggesting that you have arrived at the consensus with those officials who were dismissed? It would be foolhardy to make such a claim.

Sir, you are not required to rebut the arguments and you are at perfect liberty to ignore the points. But don't make a farce of the rebuttal. It exhibits intellectual dishonesty .

Sir, no one needs  advises such as :
  1. Please get out of history, and get current.
  2. I suggest you step out of it.
I reject such exhortations as condescending and lacking in maturity.
If you suffer from serious deficit to counter  valid  arguments, you will do well to keep quiet and leave matters for other more gifted members of the tribe to rebut the arguments.

You ask: Are YOU clear what YOUR objectives hereon are?
Yes, sir, of course, I am. It is stated in no uncertain terms under serial 13 above. Sir, please go back and read it again.

Here it is once again: We should be striving for openness, debate, discussion and constant interaction and influencing each other with logic and reasoning and not demand Code of Silence.

Even after all these arguments, all you have to say is:"We are like that only!", I have nothing more to say.

With Warm Regards,
Nath

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Rakesh Prasad Chaturvedi <rpc4826@hotmail.com> wrote:
While Freedom of Speech is a right enshrined in our constitution, I am afraid in exercising it you are out of context. Your narration has nothing to do with IESM. It does not lead to the conclusion you arrived at, in declaring it 'non democratic'. We are all sufficiently heard, and take decision by consensus. If some move out, its since their ambitions dictate/ guide them that way. Or else, unable to convince their compatriots here, they feel they must move since they hear a 'different drummer' whose tune matches with their melody. It happens everywhere, in all corporate, political parties and even sports teams. Nothing unique about IESM in this.
We are here to do a job and are at it. Everyone of us, including you, may have partaken the benefits/ pleasures the Services provided us. It is not important now. What is, is what we are doing now, to do what our wisdom now dictates. All of us are clear of that, and fortunately succeeding. Are YOU clear what YOUR objectives hereon are? 
Please get out of history, and get current. Thanks.

With Warm Regards,
Col RP Chaturvedi,
A-35 Sector 36,
Noida 201303.
Mob: +919891279035.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

IESM and Internal Democracy

Dear Col Chaturvedi,

This is to thank you for writing to me.( See the email below- the last one below.) I accept the brick bats with the grace it deserves!

You write: I have received your rather long and laborious tirade against 'Generals' leading a movement against injustice. Honest, I find your logic lopsided.

That is interesting, that my logic is lopsided.


You write:
Turn a stone and there is one lurching under, nursing a wound, a grievance, and a misplaced sense of being better than one that got promoted. Most of the 'under the stone' types get onto 'General bashing' - their action catalyzed by the new found freedom of retirement. Unfortunate. I suggest you step out of it.

I write about the lack of democratic functioning of IESM and rather than addressing the issue I raised, you launch  a "personal attack"  and attribute motives for the points I have raised. 
_________________________
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy,[2] but it is not always fallacious. For in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]
I had studied the issue of lack of democratic functioning of IESM  and interacted with Col K Bharadwaj  and I am convinced that a civil registered society can not function as a "field Army" under the Command of a General with  Summary powers of dismisssal of official because they disagreed with the leadership.
 That happens only in autocratic societies!
______________________________
____

In stead of addressing the issues I have raised, you are trying to silence me by your suggestion: I suggest you step out of it.

You may like to educate yourself from the analysis of the issue I raised from the email threads below.
Thanks
Nath




from CPC <cpcnath@gmail.com>
toindianexservicemen@yahoogroups.com
dateSun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:08 AM
subjectRe: [indianexservicemen] Re: RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM COURT CASE Hav. Balwan Singh Versus Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement
mailed-bygmail.com
hide details 12/6/09

Sir,

It looks as if the rules of IESM  were rewritten to justify the dismissal of an  official of the iesm!
If that is the case, it is rather not only just unfortunate, but mafia like, changing rules as we go along.
The conduct of business has to be according the MOA submitted to the Registration authority.
In any case, to empower dismissal from the society because some one disagreed or questioned inappropriate functioning smacks of autocracy, dictorship and not a democratic functioning of debate and discussion. The hall mark of democracy is discussion and debate, which  our brass has extreme problem comprehending.
Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic rights and freedoms. In its very first session in 1946, before any human rights declarations or treaties had been adopted, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 59(I) stating "Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and ... the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated."
Freedom of expression is essential in enabling democracy to work and public participation in decision-making. Citizens cannot exercise their right to vote effectively or take part in public decision-making if they do not have free access to information and ideas and are not able to express their views freely. Freedom of expression is thus not only important for individual dignity but also to participation, accountability and democracy. Violations of freedom of expression often go hand in hand with other violations, in particular the right to freedom of association and assembly.
Freedom of speech is an individual's right to express ideas without coercive interference from the government or cultural societies. Free speech does protect an individual who voices unpopular ideas from governmental force, but it does not require that other citizens support him. If an individual wants others to finance the expression of his ideas, he must seek their voluntary agreement.
The only justification for repressive institutions is material and cultural deficit. But such institutions, at certain stages of history, perpetuate and produce such a deficit, and even threaten human survival. Noam Chomsky

You never need an argument against the use of violence, autocracy, confinement, dismissal from institutions etc., you need an argument for it.

What was the argument?

To say that the misguided officers were anti ESM is ridiculous. What is pro ESM and what is anti ESM is a value judgment and the governing body of a society has no monopoly on these judgements.

Let me quote Chomsky again: "Among people who have learned something from the 18th century (say, Voltaire) it is a truism, hardly deserving discussion, that the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended. Advocacy of the right to express ideas that are generally approved is, quite obviously, a matter of no significance. All of this is well-understood in the United States."

Nath

______
fromCPC <cpcnath@gmail.com>
toindianexservicemen@yahoogroups.com
dateFri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:41 AM
subjectRe: [indianexservicemen] Re: RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM COURT CASE Hav. Balwan Singh Versus Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement
mailed-bygmail.com
Images from this sender are always displayed. Don't display from now on.
hide details 12/4/09
Sir,
Can you list the  grounds on which you can be "Expel/Terminated" from IESM  ?

(d) Termination of Cessation of Membership. The Governing Body of IESM shall have the power to expel/terminate a member of/and member/veteran organization from the membership of the above IESm,on any of the following grounds:-
(i) On death
(ii) On written resignation
(iii) If found to be involved in any anti-social activities
(iv) If judged by any court of law to be a criminal offernder
(v) If found guilty by means of anti propaganda of the aims and objectives of the IESM
(vi) if veteran Organization / he she disregard(s) Rules and Regulations or disobey(s) the decisions of the Governing Body .



Disobeys the decisions of the Governing Body?

So, the governing body is empowered to issue  "official commands" to you?

What does it mean? Is it a "Registered society" or a mafia expecting its members to abide by its decisions ?
Unconditional obedience is the hallmark of mafias and not " societies established for the
promotion of literature, science, or the fine arts, or for the diffusion of useful knowledge, 1*[the diffusion of political education] or for charitable purposes" for which you can form registered societies.

In 1984, the mafioso informant Tommaso Buscetta explained to prosecutors the pyramidal command structure of a typical mafia clan.[12] A clan is led by a "boss" (capofamiglia), who is aided by a second-in-command (a sotto capo or "underboss") and one or more advisers (consigliere). Under his command are crews of about 10 "soldiers", each led by a capodecina (or sometimes caporegime).

File:Mafia family structure tree.en.svg


Ten Commandments

In November 2007 Sicilian police reported to have found a list of "Ten Commandments" in the hideout of mafia boss Salvatore Lo Piccolo. They are thought to be guidelines on how to be a good, respectful and honourable mafioso.[24]
  1. No one can present himself directly to another of our friends. There must be a third person to do it.
  2. Never look at the wives of friends.
  3. Never be seen with cops.
  4. Don't go to pubs and clubs.
  5. Always being available for Cosa Nostra is a duty - even if your wife is about to give birth.
  6. Appointments must absolutely be respected.
  7. Wives must be treated with respect.
  8. When asked for any information, the answer must be the truth.
  9. Money cannot be appropriated if it belongs to others or to other families.
  10. People who can't be part of Cosa Nostra: anyone who has a close relative in the police, anyone with a two-timing relative in the family, anyone who behaves badly and doesn't hold to moral values.

"disobey(s) the decisions of the Governing Body"
seems to be on the above lines. (Even mafias dont demand unconditional obedience in their 10 commandments!) Why should a Registered society demand unconditional obedience from its members beats me unless it functions  worse than even a  mafia.

Any decisions from the Governing body should be suggestive rather than a "command". If it is a sacrosanct command the disobedience of which invite wrath and dismissal, then, the style of funct
ioning is more like a mafia and not as registered society.

What if the society asks me to return my medals and I "disobey" the command, will I be dismissed?

If  "command and obedience" are terms by which we define ourselves and shape our  behavior in a "society", there is a serious problem there. Demanding unconditional obedience to the decisions of the governing body itself is a problematic clause. I do not want to surrender my freedoms to a "Society". A "Society" can not impose its will over me as a free citizen. Not even a nation, the government of the time can demand that from a citizen. If it it does, it will be human rights violation.

Next is the code of silence! Some one urged such code of silence on the matter of dismisssal of 4  members(one of them a General Secretary!) This can also be traced to a mafia practice:
Omertà: the code of silence.
   
File:OMERTA - Code of Silence.jpg
We should be striving for openness, debate, discussion and constant interaction and influencing each other with logic and reasoning and not demand Code of Silence.

I think we got things thoroughly wrong ( or right in mafia terms), it seems.

NAth
from cpc_nath <cpcnath@gmail.com>
reply-toindianexservicemen@yahoogroups.com
toindianexservicemen@yahoogroups.com
dateWed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM
subject[indianexservicemen] Re: RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM COURT CASE Hav. Balwan Singh Versus Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement
mailing list<indianexservicemen.yahoogroups.com> Filter messages from this mailing list
mailed-byreturns.groups.yahoo.com
signed-byyahoogroups.com
unsubscribeUnsubscribe from this mailing-list
hide details 12/2/09

Images are not displayed.
Display images below
  Sir,
If you dare ask for democratic functioning or functioning as per the MOA (Memorandum of Association ) this is what it will result in.
When some one demands proper functioning and seeks intervention of the court of justice, they must have genuine grievance. In any case, if the courts find no case, the case will in any case be dismissed. So why dismiss them just because they asked for functioning as per MOA?

The irony is that IESM  wants to take the government to the court for justice!
And, yet can not tolerate its own office holders requesting for proper functioning as per MOA!
"a couple of  IESM members indulging in actions that are anti-IESM" is all we know about the offenses committed by these IESM members!

We seem to have acute intolerance to any difference of opinion. See for your self.

Nath

From: raj kadyan rajkadyan@yahoo.com
To: kamboj_cs@yahoo.co.in;TRUNCATED
Sent: Tue, 1 December, 2009 7:54:34 PM
Subject: ESM sitrep 01 dec 09
Dear Colleagues,
There have been a couple of  IESM members indulging in actions that are anti-IESM and are inimical to the overall interests of the ESM community. After waiting for a long time in the (vain) hope that they might realise their mistake and come back to the fold, the Core Group in its meeting on 1 Nov 2009, had taken the hard decision to expel the following members from the IESM
1.    Colonel Kanwar Bhardwaj, SM.
2.    Colonel SS Sohi.
3.    Maj IS Jakhar.
4.    Hav Balwan Singh.
The action of expulsion has been communicated to the Individuals concerned.
......
Best regards,
Lt Gen (Emeritus) Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
Chairman IESM
262, Sector-17A, Gurgaon- 122 001
Tele: 91+124-4015262, +919811226676


RELEVANT EXTRACTS FROM COURT CASE
FILED BY
SMT. SIKSHA BHARADWAJ, WIFE OF COL KANWAR BHARADWAJ
AND PARTY

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE GURGAON
HARAYANA
CIVIL SUIT NO. OF 2009
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri Dharam Singh Sheraon,
R/o D-200, Mangala Puri Village,
Palam Colony,
New Delhi.
Smt. Siksha Bharadwaj,
M/o Shaheed Capt. Umang Bharadwaj,
R/o Plot No. 309, Veer Akash,
Sector 18, Dwarka,
New Delhi.
Maj. I.S. Jhakhar
R/o T-12A, Gurgaon.
New Palam Vihar.

Hav. Balwan Singh
R/o 118B, Rajendra Park,
Gurgaon .... Plantiffs
Versus
Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement
543, Sector – 23,
Gurgaon – 122017.
Lt. Gen. Raj Kadyan
R/o 262/17A, Gurgaon.
Maj. Gen. Satbir Singh
R/o 543/23, Gurgaon.
Col. Kanwar Bharadwaj
R/o 774/ 17A, Gurgaon.
Maj. Gen. P.K. Renjen ... Defendants
R/o 18, Kusum Marg (FF),
DLP, Ph-1, Gurgaon.
SUIT FOR PERMANENT & MANDATORY INJUCTION
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
That the Plantiffs are the members of the Defendant No. 1 comprising of ex-servicemen and which registered on 15th .....
PRAYER
On the facts and circumstance of the case it is most respectfully prayed that:
A. To pass a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendants 2-5 to call the meeting of the general body of the Defendant no. 1 society within a period of 30 days giving 15 days notice to all the members of the defendant no. 1 society.
B. To pass a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing the defendants 2-5 to hold the election of the Governing Body of Defendant no. 1 within a period of 30 days.
C. To pass a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant nos 2-5 to display the entire list of members of the defendant no. 1 society on the notice board to be displayed at the registered office of the defendant no. 1 society.
D. To pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant nos 2-5 from operating the bank account of the defendant no. 1 society be passed against the defendant nos 2-5.
E. To pass a decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants nos 2-5 from creating any further sub-committees in the defendant no. 1 society and from appointing any member of the defendant no. 1 society to such committees or sub committees be passed against the defendant nos 2-5.
F. Cost of the suit.
G. Such any other relief or order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Sd xxxxxxxxx
PLANTIFFS
THROUGH
Sd xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx
(C. K. SHARMA / PANKAJ KR. SINGH)
ADVOCATES
GURGAON
DATED: 7/11/09

------------
RELEVANT EXTRACTS
FROM THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY
COL KANWAR BHARDWAJ
WITH THE REGISTRAR OF FIRMS AND SOCIETIES
GURGAON, HARYANA


INDIAN EX-SERVICEMEN MOVENT
An All India Federation Of Military Veterans Organisation
Col Kanwar Bhardwaj, Sena Medal
Gen. Secy-Indian Ex-servicemen Movement
President-Indian Ex-servicemen Movement (Hr.)
Resi: Kothi No 774, Sector-17A,Gurgaon Tel:(O)0124-3260877,(R) 2341155
Mob: 9312666181 E-mail: col_cps@rediffmail.com

To
The Registrar
Firms and Societies
Gurgaon, Haryana
Sub: - FUNCTIONING OF INDIAN EX-SERVICEMAN VERIFICATION AND ACTION
Dear Sir,
1. I would like to bring the following to your notice for your necessary action and verification please. The IESM is not functioning in a democratic way and as per the Bye-laws of the Societies. Proceedings of the IESM are not properly recorded, because there is no proper office, staff and necessary equipments, since the office shown is the residence (H. No-543 Scctor-23) Vice-Chairn1an of IESM Maj Gen Satbir Singh. The necessity of the office have been ignored inspite of number of times demand was put up in the meeting of Stg Comt. Agenda point put up for the monthly meeting May 09 of steering committee by Gen Secy was not even considered (Copy of the suggested Agenda points attached).
The management/records of every thing including funds are controlled by Vice Chainman whereas as per the MOA, Gen Secy is do all these things. Even on the registration of MOA Signatories are Chairn1an, Vice Chainman & Treasurer. Why not Gen Secy & why Vice Chairman, shows the intension of the Vice Chairman. Funds have been utilized without proper sanction /resulation passed by the Governing Body. A sum of Rs 35000/- was given to Wing Cdr CK Sharma (member of Stg comtt) for some documentary film.
As Gen Secy I would like to apprise you that right from the day one of IESM till date 6 members out of the Governing Body comprising of 24 members, I have not seen or even known the following members of Governing Body :-
S.No Name S.No Name
14 R/Adm G. Kurvilla 20 Maj S.Khanna
18 Brig Jagjit Singh Ahuja 21 Capt M.Mathur
19 Col R.M.Bedi 24 Col Sidharth Bose
When these above points were raised time and again for the proper functioning of the IESM, the way out was found by deputing Gp Capt Gandhi as Gen Secy without any election, whereas I have not resigned till date. Copy attached. There is only one post of Gen Secy. These appointments are adhoc however there is need in near future Gen Body meeting is to be called for fresh election.
------------
THE END

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rakesh Prasad Chaturvedi <rpchaturvedi@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [IESM_GovBody] FW: IESM Needs MASS for Credibility
To: cpcnath@gmail.com


Dear CPC,
I have received your rather long and laborious tirade against 'Generals' leading a movement against injustice. Honest, I find your logic lopsided.  In every profession 'experience' and seniors are respected, their experience utilized and their counsel sought. 
Except us Faujis. 
Turn a stone and there is one lurching under, nursing a wound, a grievance, and a misplaced sense of being better than one that got promoted. Most of the 'under the stone' types get onto 'General bashing' - their action catalyzed by the new found freedom of retirement. Unfortunate. I suggest you step out of it.
Here is an organization- The IESM- that has placed Fauji centric issues into focus of public, legislative, judicial and media attention within a magical two years, and all you can talk about is frustration ridden venomous mailing? Rethink. 
The issue is NOT what 'model' is followed- may be the one suggested by you may ALSO work (or may not), but what results indicate. Here the balance is heavily weighed in favor of IESM with its current - now in the second innings. 
Lastly, we are not talking about an RWA election battle, but something Pan India, encompassing veterans with average age of 67 or so. SO if you think such lengthy essays are going to have them switch from their decision to support the existing dispensation, you will need to demonstrate what YOUR philosophy (whatever it is), is better and can fetch results. Do that and maybe we can talk an year from now. 

With Warm Regards,
Col RP Chaturvedi,
A-35, Sector 36,
Noida 201303.
Mob: +919891279035
Skype: rakesh.prasad.chaturvedi

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: cpc_nath <cpcnath@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 9:56 PM
Subject: [indianexservicemen] Re: To:
indianexservicemen@yahoogroups.com

Sir,
The trouble with Indian veteran organizations are:

1. Only retired Generals can lead them and not a PFC like in the US.
2. The moment any one questions them in a democratic way, one will be
thrown out.
3. Veteran organizations are not field armies commanded by one General
but the heads want it that way because any hing else is unknown to them.
Even to this extend that the routine circulars are called : "SITREP"!
4. Even founders of the organizations have been thrown out once the
leadership is captured by the retired Generals.
5. These retired Generals think and believe sincerely that they know
what is good for the veterans any difference in perspective or views is
viewed as an affront to their authority.( There was a paper on anomaly of
military pension and 70% of the paper dealt with anomaly of a Brigadier
getting higher pension than a Major General. I questioned it in these
columns and every one was stunned: " How dare .."! I broke the unwritten
rule/ code of silence that you are not supposed to question the paper
written by a General!)
6. People who have difference of opinions will soon be replaced with more
agreeable/pliable second fiddlers. This has happened in IESM. I am sure it
has happened with IESL also.
7. These Retired Generals have extreme intolerance for any discussion and
very soon they would like to "put a stop to all discussions" and thus
throttle participation/discussion.
8. There is soon tendency to demand one and only one veteran
organization and one and only one view on any subject.
9. All should toe this line or else, you are a "pariah" and you are out.
10. There can not be veteran organization headed by JCOs and ORs.
11. The real perspective of the ordinary pensioner (95% of the fauji
pensioner is a 35 year old soldier who retires after 15 years of color
service) and their need is totally lost because of inability of officer
pensioners to empathize with them and their priorities.

Look at the scene in USA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_veterans%27_organizations
Also see: http://www.army.mil/veteransorganizations/

The strength of the veteran organization should not come the fact there is a
single one just as in the case of a trade union in an industrial
establishment!

Just imagine, if *Maj* AK Dhanapalan were to raise the issue in any veteran
organization, he would have been silenced by the hierarchy in no time.
Instead he took the case to the court and won it : Rank Pay is a part of
basic pay : SC upholds verdict in Dhanapalan
case<
http://www.indianmilitary.info/2010/03/rank-pay-is-part-of-basic-pay-sc.html>
)

Inability to tolerate difference of opinion and priorities is the bane of
all veteran organizations. It is a career hazard, it seems. There was a mail
recently by General Harwant Singh asking every one to put a stop to
discussion and toe his line.

I had responded to this in these columns and I do not want to repeat it
here.

OROP can withstand scrutiny only on the basis of justice and equity and not
because of "ijjath and honor" . What honor is violated if a Lance Naik gets
higher pension than a Naik who retired couple of years back? Sadly, vet
hierarchy is not bothered about this actually! How many times have you
heard a discussion on this in the vet forums? But not in case of Major
General and Brigadier or some other officer rank for that matter.

And you are telling me that it is not officer centric? Do you expect me to
believe it?

If we are truly concerned with the fauji pensioner, we should be fighting
tooth and nail for training for a second career like the GI bill in USA!

The embargo on discussion and expression of opinion is confined to any one
who served in uniform at any point in ones life. Funnily, it does not apply
to the media personnel and writers of articles as long as they were not
members of Armed Forces at any point in their life. It seems you loose the
right to self expression if you have donned the uniform ever!

Does it not sound strange?

Nath

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Purpose of a Discussion group III

Always remember the assertion:
Surowiecki asserts that what happens when the decision making environment is not set up to accept the crowd, is that the benefits of individual judgments and private information are lost and that the crowd can only do as well as its smartest member, rather than perform better (as he shows is otherwise possible). Detailed case histories of such failures include:
Extreme Description
Homogeneity Surowiecki stresses the need for diversity within a crowd to ensure enough variance in approach, thought process, and private information.
Centralization The Columbia shuttle disaster, which he blames on a hierarchical NASA management bureaucracy that was totally closed to the wisdom of low-level engineers.


We have all left the hierarchical organization  where unquestioning obedience is the norm. Some of us have still not left the model mentally and still recreates the mental model. Even for the OROP debate, we have this over arching mental model that is clouding our judgment of what is appropriate, what is impropriety, what is open discussion etc.

If you use an inappropriate mental model for a debate/fight, all your judgment will go wonky. ( The debate/fight just has no place if you are a serving soldier/officer  because, there you just accept what is dished out to you and you do not argue back or fight for your rights. Implicit obedience and acceptance of the decision of authority is the norm.)

Don't use a patently inappropriate mental model in this open internet discussion group where there are no "holy cows" and every idea/opinion/strategy/plan/argument  is open for discussion and are questionable irrespective of the originator of the same.

NOT having a "healthy skepticism"  for the establishment and hierarchy and an unhealthy reverence for  ideas just because it emanated form your "erstwhile seniors",  you may find yourself in an awkward corner of the discussion landscape and especially so if you have archaic ideas like "senior bashing"  for genuine questioning of any of the ideas.(If all our "seniors" are 100% right, there should be no court cases against our "seniors" decisions and at least no court wins against our "senior's" decisions!). Aren't our "seniors" human? Supreme Court judges can err in their judgment, but not our  "erstwhile seniors" ?

While it is perfectly alright to wait  longer time in the hope of growing up and out of this debilitating intellectual disorder,  please do not inflict such disorder on others and especially in  the tone and tenor  of " let me tell you how you should respond to your erstwhile seniors". While you are at liberty to critique every idea that is expressed as harshly as possible, any attempt to prescribe how we all should think will find harshly denounced.

The reason is not far to seek:

  1. " the need for diversity within a crowd to ensure enough variance in approach, thought process, and private information."
  2. Surowiecki asserts that what happens when"when the decision making environment is not set up to accept the crowd, is that the benefits of individual judgments and private information are lost and that the crowd can only do as well as its smartest member, rather than perform better (as he shows is otherwise possible).

We do not want the centralization in judgment "that is totally closed to the wisdom of low level engineers"  as Suroweiky put it so plainly for the benefit of those who can not grow beyond the hierarchical  environment.

Can the regular Army function with such "irreverence for the hierarchy? Obviously NOT.
But even there, an Army  like the  US army is attempting to inculcate it through their "after action reports"!

For more on AAR go here: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/tc_25-20/tc25-20.pdf

If regular Army can have an  AAR after every action, to suggest that we (the retired fogies) can NOT  have an after action analysis post the TV debate on OROP  ( a movement based on political pressure and not based on Op Order and conduct of operation directed by the senior most general) is to be irrational to the point of being nit-witted and  senseless.

Extreme homogeneity and extreme centralization in thinking should be avoided like plague.

Lastly, what intrigues me is why our concept of "seniors" does not extend beyond the military in the ruling hierarchy? We can critique the President, the PM, cabinet misters, Supreme court judges including Chief Justices, HC judges, parliamentarians, the IAS big wigs (and even all the world's Generals who fought in the world wars)  but NOT our own military "erstwhile seniors"! How is that for logic?
Why? Because they are "holy cow"?

Thanks for your time and I sign off unless some one helps me  find flaws in  my logic and arguments.

Purpose of a Discussion group II

Wisdom of Crowds over individuals should  motivate us to put our heads together but independently!
Read on:

The Wisdom of Crowds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Wisdom of Crowds  
Wisecrowds.jpg
Cover of mass market edition by Anchor
Author James Surowiecki
Country United States
Language English
Genre(s) Non-fiction
Publisher Doubleday; Anchor
Publication date 2004
Pages 336
ISBN 978-0385503860
OCLC Number 61254310
Dewey Decimal 303.3/8 22
LC Classification JC328.2 .S87 2004
The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations, published in 2004, is a book written by James Surowiecki about the aggregation of information in groups, resulting in decisions that, he argues, are often better than could have been made by any single member of the group. The book presents numerous case studies and anecdotes to illustrate its argument, and touches on several fields, primarily economics and psychology.
The opening anecdote relates Francis Galton's surprise that the crowd at a county fair accurately guessed the weight of an ox when their individual guesses were averaged (the average was closer to the ox's true butchered weight than the estimates of most crowd members, and also closer than any of the separate estimates made by cattle experts).[1]
The book relates to diverse collections of independently-deciding individuals, rather than crowd psychology as traditionally understood. Its central thesis, that a diverse collection of independently-deciding individuals is likely to make certain types of decisions and predictions better than individuals or even experts, draws many parallels with statistical sampling, but there is little overt discussion of statistics in the book.
Its title is an allusion to Charles Mackay's Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, published in 1841.[citation needed]

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Types of crowd wisdom

Surowiecki breaks down the advantages he sees in disorganized decisions into three main types, which he classifies as
  • Cognition
Thinking and information Processing
Market judgment, which he argues can be much faster, more reliable, and less subject to political forces than the deliberations of experts or expert committees.
  • Coordination
Coordination of behavior includes optimizing the utilization of a popular bar and not colliding in moving traffic flows. The book is replete with examples from experimental economics, but this section relies more on naturally occurring experiments such as pedestrians optimizing the pavement flow or the extent of crowding in popular restaurants. He examines how common understanding within a culture allows remarkably accurate judgments about specific reactions of other members of the culture.
  • Cooperation
How groups of people can form networks of trust without a central system controlling their behavior or directly enforcing their compliance. This section is especially pro free market.

[edit] Four elements required to form a wise crowd

Not all crowds (groups) are wise. Consider, for example, mobs or crazed investors in a stock market bubble. According to Surowiecki, these key criteria separate wise crowds from irrational ones:
Criteria Description
Diversity of opinion Each person should have private information even if it's just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts.
Independence People's opinions aren't determined by the opinions of those around them.
Decentralization People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.
Aggregation Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.

[edit] Failures of crowd intelligence

Surowiecki studies situations (such as rational bubbles) in which the crowd produces very bad judgment, and argues that in these types of situations their cognition or cooperation failed because (in one way or another) the members of the crowd were too conscious of the opinions of others and began to emulate each other and conform rather than think differently. Although he gives experimental details of crowds collectively swayed by a persuasive speaker, he says that the main reason that groups of people intellectually conform is that the system for making decisions has a systematic flaw.
Surowiecki asserts that what happens when the decision making environment is not set up to accept the crowd, is that the benefits of individual judgments and private information are lost and that the crowd can only do as well as its smartest member, rather than perform better (as he shows is otherwise possible). Detailed case histories of such failures include:
Extreme Description
Homogeneity Surowiecki stresses the need for diversity within a crowd to ensure enough variance in approach, thought process, and private information.
Centralization The Columbia shuttle disaster, which he blames on a hierarchical NASA management bureaucracy that was totally closed to the wisdom of low-level engineers.
Division The US Intelligence community, the 9/11 Commission Report claims, failed to prevent the 11 September 2001 attacks partly because information held by one subdivision was not accessible by another. Surowiecki's argument is that crowds (of intelligence analysts in this case) work best when they choose for themselves what to work on and what information they need. (He cites the SARS-virus isolation as an example in which the free flow of data enabled laboratories around the world to coordinate research without a central point of control.) The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA have created a Wikipedia style information sharing network called Intellipedia that will help the free flow of information to prevent such failures again.
Imitation Where choices are visible and made in sequence, an "information cascade"[2] can form in which only the first few decision makers gain anything by contemplating the choices available: once past decisions have become sufficiently informative, it pays for later decision makers to simply copy those around them. This can lead to fragile social outcomes.
Emotionality Emotional factors, such as a feeling of belonging, can lead to peer pressure, herd instinct, and in extreme cases collective hysteria.

[edit] Connection

Surowiecki presented a session entitled Independent Individuals and Wise Crowds, or Is It Possible to Be Too Connected?[3]
The question for all of us is, how can you have interaction without information cascades, without losing the independence that’s such a key factor in group intelligence?
He recommends:
  • Keep your ties loose.
  • Keep yourself exposed to as many diverse sources of information as possible.
  • Make groups that range across hierarchies.
Tim O’Reilly[4] and others also discuss the success of Google, wikis, blogging, and Web 2.0 in the context of the wisdom of crowds.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds