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.
_________________________
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
| hide details 12/6/09 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
______
| hide details 12/4/09 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
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).
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]- No one can present himself directly to another of our friends. There must be a third person to do it.
- Never look at the wives of friends.
- Never be seen with cops.
- Don't go to pubs and clubs.
- Always being available for Cosa Nostra is a duty - even if your wife is about to give birth.
- Appointments must absolutely be respected.
- Wives must be treated with respect.
- When asked for any information, the answer must be the truth.
- Money cannot be appropriated if it belongs to others or to other families.
- 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 functioning 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.
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
| hide details 12/2/09 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Images are not displayed.
Display images below
Display images below
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;TRUNCATE
Sent: Tue, 1 December, 2009 7:54:34 PM
Subject: ESM sitrep 01 dec 09
To: kamboj_cs@yahoo.co.in;TRUNCATE
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.
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
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
______________________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
---------- 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,
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 ----------
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
No comments:
Post a Comment