Sukna Case: Two-Year Seniority Loss for Lt Gen Rath

Re: Sukna Case: Two-Year Seniority Loss for Lt Gen Rath

Sir,

What punishment the Corp Commander XV Corps should get  for such serious  criminal offenses(See article below)  in which  there is injury to the public or a member of the public ? There is some sentiment for excluding from the "crime" category of crimes without victims, such as consensual acts, or violations in which only the perpetrator is hurt or involved such as personal use of illegal drugs.
Or for that matter an innocent No Objection Certificate in which no one was hurt but a simple error of judgment as in the case of Lt General Rath!

The sociologist Richard Quinney has written about the relationship between society and crime. When Quinney states "crime is a social phenomenon" he envisages both how individuals conceive crime and how populations perceive it, based on societal norms.

The label of "crime" and the accompanying social stigma normally confine their scope to those activities seen as injurious to the general population or to the State, including some that cause serious loss or damage to individuals. 
The Sumerians produced the earliest surviving written codes.The Sumerians later issued other codes, including the "code of Lipit-Ishtar". This code, from the 20th century BCE, contains some fifty articles, and scholars have reconstructed it by comparing several sources.

The Sumerian was deeply conscious of his personal rights and resented any encroachment on them, whether by his King, his superior, or his equal. No wonder that the Sumerians were the first to compile laws and law codes.

�" Kramer

"The common law divided participants in a felony into four basic categories: (1) first-degree principals, those who actually committed the crime in question; (2) second-degree principals, aiders and abettors present at the scene of the crime; (3) accessories before the fact, aiders and abettors who helped the principal before the basic criminal event took place; and (4) accessories after the fact, persons who helped the principal after the basic criminal event took place. In the course of the 20th century, however, American jurisdictions eliminated the distinction among the first three categories." Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007)

Unlike the offenses committed by Gen Rath, the ones committed by the XV corps commander had injured an officer who fought the war honorably!
Is it right that Gen Rath  (for an issue of innocuous NOC and that too for an school) is punished and not Gen Kishen Pal (for  all the crimes committed against the nation in falsifying the war records and getting a Brigadier summarily dismissed all to save his own ass which was on fire!) ?

Gentlemen of the Jury,
Just think for yourself, if you can!
Nath

General fudged Kargil reports, showed bias: Tribunal
11 years on, Armed Forces Tribunal grants relief to Brigadier serving under him
Vijay Mohan
Tribune News Service

Lt Gen Krishan Pal (left) and Brig Devinder Singh with Gen VP Malik, then Army chief, in Batalik sector during the Kargil conflict in 1999.

Chandigarh, May 26
Exactly 11 years after the Kargil limited war and controversies in its wake took the nation by storm, the Armed Forces Tribunal has held that a key Lieutenant General overseeing operations in that sector fudged reports of the conflict and showed bias towards a senior field commander.
The Tribunal has directed that relevant records and documents pertaining to operations by 70 Infantry Brigade in Batalik written by Lt Gen Krishan Pal, then General Officer Commanding (GOC) 15 Corps, be corrected and put in correct perspective. This includes portions of the After Action Report of 15 Corps, extracts of Op Vijay -- Account of War in Kargil, written by Army Headquarters. It also directed that in view of the GOC’s bias, all annual confidential reports (ACR) of Brigade Commander Brig Devinder Singh by him be expunged.
Operations to evict Pakistani intruders along the Line of Control in Kargil were launched in mid-May 1999 and wound up towards the end of July. Srinagar-based 15 Corps had the responsibility of clearing intrusions. The 70 Infantry Brigade, part of 3 Infantry Division under 15 Corps, had played a key role in the conflict, and according to Army Headquarters’ publications, faced the toughest challenge and earned the conflicts first and finest victories.
The Brigade Commander, however, was overlooked for promotion and was awarded a Vishisht Seva Medal, a non-gallantry award, even though he had been cited for the Mahavir Chakra. Lt Gen Krishan Pal retired as the Quarter Master General, one of the eight Principal Staff Officers at Army Headquarters, responsible for overseeing the Army’s entire logistics and supply operations.
Brig Devinder had contended that the After Action Report written by Lt Gen Krishan Pal had falsely shown four of his most successful battalions under a fictitious headquarters commanded by the then Deputy General Officer of 3 Infantry division, Brig Ashok Dugal, which reflected a lopsided picture of his command and battle performance to Army HQs. Though a brigade comprises three battalions, 11 units were placed under his command, out of which seven received battle and theatre honours for their performance.

Playing the role of an enemy commander in a war game held at 15 Corps in April 1999, he had forecasted the pattern of the Kargil intrusions, but his projections were summarily dismissed by the GOC. Later, during actual operations in mid-June 1999, his assessment of the enemy in his sector was 600 regulars, whereas the GOC projected it to be only 45 militants.

Directing that the balance of all the said ACRs be expunged, the Tribunal observed that because of the operational differences between them, the GOC was not favourably motivated towards the petitioner and he had made attempts to tailor reports, thus belittling his achievements. “It is obvious that the reports of Lt Gen Pal are not an objective assessment and more so, the government has already expunged more than 50 per cent of his remarks A person who writes an ACR in a biased manner cannot be allowed to sustain,” the Bench said.

Lt Gen Rath Convicted of Corruption in Sukna Scam

Re: Lt Gen Rath Convicted of Corruption in Sukna Scam

Sir,

The question is NOT: How can the Military Secretary
 threaten or apply pressure on a Corps commander of equal rank.

So what, even if he can!

Even if he can, is it justified to come under pressure in carrying out my duties as a commissioned officer  commissioned specifically by the President of India to preserve, protect  and defend the Constitution of India and the territorial integrity of the nation (in contrast to the IAS officer who is appointed by the Ministry and does not get a Parchment personally signed in ink by the President and given under his seal of authority!)

___________________________________________________________________________
A commissioned officer is a military officer who holds a commission, a formal government document which vests power in the individual to whom it is issued. Typically, commissions are issued by the head of state; in the British Armed Forces, for example, the Queen or her agents give out commissions, while in the United States, the President hands out commissions, through the United States Congress.  In India , it is specifically signed by the President of India!
See the wording:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Lord High Admiral.
To our Trusty and Well Beloved ....... ....... Greeting:
We, reposing especial Trust and Confidence in your Loyalty, Courage, and good Conduct, do by these Presents Constitute and Appoint you to be an Officer in Our Royal Naval Reserve from the .... day of ........ ...... You are therefore carefully and diligently to discharge your Duty as such in the Rank of .............. or in such other Rank as We may from time to time hereafter be pleased to promote you to, of which a notification will be made in the London Gazette, and you are in such manner on such occasions as may be prescribed by Us to exercise and well discipline in their duties such officers, men and women as may be placed under your orders from time to time and use your best endeavours to keep them in good order and discipline.
And We do hereby Command them to Obey you as their superior Officer and you to observe and follow such Orders and Directions as from time to time you shall receive from Us, or any superior Officer, according to the Rules and Discipline of War, in pursuance of the Trust hereby reposed in you.
Given at Our Court, at Saint James's the .... day of ........ .... in the ..... Year of Our Reign
By Her Majesty's Command

____________________

The President of the United States of America
To all who shall see these presents, greeting:
Know Ye, that reposing special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity and abilities of .................., I do appoint ["him" or "her"] a ["Second Lieutenant" or "Ensign"] in the [name of service] to rank as such from the .... day of ........ ...... This Officer will therefore carefully and diligently discharge the duties of the office to which appointed by doing and performing all manner of things thereunto belonging.

And I do strictly charge and require those Officers and other personnel of lesser rank to render such obedience as is due an officer of this grade and position. And this Officer is to observe and follow such orders and directives, from time to time, as may be given by me, or the future President of the United States of America, or other Superior Officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America.

This commission is to continue in force during the pleasure of the President of the United States of America for the time being, under the provisions of those Public Laws relating to Officers of the Armed Forces of the United States of America and the component thereof in which this appointment is made.
Done at the City of Washington, this .... day of ........ in the year of our Lord ................ and of the Independence of the United States of America the ..........
By the President:
_____________________
GO back and read your own Parchment! I don't have mine here.

______________________________________________________________________________________

It is a covenant trust placed on you and to fail that  trust for "coming under pressure threatening own career advancement or lure of future promotions" is  nothing short of squandering away a personal trust reposed on me personally by the President of the Nation.
Since the lives of men placed under me are dependent on my judgment & independent decisions I take using  my judgment as the sole guide, can I be influenced by coercions and inducements which some one else can put on me?Can I be coerced by my superior to violate my sacred duty in order to please his superior ?
This is where the honor of our profession comes, not in stupid OROP or is it  transgressed  when some one lower in seniority  than me  gets a higher pension!
Now you say: It is quite apparent that the trial itself is set up to please the present chief and Gen Rath is compounding his owes by taking this stupid line of defence.
If the organization is ready to punish a Lt Gen to please a General, isn't it tragic? 

Principles of justice are served when the punishment is for an offense and not when it is used to please a superior!
(or when it is used as an instrument of threat to others.)

Will the wheels of justice punish a "Commissioned officer" for using his judgment ?
That seems to be where the wheels of Justice of the organization has gone wrong.

Considering his defense being stupid and idiotic, he deserves to get the punishment awarded to him and perhaps more.

I repeat:
Lt Gen Rath ( and many others whose cases did not come to light and did not get indicted  for failure to discharge their duties with out  fear or favor !) failed that trust placed on him by the President personally  when he was commissioned with a formal parchment signed personally by the President   and he deserves to suffer the ignominy of the GCM and its punishment!
(and not for the indictments he is charged with and they are trivial!)
Again: There are ethical issues of the profession involved here. To have a vigilance department  with in Army is a very bad idea ( as bad as having SS in the German Army). Will having a Vigilence Department have helped uncover the transgression of  duty and ethical conduct in this particular case? Vigilence Department will be like a MP unit in the Fmn Hq.
What we need is Professional ethical education and ethical conduct in discharge of our duties. What we need is a "Bhagawat Geeta" of ethical conduct of the Profession sitting on our bed side table which every one can go to when dilemmas of ethical conduct troubles our mind. Such a thing would have helped to sort out the cobwebs in the mind of Gen Rath ( and many others!) when faced with situations like the one he faced with.

 And this is not unique. We face this every day in our conduct in our service. The transgression of the honor and the ethical conduct is visible  in every unethical move we make to advance our career or do favor to one who you like and punish one  who you do not like!
Nath


--- In indianexservicemen@yahoogroups.com, Achal Sridharan wrote:
>
> Colonel Nath has said it all. Thanks Nath Sir
>
> Sri
>
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:51 AM, jas.golden diaz.jas@... wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I fully agree with CPC's comments. Firstly Gen Rath did not apply his mind
> > to the likely implications of his defence statement and I am surprised that
> > his counsel did not guide him properly. How can the Military Secretary
> > threaten or apply pressure on a Corps commander of equal rank. I am sure
> > corps commander's postings and promotions are NOT decided by MS at his whims
> > without involving the COAS and VCOAS.
> >
> > It is quite apparent that the trial itself is set up to please the present
> > chief and Gen Rath is compounding his owes by taking this stupid line of
> > defence.
> >
> > I wonder how these people who lack even basic common sense has reached such
> > high levels? Compare this with Subramanium Swamy who argues his own cases
> > even in front of SC winning hands down.
> >
> > jas