Sunday, January 23, 2011

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment