Forces deserved pay hike

By Lt. Col. ( Retd.) Surendra Sharma

As the devil lies in the detail, there can be no immediate, authentic and comprehensive military reaction to the latest announcement on pay packets, but since the directives have come from the Prime Minister's Office there should be little scope for further dispute. Whether the upper echelons of the forces are satisfied or not it is time to move on. It is impossible to please everybody. It is inevitable that "you win some, lose some". Or to put it in more soldier-like language, "you like it or lump it."

Important points, both short and long term, appear to have been made in the PMO's directive. Since the forces have stressed the "risk factor", the upward revision for Lieutenant Colonels has been limited to those in the line of fire. Similarly, the silence on the subject indicates that the government does not accept that all Lieutenant Generals outrank Directors General of police. When the forces took some flak for appearing mercenary in opposing the Pay Commission award they took the line that " status and parity", not money, was the issue- so a panel is to look at what many beyond the uniformed community deem an ego problem blown out of proportion. Since the eminently valid demand for a separate pay panel for the military will become a reality only a decade hence little can be said on the subject now except that the services will have to accept that resources are limited, their demands need to be realistic, and their exclusive perks (the envy of even top corporate honchos) will have to be factored-in.

`They cannot seek parity and simultaneously retain special privileges. Hopefully that singular pay panel will ensure a substantial downsizing of force levels. With certain finality evident, the forces will do well to reflect on how they conducted their campaign for a better deal, and using retired officers as their standard-bearers. What has not gone down well is the attitude that they alone serve the national cause, and that the police and bureaucrats are children of a lesser god. At times they invited charges of trade union pressure tactics. Why, even on January 1 one former officer on TV opted for emotional blackmail, exploiting post- Mumbai sentiments to say that unlike the masses the government did not deem the soldier the Number One citizen. This was, quite honestly, sickening. The forces must also ask themselves if their equation with civilian and police officers did not come unstuck when a couple of "cadre reviews" caused three and four star generals to come cheaper by the dozen. This is not to suggest the " army" does not merit the best that the nation can afford, only to emphasise that orders also count. May be they can be partially forgiven their parity-phobia.

The nation today is faced with stark choices. The national security environment is at its most demanding since independence. The spectrum of warfare now has nuclear wars at one end and internal conflicts at the other. Decades of insurgency in the east and the proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir are taking their toll on a professional army. We are losing hundreds of lives on active duty even during peace. Our borders with both Pakistan and China are live. The conditions here are as cruel, if not more than hostile action by the adversary. Revolutions in military affairs demand higher technological and training skills than what is available now. On the other hand, the opportunities of civil life, with fat salaries and a stable lifestyle, are alluring. The nation needs to decide whether it requires armed forces that are combat worthy to the core or it is content with forces that will be runners up. If it is the former that the nation needs, then its actions belie its aims. The reasons for this gap between intention and action might be ignorance, or worse, wilful neglect.

It is unfortunate that some army chiefs expressed their disappointment about the Pay Commission to the defence minister. They have thus done their duty in the best traditions of service. The chiefs now have the Herculean task of boosting their morale and encouraging the men and women they command to continue in their service. The task was not made easy by an insensitive leadership. It was up to the Prime Minister to take the symbolism of this disappointment seriously. Responsive governance requires a far more sensitive reaction than the routine one of referring the matter to a committee of secretaries. No amount of fiddling with the Sixth Pay Commission report could have helped. Its very approach to the uniformed fraternity had been thrown open to question.

However, a nation that compels its army veterans to express public anguish at the treatment meted out to them needs to introspect deeply. We have progressively robbed our servicemen and women of their izzat and iqbal. We have failed to see the writing on the wall even as the admission into the armed services has declined. We failed to understand the sentiment behind requests for a separate pay commission or at least to have a service member in it. The result was inevitable and we have only ourselves to blame. This anomaly has been rectified.

To all those who have spent their entire working lives defending the territorial integrity of our country, November 26-28 were sad days. During the Mumbai strike by terrorists the slogan jai jawan resounded loudly in the psyche of the nation, all the more because it is fast becoming memory. Much like the grand loan waiver scheme to take care of the distressed kisan, the government may choose to please the disillusioned jawan with a few generous rupees. But if it does not give serious thought in future to those who guard its borders, 'Jai Hind' may just become the next casualty. INAV

Strengthen security apparatus

By Nalini J. Singh

The debate simply refuses to die down. Should our lawmakers deserve a pat on the back for promulgating a repackaged anti-terror law after 26/11? Or should they face censure for coming up with yet another exercise in futility in so far as tackling terror is concerned? Though it may appear less draconian than, say, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill 2008, passed by both Houses of Parliament recently, leaves enough room for human rights abuses. To some, it is nothing but"eyewash" or a matter of "political expediency". Others feel some safeguards have been taken into consideration.

Amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, which deals with terrorist activities and forfeiture of the proceeds of terrorism, had been on the government's agenda ever since a bill to repeal POTA was introduced in Parliament in 2004. Apparently, 26/11 was the wake-up call. The Mumbai attacks seem to have jolted the government out of its stupor.

The latest additions to the old law are in line with the Security Council resolutions on combating terrorism that are passed from time to time. In fact, the preamble mentions Security Council resolutions on the basis of which our government has adopted and inserted the clauses. The whole exercise is fast becoming a vicious circle. A terrorist act is committed, the government takes rapid cosmetic measures like announcing special laws in the name of national security, the public is assured that something has been done and then, after some time, the acts get repealed owing to allegations of human rights abuse.

Laws like Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and POTA have been thrust upon the country from time to time. There have been ample cases to show that such laws can be misused by the state machinery to torture the innocent or harass political opponents. The new law is just eyewash. Such laws can hardly prevent terrorism. They only tend to give unfettered powers to the police machinery and violate the human rights of ordinary people. That such a law also undermines the independence of investigating teams and state authority.

But political parties like the BJP have long been agitating for a tough anti- terror law similar to the POTA. Rather than reposing faith in such special laws, it's better to rely on general laws. The real focus should be on a more effective implementation of existing laws. For example, the police has a duty to properly investigate the cases. A lackadaisical approach simply won't do.

Nevertheless, the latest anti-terror law is less draconian than either POTA or TADA. At least, a purported confession before a police officer, no matter what rank he belongs to remains inadmissible as evidence. POTA allowed it. There have been numerous cases where it has been found that confessions were fabricated. Therefore, we have section 164 of the CrPC which says that if a confessional statement to be admissible, it has to be made before a magistrate. Some special laws make an exception to this, which is improper. The latest anti-terror law makes no such exception.

There's a provision in the new law regarding detention without bail for up to 180 days, which makes the legislation more flexible than POTA. POTA didn't allow a judge to exercise discretion in this regard. If an application was made, the judge would have to extend the detention period under POTA provisions. But Section 43 D (2) (b) of the new law states, " if it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of 90 days, the court may, if it is satisfied with the report of the public prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for the detention of the accused beyond the said period of 90 days, extend the said period to 180 days.."The operative world here is 'may' the court extend the detention period. In other words, it all depends on a judge's discretion.

The amendments to the original act (1967) have given a wider scope to combat terrorism and they are quite reasonable. These are in consonance with our democratic norms. However, there are several provisions in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, 2008, that raise concern. Take Section 43 F (1). It states: " the officer investigating any offence under this Act, with the prior approval in writing of an officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of police, may require any individual to furnish information in his possession in relation to such offence, where the investigating officer has reason to believe that such information will be useful or this Act." The failure to furnish information will draw a heavy penalty.

Also, according to the new law, the court shall presume, unless contrary evidence is furnished, that the accused has committed an offence for which he has been arrested, including the possession of arms or explosive, and presume that these were used in committing a terror act. Many innocent people will be thrown behind bars on the basis of presumptions and mere suspicion. As per the new law, the onus is primarily on the accused to prove himself innocent. In some cases it can be accepted. But how can this hold in a case where the maximum penalty can be death.

Legal experts also say that although the bill has provisions for special courts, the lack of infrastructure and funds will be the main hindrance to expediting legal processes. We don't have an adequate number of judges. The number of undertrials is always rising. We have to deal with these issues first.

Terrorism needs to be checked more on the security front than on the legal front. The recent Mumbai attacks have exposed several weaknesses in our security machinery. Without tightening our security measures, changes in the law cannot be considered to be a positive step in combating terror. Only time will tell if the new anti-terror is capable of tackling terrorism in the country. INAV

Rights, duties should go together

By Omkar Dattatray

The founding fathers of our constitution had not envisaged the necessity of incorporating fundamental duties of citizens in the constitution of democratic India. All rights and no fundamental duties made our constitutional provisions lop sided. Just as all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, in the same way excessive emphasis on fundamental rights of citizens and no mention of fundamental duties in the original unamended constitution made this biggest document unbalanced. With the result there is undue clamor for fundamental rights and their violation everywhere. Agreed that a true democracy is a meaningless proposition without individual freedoms, liberties and rights. But equally true is the fact that there should be parity between rights and duties and both should go hand in glove with each other. With this there will be chaos and confusion and exploitation will rule the roost. It is because of this over -emphasis on fundamental rights and the casual mention of fundamental duties that we only demand seek and get but seldom give offer and perform what is expected of us as good and responsive citizens of a democratic republic. Thus we have become seekers and not contributors in the national and societal development and reconstruction. Our constitution seems to be based on a wrong premise that man is essentially good and thus it is taken for granted that citizens will pay due respect and reverence to the nation, its culture, tradition, heritage and civilizational ethos. So it is presumed that citizens would work and contribute their might for the welfare of the state in the ultimate analysis. But the truth is otherwise because man by nature is essentially selfish, self centered and cunning. In this connection Mahatma Gandhi's apt observation is worth noting. He has said," the true source of right is duty. If we all discharge our duties, rights will not be far to seek. If leaving duties unperformed we run after rights, they will escape us like will-o-the wisp." So recognizing the significance of fundamental duties, it was as late as 1976 that fundamental duties were incorporated in to biggest constitution of the world through far reaching amendment. However the inclusion of basic duties of citizens in the constitution was a belated good step. But such duties were made optional on the free choice of citizens and were not made mandatory. However the moot question is can't the fundamental duties of the citizens towards the country be made mandatory? In the prevailing constitutional arrangement and provisions the people are more or less at liberty to observe and obey the fundamental duties. So the fundamental duties are not enforceable in a court of law. With the result the fundamental duties in our country are often violated with impunity and the state becomes helpless and a mute spectator. Our constitutional provisions did not make them compulsory though these are christened as fundamental-one wonders if for violation. While on the one hand there is all round clamor and chest beating for human rights and fundamental rights violations but no one cares for gross violation and non-observance of basic duties. Ones head hangs in shame when one witnesses the violation of basic duties of citizens towards the country, national language, national song, national anthem, national emblem, national monuments, national flag and et al. but there is hardly any cry for such gross violation of basic duties. Since the citizens are at liberty to obey or disregard fundamental duties, so their inclusion after laps of a quarter of a century from the enforcement of the constitution hardly serves any valid purpose. Thus there is pressing need to make fundamental duties justiciable and enforceable to arrest the growing tendency of their violation. This will help to inculcate in the citizens minds respect and love for the nation and its ethos and grand and diverse culture. But before the violation of fundamental duties are made punishable and cognizable offences, it is necessary and rational that fundamental duties should be well defined, demarcated and made specific, brief and exact. There should be no ambiguity and confusion about the basic duties of citizens towards the country and the signs and symbols of its culture. As far as possible and practicable, no room should be left for their misrepresentation and misinterpretation in future. This will help in the observance of fundamental duties. So the primary task is read the fundamental duties from abstraction and to present and make them somewhat concrete, brief and concise. In other words it is in the best interests of the nation to make them enforceable. More over just as there are protections against the violation of fundamental rights. There should be protection against the violation of fundamental duties. As there are human rights organizations and human rightists, in the same manner there should be human duties awareness and enforcement organizations which will help in the discharging and observance of fundamental duties. Otherwise people will continue to flout all norms and disregard and disobey their fundamental duties and make them a laughing stock. Utmost importance to fundamental rights and casual approach to basic duties is the primary reason of subversion of constitutional provisions to meet selfish ends. The situation is grim. It makes the constitutional amendment of 1976 relating to inclusion of fundamental duties a matter of ridicule and a subject of criticism. Leaving the observance of fundamental duties to the conscience of citizens does hardly serve any purpose. It only makes our constitutional provisions the slave of the animal in man. So rights and duties should go together as there can be no rights without duties. Fundamental duties should not be for the sake of record and memorization but for strict observance along with fundamental duties. Excessive and undue stress and importance to fundamental rights should be stopped and equal significance to fundamental duties should be ensured. About 60 years of our tryst with constitutional experience and democratic governance has conformed that lop-sided constitutional provisions only complicate matters. To keep fundamental duties a mere guidelines and directions as the architects of the constitution had kept directive principles of state policy will do no good either to the people or to the state. We have failed to realize the dreams of the propounders of the constitution even after 63 years of self rule. In true democracy people should be for the state and the state should be for the people. The nation should wake up and waste no time in incorporating a provision through constitutional amendments of fundamental duties so as to make them enforceable. Will the constitutional experts, legal luminaries and parliamentarians give a heed to it.