Shortage of Officers inspite of implementing AV Singh Committee Recommendations

Officers’ shortfall causing friction in Army
By Ritu Sharma / ENS - NEW DELHI 20th September 2012 09:52 AM
Shortage of more than 10,000 officers in the Indian Army has played a detrimental role in the equation between officers and jawans and the increased friction between them flared up on two occasions this year, Army Chief General Bikram Singh said on Wednesday.
As a Court of Inquiry report into two recent incidents in Ladakh and Jammu were pending, the Army Chief said measures were being taken to address issues between jawans and officers.
Earlier this year, officers and jawans were reportedly engaged in a fist fight in Nyoma in Ladakh and in a separate incident in Jammu, a prolonged stand-off between the two sent the Samba unit into a tizzy.
When asked if the shortage of officers is leading to an increase in the instances of friction between soldiers and officers, Gen Singh said, “Yes, that is one of the main reasons. The shortfall of officers as of now is 10,100. The deficiency is definitely impacting.” The Army has suffered a shortage of officers for the past five years.
Singh, however, termed the two incidents as “aberrations” and “isolated ones”, adding that measures were to be taken once the Court of Inquiry is complete. “We had one or two instances, these are aberrations of course and these were isolated incidents,” he said.
On steps taken by him to address the issue, he said, “As a chief, my concerns have been to ensure that we get back to basics and ensure that climate and environment in the units are correct and conducive to growth and the core values of the Army are upheld.”
Officers’ shortfall causing friction in Army
AV Singh Committee Report- 2005
The government has issued orders to implement the phase 1 of the Ajai Vikram Singh Committee recommendations involving the restructuring of the officers’ cadre, reduction in qualifying service for promotion in non-select ranks and a package of peel off measures to mitigate stagnation. This will help in achieving optimum combat effectiveness by bringing down the age profile of battalion / brigade commanders and to make the three services more effective in fulfilling individual career aspirations of the officers.
Click here for the original post
Shortage of 14,448 officers in Army, Navy, Air Force- 2010
Antony said that a number of steps have been taken to attract the talented youth to join the defence forces. “All officers including those in Short Service Commission (SSC) are now eligible to hold substantive rank of Captain, Major and Lieutenant Colonel after two, six and 13 years of reckonable service respectively. The tenure of SSC officers has been increased from 10 to 14 years,” the Defence Minister said.
“A total number of 750 posts of Lt. Colonel have been upgraded to Colonel towards implementation of AV Singh Committee Report (Phase-I). “Further, 1896 additional posts in the ranks of Colonel, Brigadier, Major General and Lieutenant General and their equivalents in the other two Services have been upgraded towards implementation of AV Singh Committee Report (Phase-II),” he added.
2010- Shortage of Officers
Comment: The AV Singh Committee recommendations has not improved the shortage of officers situation in the military. Now indiscipline is attributed to shortage of officers. This a joke really. All knew the AV Singh only pepped up the senior officers career profile. Top heavy and the Military is saddled with command and control disconnect from top heavy to a bottomless low...

Military Promotions: Bureaucrats want a say in the command structure

Once bitten, Defence Ministry cautious on promotion policy
K. V. Prasad of The HINDU
Refers to Law Ministry issue of discretionary evaluation marks to Army officers
Once bitten — following the controversy over the age of Army Chief V.K. Singh — the Defence Ministry is cautious on the issue of promotion to Army officers. It has sought the opinion of the Law Ministry on the Army awarding discretionary evaluation marks under a promotion policy to officers being considered for senior ranks.

Defence Ministry sources said the decision was taken after the Army sent a list of officers for promotion from Brigadiers to Majors General and Majors General to Lieutenants General based on the promotion boards held during October last with grading that includes discretionary marks.

Army sources said they were awaiting a decision which had been pending for over four months amid the possibility that some recommended officers would be entering the zone of retirement. As per rules, a Brigadier would have to retire on attaining the age of 56 and a Major General on reaching 58.

As per the evaluation marks policy, the collegium consisting of the Army Chief, the Vice-Chief and Army commanders has the discretion of awarding up to 5 marks to a candidate being considered for promotion while the rest 95 are quantified on the basis of work and achievements and other parameters during the service period.

Army sources said that while the evaluation marks had been in place for the last few years, including in the other two Services, the Defence Ministry had sought to question it. However, Ministry sources said that in the light of how the controversy over the date of birth of the Army Chief played out, the government is keen to ensure that everything is in black and white and there are no grey areas leading to litigation
Once bitten, Defence Ministry cautious on promotion policy

Race for Army Chief: Janglat Mandi encounter Faked

Race for Army Chief: Janglat Mandi encounter may mar Gen Bikram’s chances
Tuesday, 10 Jan 2012 at 12:26
Petition seeking re-investigation into 10-yr-old case to decide his fate
ISHFAQ TANTRY
SRINAGAR, JAN 09: The chances of Lt. Gen Bikram Singh, army’s Eastern Command chief to become new chief of Indian army may be hit hard by the alleged Janglat Mandi fake encounter case as a writ petition in this regard is still pending before Jammu and Kashmir High Court.
The tenure of present army chief General V K Singh is likely to end in May this year following controversy surrounding his date of birth.
Eastern Command Chief Lt Gen Bikram Singh, Northern Commander chief Lt Gen K T Parnaik and present Vice Chief of Army Lt Gen Krishna Singh are the front runners to succeed General Singh. Traditionally, the senior-most officer is appointed as the army chief and in this case Lt Gen Bikram Singh is the senior-most and most-likely to be appointed for the top post.
However, chances of Lt Gen Bikram Singh may be hit hard by alleged Janglat Mandi fake encounter case. The outcome of the writ petition pending disposal before J&K High Court is crucial and may ultimately decide his fate. In the second scenario, if General Singh decided to take the D.O.B row to Court, then Northern Command Chief Lt. General Parnaik has fair chances to succeed him as new Army chief.
It is pertinent to mention here J&K High Court had on October 13, 2011 issued notices to State government and Indian Defence Ministry and asked them to file their objections in a writ petition, seeking reinvestigation of the alleged fake encounter that took place at Janglat Mandi Islamabad in 2001. The court had summoned all the records pertaining to case (FIR 72/2001) from District Sessions Court Islamabad for perusal.
In the writ petition titled Zaituna versus J&K State, it was alleged that the encounter that took place at Janglat Mandi, Islamabad on March 1, 2001 was not genuine but a fake encounter in which many innocent Kashmiris were killed by army and government sponsored gunmen Ikhwanis’ and later passed off as foreign militants.
Contesting claims of Army and police that an elderly foreign militant identified as Mateen Chacha was killed in the encounter, the petition submitted to court that the elderly man dubbed as foreign militant was a civilian.
“The fact is that Mateen was none other than 70 year old civilian Abdullah Bhat son of Qadir Bhat of Machil Kupwara”, said petitioners Zaituna and Jana (mother and sister of the Abdullah Bhat).
The petition has sought re-investigation in the case and prayed that Special Investigation Team of police be tasked to book the culprits.
“We have been running from pillar to post to know the whereabouts of Abdullah Bhat. Somehow they came to know that he was gunned down by forces in 2001 in Janglat Mandi, Islamabad and labeled as a foreign militant”, the petitioners said and demanded that the grave of victim should be identified and DNA test carried out.
They said DNA profile of the deceased should be matched with those of the family members. “The photographs of the victim taken by the police should be shown to family”, they further demanded.
In the encounter, whose veracity is under challenge before the court, besides, Abdullah Bhat two civilians and two army men were also killed. The dead included Colonel J P Jam, the then Commanding Officer of a local R R Unit, Sepoy Ganesh Kumar, Mohammad Shafi son of Abdul Rasheed of Hazratbal Islamabad and Abdul Ahad Sheikh son of Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh of Janglat Mandi.
According to police FIR, two persons also sustained injuries in the 2001 encounter and they included present Eastern Command chief Lt Gen Bikram Singh, who was a Brigadier then and headed 5 Sector Rashtriya Rifles headquarters at Khanabal Islamabad. A civilian Ajaz Ahmad Bhat son of Ghulam Mohammad Bhat of S K Colony Islamabad was also injured.
Meanwhile, police has absolved Eastern Command chief of all the charges.
“We have nothing against him as far investigation of the case is concerned”, DGP Kuldeep Khoda told Rising Kashmir.
Sources said police higher ups had recently sought a report from the concerned police district (Islamabad) and it said the encounter was genuine and there was no case against Lt Gen Bikram Singh.
The petition seeking re-investigation of Janglat Mandi fake encounter was listed for hearing before Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar on December 28. However, the petition was deferred and is now expected to be listed for further hearing in February, when High Court, Srinagar re-convenes after month long winter vacations.
The Janglat Mandi “fake” encounter was first highlighted by a youth empowerment organization namely Youth Empowerment Services of Kashmir (YES-Kashmir), headed by Tanweer Ahmad, who in November 2011 held a protest march in New Delhi to highlight the real story behind Janglat Mandi encounter
Race for Army Chief: Janglat Mandi encounter
Comment: Why Fake encounters were encouraged earlier by the AHQ? This was primarily to win the race for the next promotion- a mandatory requirement of a Gallantry award is essential for racing and climbing up the ladder! All fake encouter authors must be identified and suitably punished for killing innocent lives rather than rewarding them to kill the organisation.

Indian Armed Forces: Annual Confidential Reports and Promotion Boards

ACR AND PROMOTION
The Special Army Order (SAO) giving guidelines for writing ACR is logical and lucid. Very pragmatically and wisely it lays down that all those getting 7 and above in box grading must be recommended for promotion. If not, the reasons must be recorded. In other words, any one who can do his job quite well in the present rank, should be able to perform at least adequately in the next (nothing to do with Peter’s principles, if you please). A rational approach, as there is no facility to test one in the next rank or any other alternative. Most will be horrified at the thought of settling for only average performers. However, it is a fact that the bulk of officers cleared their SSB tests with average, or even low average grading. The ‘cat’s whiskers’ must check this as it will be good for them and a boon for the Services. This obsession to promote only the ‘out standing’ or ‘above average’ is the bane of Indian Army. The poison seed sown a couple of decades back is now a giant tree, with numerous branches, bearing hideous flowers spreading its stench. We get a generous whiff daily from newspapers and TV.

Outcome of this mind set is an overwhelming desire to select the best. Nothing wrong, prima facie. But, how does one achieve it? In order to select the best of the lot, a merit list has to be drawn. Though no one admits it, this is precisely what the Promotion Boards have been doing. How else does one explain rejections of well qualified officers with unblemished records but having only 7 points, while some with minor punishments but 8 or 9 points in the kitty sail through? How can the relative merits be assessed fairly when the assessors are different and so are the service conditions– place (peace, field, high altitude), formation, task and so on. Far too many variables and parameters to apply any corrective measures and yet it is done! IITs, IIMs, AFMC and such others do not consider the marks awarded by established Universities or Boards but conduct their own tests as that is the best, if not the only, way of determining relative merits. Don’t we also have our own DSSC and TSC examinations! As examinations are not possible or practicable in this context, we have to settle for the next best. That is, let the Promotion Boards ‘pass’ or ‘fail’. Those who pass are promoted in their turn. Here comes a sore point. One is stuck with his IC number forever. What one did or did not do in his formative years, coming from diverse backgrounds, while still under the stress of training, hounds him until retirement. One may be brilliant but he cannot overtake his senior by even one number, unless the senior falters. As all of us can cite examples, hence, I will not. That, however, is another can of worms. So, let us have the ‘passed’ list, which will naturally include the ‘best of the batch’. There will be no catastrophe or even a bigger mess. Rather, there will be less injustice, heartburn, humiliation, rivalry, fake encounters to get a medal and other bad things. Showmanship has taken precedence over professional competence. Prudence, circumspection, sincerity, honesty, probity and so on are no more virtues, the last one – an offence.

Promotion Boards should, basically, screen/ clear/ approve officers for tasks or job content and not any rank– that comes later and is more of a policy matter. For example, the questions, ‘Is he fit to command a major unit’ and ‘Is he fit to be a Colonel’ are not the same as the former is precise and the latter requires derivation or redirection. Here comes the mix up in thought process, concept and visualization. The confusion thus created gives rise to unfairness and injustice. Consider the cadre review whereby Cols command units. This was not done because command of a major unit had become more arduous or demanding, requiring greater capability! Therefore, logically, all selection grade Lt Cols at that time, should have automatically been cleared to be Cols. That did not happen. Why? What happened to clear thinking, conceptualization and visualization? Matters related to ACRs and promotions are regularly tinkered with by various Chiefs and MS branch luminaries. After doing LDMC or SDMC, some feel decidedly knowledgeable and wise and start applying concepts of statistics at unit level! Thus, units start getting bizarre orders. They are subsequently cancelled but not before damaging or even sealing the careers of a few. They must have heard or read, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”, but to what avail?!
Col BN Ratha(Retd)
07 Jun 10
Previous Post
Inflated ACR's

Corruption in the Armed Forces- an open letter to COAS

Dear Colleagues,
Having spent 33 very fruitful and fulfilling years in the Army, I feel empty after reading the open letter by Col Rajinder Singh to COAS. Access the letter here along with comments of Air Cmde Raghubir Singh (Retd)
I have come across such officers but their number is minuscule. We were 20 odd COs in an infantry division, all open to 14000 soldiers. I recall only one CO who probably fits in the scenario as he escaped and became a Major General. My technical boss at the Corps HQ, who fitted in absolutely was court- martialed and sentenced severely. The latter also took some innocents along, one of whom was so honest that you could not find office stationery in his home but he signed some routine supply orders which got him in.
I am now 7 years in retirement. I do not think rot is as deep as the long letter says. Yes, it is getting worse and it needs to be arrested. And I think it will get arrested by the Internet era not by this or that COAS. They are products of the same system. There is no place left to hide now. If you think IAS etc are better, think again... If you think Corporate world is better, think Raju of Satyam. Every family owned business is a potential Raju Story...
Indian Armed Forces continue to be on the top of honesty charts in the public mind. I hope it continues.
Best Regards,
Brig KS Bhoon (Retd)



The Sukhna Land Scam: Corruption in army: Dent in the brass

Land Scam: Fued at the top

Feud at the top in army- Gen Kapoor versus Lt Gen Singh

GEN DEEPAK KAPOORThe army chief has told the defence minister that Lt Gen. V.K. Singh, who heads the Eastern Command, has taken an “undue interest” in a north Bengal land case involving Kapoor’s principal staff officer and military secretary Lt Gen. Avadhesh Prakash. Kapoor has resisted a recommendation to terminate Prakash’s service before his January-end retirement

A.K. ANTONYThe defence minister, who zealously guards his Mr Clean reputation, summoned the army chief on Christmas Eve and wanted Lt Gen. Prakash to be eased out. Gen. Kapoor demurred and defended his aide but Antony was not convinced. A source said the minister ‘cold-shouldered’ the army chief the next day when Gen. Kapoor met him to convey his Christmas greetings.

LT GEN VK SINGHThe Fort William boss had convened a court of inquiry that indicted Lt Gen Prakash in the land case. Gen Kapoor feels the eastern commander does not have the authority to summon the army chief’s principal staff officer. Lt Gen VK Singh, whose age is caught in a discrepancy, was bypassed earlier for the post of vice-chief.
Read more
Feud at the top in army- Gen Kapoor versus Lt Gen Singh

Top post caught in age
While this is at its nuts and bolts a narrative on corruption in the military and politics over promotions, it is above all indicative of a serious communication gap between army headquarters and the Eastern Command, a fully operational authority whose area of responsibility covers the maximum length of international borders (with China, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar). Its components are also actively involved in counter-insurgency.
Top post caught in age: The Telegraph

Damage inflicted on Ex Servicemen due to Rank Upgradation by the Serving Chiefs'

Dear Brigadier Kamboj,
Thanks for the information.
I would like to say that the concept of OROP needs a wee bit modification. The Armed Forces do a great harm to the retirees by upgrading their rank structure e.g. a company, which was commanded by a major, is now being commanded by a Lt Col. While the serving officers may feel elated, see the plight of the old majors who, having put in over 26 years of service, are now being given pension equal to that of a platoon commander (Now Majs). In the revised scheme of things, no one remains major on putting in 14 years of service, and save for those who die in service, no one would be retiring as a major (SL commission officers included). My own battalion lost a number of majors in 1965 and 71 wars; why should their widows get the pension due to deceased platoon commanders as today?

I feel that there is a case for modifying the concept of OROP which should include equal pension for equal work; after all this is the principle being applied all over in the civil.

There is also a case for requesting the Three Chiefs not to upgrade the ranks arbitrarily as it hits the pensioners badly; they should have simply got the Majors in PB4 and saved the older lot, a lot of discomfort.
With best Regards,
Col MMP Kala, Retd


Dear Brig Kamboj,
This letter (click me) so painstakingly drafted by the indomitable Gen Bahri is, without doubt, the best paper produced by the veterans so far. It is simple, cogent and in fact compelling. I think the rest of us should simply stick to the logic of this communication, without complicating it with any more figures and tables. Perhaps one single example which reveals the imbalance of the current dispensation is in the following relativity:

"A Col (TS) with 26 years service who may have commanded no more than a company has been granted a pension which is just Rs 100 less than a Brigade Commander who had put in 36 years service."

Legal eagles tell me that we have a weak case, in the court of law. But I think that the present dispensation fouls with "natural justice" and I think we will be able to find a competent lawyer who will be able to take on the might of legal cell of the Govt of India.

We also need to continuously remind the serving generals to keep knocking at the doors of those who have the power to act.

The Pay Cell has all but wound up. Before leaving their office, they sent me some tables which I am attaching, for what they are worth.
(Note: The tables mentioned here require some processing before these can be mass emailed. Will be forwarded to all members soon – Chander Kamboj)
With best wishes,
Surjit
Maj Gen Surjit Singh, EME, Veteran, Member IESM Steering Committee

Dear All,
Thanks for circulating the JOINT LETTER, which is very well written. Hopefully it should bring results.

I had read in the blog of Maj Navdeep about 'disparity' in compensation given to a CADET and RECRUIT, when they are boarded out- while undergoing training. There would be some more such issues, which though do not form part of OROP yet have a great bearing on those unfortunate ones, who are affected.

Does our community of ESMs like to bring out such cases to the notice of people, who are still in uniform? These issues, once noticed by our friends in UNIFORM, should form part of normal 'CORRECTIVE DRILL'. At least we should be able to set our own house in order.
Warm regards,
Lt Col Inderjit Singh Gill, Veteran

Malaise of the Armed Forces: The decline of rank, status and honour of men in uniform

1. The malaise that has afflicted the Defence Services does not begin and end with OROP.
2. The apathy and laissez-faire attitude of successive Chiefs of the three services, barring an odd one, towards the welfare of their Officers and men are largely to blame for the morass the Services are in now. In the ever evolving national social milieu, let alone obtain added benefits, they even failed to protect the existing rights and privileges. It is horrifying that right up to mid 1980s, Officers and men went into battle or fought the insurgency without an insurance cover. What the next of kin of a casualty got was a pittance of a pension. I presume that whatever coverage available even now is financed by the service personnel themselves.
3. Instead of projecting the unique identity of the Services and demanding and obtaining attendant compensation and perquisites, the Services groveled for crumbs like extension of retirement age and time scale ranks. One high profile Committee proposed a wholesale grant of time scale ranks and strutted that it had won the war for the Services. The Babus gleefully let the proposal sail through and had the last laugh when the corridors of Formations were cluttered with the red tabs ending up doing clerical work. And of course, riding pillion with the DR. The famous Committee had apparently forgotten to demand appropriate infrastructure and perquisites for the truckloads of time scale promotees. The Babus had the Services truly and properly emasculated at last. So at this juncture it is not surprising that the Bureaucracy considers the Services and their top brass cerebrally deficient and equates them as such. The grave has already been dug by our top brass and the Babus are only driving the last nails on the coffin.
4. At the other end our JCOs and NCOs have been deprived of their identity and status altogether. Bracketed under a totally new category as PBOR, these personnel who are the sinews of the Services now appear to be equated with the lowest of the low in the civilian rungs. It is a great injustice indeed, to which the Officer Class appears to have paid scant attention.
5. The Service Chiefs have a commitment to their Officers and men and also to the nation. They are morally bound to ensure that the nation’s Armed Forces retain their élan and remain young and vibrant and capable of delivering on demand. The nation will not accept its Armed Forces to be a doddering and sulking mammoth bogged down by age and inertia. It is therefore imperative that the Chiefs convince and compel the Government to provide the wherewithal for maintaining such Forces. Lateral diversification, guaranteed second career, etc, are a miniscule part of the wherewithal.
6. As regards the ESM’s demand for OROP and other facilities, it is apparent that the present Government is stonewalling the case on the advice of the Bureaucracy. We should therefore be prepared for a long haul and as a first step sink our differences and get united. Second step is to get organized at national, state and Panchayat levels. Third step is to aggressively employ constitutional, legal and political means to compel the Government to accede to our rightful demands. All out efforts should be made to reach out and contact Veteran JCOs and Ors since it appears that they have been presently left out of the loop.
Lt Col Sushil Chilimbi (Retd)

Additional Red Tabs entails colossal infrastructure and perquisites sucked out from scarce resources
Dated 23/4/2007
Television news channel 'Times Now' reported that the Indian Armed Forces is about to become "top heavy" with a general consensus to appoint 150 more generals, admirals and marshals to the three services. Appointing 150 top officers would translate into a 40 per cent increase over the current force strength at senior levels. Under the plan, the army will get 95 more lieutenant and major generals, the navy 23 admirals and the air force 38 marshals.
Armed Forces Top Brass Structure Reforms

Those who defend India's borders, especially our jawans, deserve a far better deal than what has been proposed
The constant hankering by the armed forces for equivalence with the civil services, and particularly with the IAS, is somewhat unrealistic. It is easy to see how untenable it is considering that the sanctioned strength of officers in the Army is over 40,000 while there are barely about 4,000 IAS officers in all. It is not that the civil services in general are treated any better than the Army. The very different functions of the armed forces and the civil services account for differences in their organisational structures, reflected in pay packets. The armed forces have a steep pyramid for an organisational structure, which results in few promotion posts for officers. To alter this command structure beyond a point would render the Army top-heavy and inefficacious. The comparison with the civil services is also unfair as more civil servants make it to the top only because in modern societies the peacetime functions of Government are all pervasive and there are many Government departments. Yet, whatever the emoluments of the armed forces, there really has been no radical departure in recent years in the principles on which these are based.
Indian Armed Forces deserve more

Indian Military: Degradation of Rank Structure

NEW EQUATIONS in rank structure
The implementation of sixth pay commission has drastically changed the warrant of precedence (WoP) for the Indian Armed Forces. The chairperson of UPSC has been upgraded to article 9A over services chiefs (at article 12). He/she used to be earlier at article 17 below services chiefs and also below officiating chiefs of the rank of Lt Gen who were on article 16. Chairperson of SCs and STs were added on article 17. Both these chairpersons are now higher than Army Commanders/Vice Chiefs who are on article 23. Members of SCs & STs placed at same level of Army Commanders/ Vice Chiefs at article 23. What more to say, even Field Marshall Manekshaw was placed at article 12 below two former civil servants (Brijesh Mishra and Vijay Kapoor).. Now, does anyone know what these gentlemen have done for INDIA?
As was well known, Army Commanders/ Vice Chiefs were equated with secretaries to Government of India on article 23. However, Note 10(c) of the WoP make an interesting distinction: In official functions held at Delhi, Army Commanders /Vice Chiefs of the Army Staff or equivalent in other services will always rank after the secrataries to the Government of India.
Following are the deductions:

DIG is now officially equivalent to a Brigadier (Earlier this rank was even junior to a Colonel)

Ministry of Home Affairs has declared that all IPS officers shall attain the rank of DIG in 14 year's service.

Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) is now officially equivalent to the rank of Major General.

Dept of Pers & Trg has declared that all IAS officers shall attain the rank of SAG in 14 year's service.

What would be achievable by 100% IPS officers in 14 years would now be achievable by 7% defence officers in 28 years.

What would be achievable by 100% IAS officers in 14 years would now be achievable by 2% defence in 33 years.

It is pertinent to mention that the senior most civilian rank in a state was equivalent to a Colonel during independence; whereas, over a period of time, the nation has only seen the downfall of our BABUS performance wise. Their machinary collapse even with a simple storm, whereas, their protocol has kept on rising. I don't need to mention the professionalism of our Armed Forces; the nation knows well.

In principle, our politicians needs to give an explanation for this remarkable erosion of a soldier's status over the past sixty years, the Generals, too, are equally responsible. They have virtually failed in restoring the pride of their own men whom they command. No doubt, even, they dont send their children to the military services who rather prefer beauty contests or becoming a Bollywood star. I don't blame them also, they have seen it all.
It is high time that we speak up or else GOD only save this country.
WOP tinkered again: Posted by Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh
Received from Col Brig Thapa (Retd)

Creation of Chief of Defence Staff: Reasons sound like coming from KG children

04 Aug 2009 8ak: Defence Minister Antony says that the delay in a decision on appointing a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) is that the political parties who were asked their opinion on the issue have not replied for the last 3 years. The issue was first suggested in 2001. Pragmatic has a few points on why a CDS is not required for India. Read the article here.

Rediff article here looks at the resistance from within the armed forces, the challenges in creating the jointness, the benefits and ends with a note that Antony may not have what it takes to be able to implement this.

According to the PIB, the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) is the main coordinating body between the Services. The Headquarters Integrated Defence Staff (HQIDS), functioning under the COSC acts as the nodal organization to promote jointness among the services.