Empanelled Hospitals
Sir,
There is scant respect for veterans and their family members by the staff of some of the empanelled hospitals of ECHS at Jaipur. on the name of making the payment of hospital bill, which is the sole responsibility of ECHS and not of veteran's family.
Last week there was an incident in Soni hospital Jaipur when hospital management refused to hand over the body of Late Lt Gen K Surendra Singh on his sad demise, who was former Director of Artillery.
Although the family members assured the hospital staff that pending bill will be paid. It is very sad that the matter came to the notice of general public through a newspaper next day and the body was allowed to taken by the family members of a retired high ranked Army dignitary of a rank of Lt General after intervention of local Military officials. It is the insult of veterans and their family which requires to be brought to the notice of Army HQ as well as concerned authority for remedy. We have asked Rajasthan State Ex-Services League to initiate action to stop such type of incidents in future and we request you to please guide us for right approach for the solution.
Yours faithfully
(AS Rathore)
Subedar (Retd)
PRESIDENT DISTT EX-SERVICES LEAGUE JAIPUR
Dear Brig Kuthiala,
NOW THIS is serious.
We need to take the hospital to task. Kindly please bring this to ECHS HQ notice. Also, they need to have this moved through AG channels, in form of instructions to local Station HQ, to intervene in such cases. The practice of hospitals charging the patients first and then reimbursing the ECHS sanctioned amounts to them, seems to be catching on and to my mind has been the underlying reason in this case.
Notwithstanding the IESL taking any follow up action, I feel we need to move in.
With Warm Regards,
Col RP Chaturvedi,
IESM ECHS Cell
Do NOT use the term PBOR
Dear Brigadier Kamboj,
While the term PBOR sounds demeaning, AIR FORCE uses this term extensively. To my horror, I found a board in BASE HOSPITAL, DELHI CANTT indicating PBOR wards. This board is placed on the right hand side of the road leading to SKIN & ENT departments from the Family Ward. A soft prompting may undo THIS mischief.
Regards,
Anand
(Maj Gen AK Gupta
IESM objects against usage of "demeaning" terminology PBOR
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Let us not defame the Armed Forces
Thursday, 15 July, 2010, 8:27 PM
To: The Editor-in-Chief The Pioneer
Sir
Kudos to The Pioneer for the write-up "Let's not defame the armed forces": click here (July 11). The author Mr. Kanchan Gupta has minced no words when he says that it is now considered fashionable and politically correct to berate the security forces and accuse them of violating human rights and worse. He has quoted irrefutable facts and figures from authentic sources and advanced clinching arguments to prove his points.
You certainly cannot ask the Armed Forces to tie their hands at the back and yet fight against terrorists laced with lethal weapons supplied from across the borders and supported by their stooges operating inside the country.
How come, when a perceived "excess" is committed by the military combatants on duty there is so much hue and cry raised by the self-styled "Human Rights" groups and activists, but not a word is uttered or a whine muttered in case of arson, violence and savagery inflicted on innocent citizens and security forces by the fanatical extremists? Why two different norms? Is one life any less valuable than the other?
Warm regards.
Sincerely,
Wg Cdr S.C. KAPOOR (retd)
Related Reading
(Member IESM Veterans' Groups)
Rights for Terrorists Only? by Joginder Singh (The writer was Director, CBI) (ADNI)
Respect the armed forces
By Nand on 7/11/2010 3:18:19 AM
Vox Populi
Again a great article. The human rights activists need the safety of armed forces and then criticizes them. It is sad. Thank you for writing this article and speaking for the behalf of thousands of patriotic Indians who fight for the survival/ freedom of the country.
To: The Editor-in-Chief The Pioneer
Sir
Kudos to The Pioneer for the write-up "Let's not defame the armed forces": click here (July 11). The author Mr. Kanchan Gupta has minced no words when he says that it is now considered fashionable and politically correct to berate the security forces and accuse them of violating human rights and worse. He has quoted irrefutable facts and figures from authentic sources and advanced clinching arguments to prove his points.
You certainly cannot ask the Armed Forces to tie their hands at the back and yet fight against terrorists laced with lethal weapons supplied from across the borders and supported by their stooges operating inside the country.
How come, when a perceived "excess" is committed by the military combatants on duty there is so much hue and cry raised by the self-styled "Human Rights" groups and activists, but not a word is uttered or a whine muttered in case of arson, violence and savagery inflicted on innocent citizens and security forces by the fanatical extremists? Why two different norms? Is one life any less valuable than the other?
Warm regards.
Sincerely,
Wg Cdr S.C. KAPOOR (retd)
Related Reading
(Member IESM Veterans' Groups)
Rights for Terrorists Only? by Joginder Singh (The writer was Director, CBI) (ADNI)
Respect the armed forces
By Nand on 7/11/2010 3:18:19 AM
Vox Populi
Again a great article. The human rights activists need the safety of armed forces and then criticizes them. It is sad. Thank you for writing this article and speaking for the behalf of thousands of patriotic Indians who fight for the survival/ freedom of the country.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Is military history sacrosanct?
THE TRAGEDY OF INDIA IS THAT OUR POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND OTHERS ARE SO SCARED OF THE TRUTH THAT TILL DATE NOT A SINGLE OFFICIAL HISTORY OF WARS FOUGHT BY THE INDIAN MILITARY HAS BEEN CLEARED FOR PUBLICATION. THIS IS THE MAIN REASON FOR CONJECTURES IN THE MEDIA.
Military history may not be a `holy cow' but once finalised, it does become sacrosanct and should be interfered with only in the most exceptional circumstances, lest the public loses faith in the objectivity of the military. The old adage that “truth is the first casualty in war“ is fairly accurate, but largely at the individual level.
At the institutional level, the Indian military has an elaborate system in place so that maximum objectivity is ensured, when the final product in the shape of a history is produced.
However, any activity in which human beings are involved is bound to be questioned, either genuinely or for some other reason.
The compilation of military history commences at the unit level, where actions of sub-units and individuals, eyewitness accounts, logs of messages and reports are compiled, giving allowances for the `fog of war' and the fast and furious pace of operations.
In the end, a coherent picture does emerge. Thereafter, at every hierarchical level, the `war diaries' are scrutinised and compared with plans initiated, situation reports of the time and the inputs of the formation commanders and staff. This process goes all the way up to the army headquarters, where the Military Operations (MO) Directorate carries out a thorough oversight and comparison with the plethora of reports generated prior to, during and after the operations.There are thus sufficient checks and balances to ensure objectivity.
There are essentially four types of military histories. The first is the memoirs of individuals who have taken part in the conflict. They describe their experiences and those of their comrades, as also details culled out from operational documents.
Depending on who the author is, there is usually a fair to medium degree of subjectivity in them. The second type of military history is the one written by historians, media persons and others, who did not take part in the operations. Their sources are the media and some interviews conducted by them during or immediately after the conflict, usually the latter. In a large number of cases they tend to be sensational. In professional parlance they are termed `quickies', with `making a quick buck' as their main aim. The third category is scholarly works, mostly commissioned by `think tanks' or quasi-professional institutions. These are usually well researched and fairly objective.
The last category is the official military histories, mostly written by a team of professional persons commissioned by the government and comprising both military and civilian professionals, who are given access to official documents like war diaries, operational orders and instructions, results of post-war evaluations carried out at various levels, as well as independent studies ordered at various echelons of the field Army. These are the only histories that have official authenticity.
The tragedy of India is that our political leadership and others are so scared of the truth that till date not a single official history of wars and conflicts fought by the Indian Military has been cleared for publication. This is the main reason for conjectures, innuendos and inspired comments in the media. It is a great pity as the military has cleared them all for the public domain. As an example, the Henderson Brooks report of the 1962 India-China war, of which I was the custodian as the DGMO, contains no secrets that will jeopardise national security, but it continues to be kept in wraps as it highlights the gross incompetency of the political leadership and the bureaucracy of that time.
Let me now briefly deal with the current controversy, which is a fallout of a judicial judgment, wherein a senior formation commander of the Army who had taken part in the Kargil conflict of 1999 had his military honour restored, when the court ruled that his confidential reports were biased against him.
That judgment was widely welcomed, but the court also ruled that three paragraphs in the official war records relating to the particular operation of the aggrieved officer must be rewritten. The Army is challenging only the latter part of the judgment, pertaining to the rewriting of the records, in the apex court. Their contention is that there was no fudging, falsification or doctoring of the 1999 Kargil war history, as the military history has been finalised after invoking numerous checks and balances. The apex court will no doubt study all aspects before giving its judgment.
Let me end this piece on an irreverent note. It was Voltaire, who said in Jeannot et Colin that “All ancient histories, as one of our wits say, are just fables that have been agreed upon“.
What needs to be noted is that he was referring to `history', not `military history'!
Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi, PVSM, AVSM, VSM (Retd) is a former Vice-Chief of the Indian Army
Courtesy: Hindustan Times, Chandigarh, 15 July 2010
(Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views either of the Editorial Committee or the Centre for Land Warfare Studies).
Is military history sacrosanct?
Lt Gen Oberoi’s letters on Pay Commission Recommendations
Military history may not be a `holy cow' but once finalised, it does become sacrosanct and should be interfered with only in the most exceptional circumstances, lest the public loses faith in the objectivity of the military. The old adage that “truth is the first casualty in war“ is fairly accurate, but largely at the individual level.
At the institutional level, the Indian military has an elaborate system in place so that maximum objectivity is ensured, when the final product in the shape of a history is produced.
However, any activity in which human beings are involved is bound to be questioned, either genuinely or for some other reason.
The compilation of military history commences at the unit level, where actions of sub-units and individuals, eyewitness accounts, logs of messages and reports are compiled, giving allowances for the `fog of war' and the fast and furious pace of operations.
In the end, a coherent picture does emerge. Thereafter, at every hierarchical level, the `war diaries' are scrutinised and compared with plans initiated, situation reports of the time and the inputs of the formation commanders and staff. This process goes all the way up to the army headquarters, where the Military Operations (MO) Directorate carries out a thorough oversight and comparison with the plethora of reports generated prior to, during and after the operations.There are thus sufficient checks and balances to ensure objectivity.
There are essentially four types of military histories. The first is the memoirs of individuals who have taken part in the conflict. They describe their experiences and those of their comrades, as also details culled out from operational documents.
Depending on who the author is, there is usually a fair to medium degree of subjectivity in them. The second type of military history is the one written by historians, media persons and others, who did not take part in the operations. Their sources are the media and some interviews conducted by them during or immediately after the conflict, usually the latter. In a large number of cases they tend to be sensational. In professional parlance they are termed `quickies', with `making a quick buck' as their main aim. The third category is scholarly works, mostly commissioned by `think tanks' or quasi-professional institutions. These are usually well researched and fairly objective.
The last category is the official military histories, mostly written by a team of professional persons commissioned by the government and comprising both military and civilian professionals, who are given access to official documents like war diaries, operational orders and instructions, results of post-war evaluations carried out at various levels, as well as independent studies ordered at various echelons of the field Army. These are the only histories that have official authenticity.
The tragedy of India is that our political leadership and others are so scared of the truth that till date not a single official history of wars and conflicts fought by the Indian Military has been cleared for publication. This is the main reason for conjectures, innuendos and inspired comments in the media. It is a great pity as the military has cleared them all for the public domain. As an example, the Henderson Brooks report of the 1962 India-China war, of which I was the custodian as the DGMO, contains no secrets that will jeopardise national security, but it continues to be kept in wraps as it highlights the gross incompetency of the political leadership and the bureaucracy of that time.
Let me now briefly deal with the current controversy, which is a fallout of a judicial judgment, wherein a senior formation commander of the Army who had taken part in the Kargil conflict of 1999 had his military honour restored, when the court ruled that his confidential reports were biased against him.
That judgment was widely welcomed, but the court also ruled that three paragraphs in the official war records relating to the particular operation of the aggrieved officer must be rewritten. The Army is challenging only the latter part of the judgment, pertaining to the rewriting of the records, in the apex court. Their contention is that there was no fudging, falsification or doctoring of the 1999 Kargil war history, as the military history has been finalised after invoking numerous checks and balances. The apex court will no doubt study all aspects before giving its judgment.
Let me end this piece on an irreverent note. It was Voltaire, who said in Jeannot et Colin that “All ancient histories, as one of our wits say, are just fables that have been agreed upon“.
What needs to be noted is that he was referring to `history', not `military history'!
Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi, PVSM, AVSM, VSM (Retd) is a former Vice-Chief of the Indian Army
Courtesy: Hindustan Times, Chandigarh, 15 July 2010
(Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views either of the Editorial Committee or the Centre for Land Warfare Studies).
Is military history sacrosanct?
Lt Gen Oberoi’s letters on Pay Commission Recommendations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
