Sir,
On 13th September, 2018 , Maj gen Nilendra K, while commenting on my open letter to CJI has used the word ‘DEPLORABLE’ to define my act of expressing my view on the issue of supporting our brave soldiers, which is not only unparliamentary but also borders on being abusive in nature. In civilized society civilized persons express divergent views without ever making derogatory reference/comment about personal/professional aspect of the individual.
I would normally not have responded to his rather unfounded and irrational utterances, had he not used the word ‘DEPLORABLE’.
As a matter of abundant caution and restraint I rarely react to adverse criticism/diametrically opposite points of view. In fact I genuinely feel enriched by diametrically opposite points of view and keep those in mind as a reference for the future. Also I rarely get involved in 1 vs 1 (I have been fortunate to do enough 1 vs 1 from a fighter cockpit). If and when I decide to respond, I literally sleep over the issue, which is what I have done for five days before responding.
It is imperative and important that while dealing with issues such as the one under discussion, we keep our emotions under check. The individual commenting on my views has demonstrated that he has little or no control over his emotions otherwise he would not have used the word ‘DEPLORABLE’. It is an undoubted pointer to his whimsical, irrational and profligate approach towards life in general and profession in particular and utter disregard and disrespect for a colleague, junior or senior in rank/age does not matter.
His letter in original (highlighted and in inverted commas) (in black) is reproduced below with my observations on his thought process in colour.
“I have read carefully the open letter on AFSPA to the CJI. First, I first refer to your email.
Constitution is the basic bible to guide and regulate the executive, judiciary and the parliament. It demarcates their sphere of action and jurisdiction. It also spells out the fundamental and constitutional rights available to citizens and even non-citizens. The Constitution has withstood the test of time and has been amended as and when needed to meet the aspirations of ‘we the people’.
Prophetic words indeed!
A notion that the armed forces alone can protect the state is unacceptable being illogical. A view that the judiciary has led to balkanization of Indian state similarly defies logic. If the hands and minds of the soldiers have been tied, as alleged, then how did the surgical strike take place?
Nowhere in the article have I stated what the officer is contending based entirely on his presumptuous imagination, unfounded and immature assumptions. In fact I have categorically stated that ‘Army may be allowed to do its task as deemed fit to protect the nation against anti-nationals in AFSPA CONTROLLED AREAS ONLY. Where is the mention of Judiciary led balkanization? Mention of Surgical strike while dealing with AFSPA IS INDEED AN ATTEMPT AT GOOD HUMOUR. General, Surgical Strike and AFSPA are as different as CHALK and CHEESE.
Regarding ICC, India had decided in its wisdom not to join it. Change of governments have not led to any variation in this position. Courts are in no way involved in this matter.
No comments.
I have a few comments on Gp Capt TPS’s piece. An approach to a judge on a matter pending in courts is best to be avoided. It may be construed as an attempt to influence and thereby interfere with the administration of justice. It traverses on a very thin line that may lead to being viewed as contempt.
Officer is advised to ‘RE-VISIT’ the meaning of word contempt in as far as it is applicable to legal issues. ‘Subjudice’ does not mean ‘Shut Up’ for ordinary citizens, media etc.
Quoting General Patton in the context of Second War appears out of place. Kashmir & NE is not a ‘war’. I am not aware of any such declaration. MOD has not even called it a ‘war like situation’. The reason is simple. India as a state has viewed the condition there as an internal situation.
Sad reflection of officer’s understanding as to ‘what constitutes a war or war like situation’ and total lack of remorse about loss of young lives snuffed in the prime of their youth; obviously never read Chanakya. For the benefit of the officer may I quote nearly accurate figures of casualties, mostly in insurgency affected areas, of soldiers in the past 27 years (1990-2017). Army loses 1.5 soldiers every day i.e. nearly 550 soldiers every year. In 27 years we have lost nearly 15,000 soldiers. Check with Army Group Insurance scheme for exact figures. If this is not ‘WAR’, what is? Even if the casualty figure was to be half, the pertinent question is “should we lose our soldiers in this manner?”
About Col Amit Kumar’s petition. A court gives (and in more than adequate measures) opportunity to all the parties concerned to articulate their case in any litigation brought before it. If there are parties that are not named but are later seen to have a substantial interest in the matter, they are impleaded and allowed to join in. Others should better retain their counsel with themselves. Adverting to 400 army personnel approaching the Supreme Court, let the legal issues be examined and the judgment announced.
Is the officer trying to say that none can express his/her opinion that may not be in conformity with his jaundiced vision?
AFSPA is ‘invoked’ by the procedure set out in the Act. It is not ‘imposed’. Can it be anybody’s case that there have been ‘nil’ excesses by the Army since 1958 when AFSPA was enacted and enforced? Countless inquiries and courts martial show to the contrary. If there are HR abuses, who would investigate and prosecute the matter? Army being an institution and a part of the government cannot be allowed a totally free hand or to be a judge in its own operations that involve and impact civil society.
Bravo! The officer has accepted that ARMY has been doing its ‘JOB’ diligently and has ‘PUNISHED’ many culprits by conducting ‘COUNTLESS INQUIRIES AND COURT MARTIALS’ for the mistakes made. If so, what is the officer cribbing about? Officer needs to consult Cambridge dictionary to understand meaning of words ‘invoke’ and ‘imposed’.
Mention has been made of democracies governed by strict adherence to rule (fear of law). Who will administer the law? The Army?
The above statement is figment of officer’s imagination. In my article I have never ever stated directly/obliquely that the Military (read Army) should administer the law. My personal and unflinching belief is that ‘Worst democracy is a million times better than best dictatorship’. I have seen it from close quarters in other parts of the world. Officer obviously has not had such exposure.
It is incorrect to conclude that AFSPA came into existence in 1958 to cover up the deficiencies and collective incompetence of politicians, executive and judiciary in providing effective administration? No Sir, the law making was simply an exercise in expediency, just like often done to cater for different contingencies say like proclamation of emergency or impeachment provisions, disaster management law, insolvency code, and so on. These do not show anyone’s failure. These may be due to various factors, internal or external.
Thank you for agreeing that it was ‘EXPEDIENCY’ that led to AFSPA coming into existence. But the officer conveniently fails to admit the circumstances which led to ‘EXPEDIENCY’ in the first place.
Condonation of excesses by a soldier is provided under the law. Hence, it is to be carried out where needed and by following the due procedure set out in law.
The officer deliberately ignores and fails to recognize the conditions in which the excesses took place. Search operations in hide outs of anti-nationals equipped with modern weapons are not normally carried out after receiving a ‘FORMAL INVITE’ for ‘High Tea’.
To call judiciary as ‘self-serving, ‘self-appointing’, or casting aspersions on judicial activism do not make sense. It is judicial activism that stopped Bhagalpur blindings, exposed Commonwealth games fraud, coal allotment, Jain Havala, Vyapam, BCCI mis-governance, Chara scam and countless other gigantic misdoings.
The officer appears to have memory lapse in not accepting that Indian judiciary is the only judiciary in civilized world, which appoints itself. They have little/no faith in the Prime Minister, Minister of Law etc. Instance quoted by him are merely indicative of few Judges doing their job diligently. Does he not know the fate of NJAC and why?
Use of words ‘You and your ilk’, ‘you do not, rather you cannot understand’ and such choice of words at such a forum in the context of apex court are deplorable.
Phrase is commonly used to identify persons not only in the same profession but also doing the same job and is not a derogatory term.
I refrain from comments on other points in the open letter.
Obviously the officer had little to challenge, question the logic and defend the indefensible, hence opted for a way out by saying ‘no comments.
Regards
Maj Gen Nilendra Kumar
General, in using unparliamentary language bordering on being abusive, you have ignored all three fundamental postulates of communication in a civilized environment. Firstly, assimilate the contents, secondly understand author’s point of view and finally express opinion with verbal grace and humility, even if diametrically opposite to that of the author. You have ignored/failed on all three counts. In future you must also ‘refrain’ from making derogatory comments against anyone merely because his/her views are not in consonance/conformity with your limited vision.
Indeed there is considerable room for improvement of command of English language as well as the innate desire to prove your faithfulness to the controllers of your profession, the Judges.
“APNE AAKAON KE KHILAF KUCH BHI KEHNA AUR SUNANA INKO NA-MANZOOR HAI.”
Gp Capt TP Srivastava
9818926254
p.s. The officer is particularly upset over choice of words used by me in the original article to make a point. Let me educate him by citing just one example of what a member of judiciary had to say about one of his own ilk. In the infamous Priyadarshini Mattoo murder (23rd January, 1996) case, the trial judge acquitted the accused Santosh Singh (son of Police Commissioner) on ‘flimsy’ grounds. High Court Judge reversed the judgment. On 17th October, 2006 Santosh Singh was found guilty(currently serving his term of life imprisonment). The High Court verdict directly blamed trial court judge GP Thareja’s verdict by stating:-
“The trial judge acquitted the ACCUSED amazingly taking a PERVERSE APPROACH. It MURDERED JUSTICE and SHOCKED JUDICIAL CONSCIENCE.”
Supreme Court Judges were equally harsh in expressing their displeasure, if not more CONDEMNATORY than the High Court Judge and stated in the judgment “—— the CULPABILITY of the APPELLANT for the MURDER is nevertheless WRIT LARGE and WE are indeed surprised at the DECISION of the TRIAL JUDGE in ordering an OUTRIGHT ACQUITTAL”.
General, what language and choice of words are you talking about?
Who are you protecting, the SOLDIER in inhospitable conditions or JUDICIARY, CBI Enquiry, FIRs, against brave soldiers, controlled and influenced by selfish entities for personal and political gains?
Memoirs of an Intellectual Journey 