What document did the Hindu see?The sahayak, witnesses told The Hindu, was dragged into the Beacon ground near the range, and beaten up. Major Ankur Tewari, Major Kapil Malik, Major Thomas Verghese, Major A.D. Kanade and Major Sharma himself joined in the beating, documents seen by The Hindu say
Thanks for sharing. In letter, law is law, I agree.Section 37 in The Army Act, 1950 1
37. Mutiny. Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say,-
(a) begins, incites, causes, or conspires with any other persons to cause any mutiny in the military, naval or air forces of India or any forces co- operating therewith; or
(b) joins in any such mutiny; or
(c) being present at any such mutiny, does not use his utmost endeavours to suppress the same; or
(d) knowing or having reason to believe in the existence of any such mutiny, or of any intention to mutiny or of any such conspiracy, does not, without delay, give information thereof to his commanding or other superior officer; or
(e) endeavours to seduce any person in the military, naval. or air forces of India from his duty or allegiance to the Union; shall, on conviction by court- martial, be liable to suffer death or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.
Still, does not look like mutiny to me. Even the Army says it's not a mutiny.From the witnesses' account, it is clear the men of the 226 Field Regiment did nothing — until it became clear Ghosh had suffered significant injuries. Major Kanade, however, allegedly refused the men to move Ghosh to a medical facility, perhaps fearing it would lead to an internal inquiry on his conduct.
Slamming "misinterpretation" and "mischievous reporting", the Army also said, "The entire episode can at worst be seen as an isolated act of indiscipline. It can in no way be termed a mutiny."
How do you know he was a peeping Tom? The report you posted suggests otherwise.So the ruckus has been created by a peeping tom ! a barber ! people here are flogging the dead animal called "Sahayak" .. DODOs !!
Was it because the officers' wives were there in violation of the rules, and to escape punishment, they made this entire ruckus?* On Thursday, as the firing practice was on, the regiment barber, identified as Suman Ghosh, is believed to have entered a major's tent. The sequence of events is unclear, but a version says that on seeing the officer's wife in the tent, Ghosh ran out in alarm. Following this, the wife allegedly created a furore.
Also, Ray Sir, kindly confirm, aren't barbers also part of the army?* Officers of the unit fled from the spot, some rushing to their wives. At least two wives are believed to have been "rescued" by personnel from the GREF camp, fearing the anger of the jawans. By evening, all the officers had been accounted for, with one having fled to an Army camp in Chushul.
The newspapers tend to sensationalise, throw in some fancy terms to show that they are 'in the know' of how the Army works and hey presto! – they have a very knowledgeable story to give to the world!The CO has been relieved of command. What an embarrassment; you get this opportunity once in your lifetime and to have it taken away in such a manner, what a shame. The officers in the unit lacked leadership qualities.
What has being a Bengali got to do with this?Only one name has appeared ... Sepoy Suman Ghosh....
Hmmm ... The rebellious Bengali Dada.. the argumentative Indian....
It appears the unit is mixed or all india composition..
Such things are common in those outfits..
It is time for their Colonel of the Regiment to disband that unit...
The CO and SM must be thrown into Spangur Lake....
Families in practice camp ???
That is their gunners professionalism..?
the buggers wanted to to fire from all guns in rarefied high altitude and that too simultaneously...
Re: Army officers, jawans involved in scuffle in Ladakh
14 Corps Commander strikes deal with angry soldiers, defusing crisis — but hard questions remain
One does not do a 'deal' with his subordinates.Early on Saturday, highly-placed military sources told The Hindu, Leh-based 14 Corps Commander Lieutenant-General Ravi Dastane finally hammered out a deal with the soldiers — a deal which promises officers who used beatings against enlisted men will be punished, in return for the soldiers relocating to their base at Thiksey.
It is that this colonial system that has held the Army where it is.Forty-eight hours after troops of the Ladakh-based 226 Field Regiment staged a revolt against officers they said were responsible for the brutal beating of an enlisted man, the Army is facing hard questions about whether its colonial-era institutions are generating a crisis within its ranks.
The societal ethos is responsible and more than that the foolish politics mode of functioning oriented, non hands on approach, over charged and misplaced ambitions, fancy scientific advice compared to the earlier gut reaction honed by experience and grooming, is responsible.Officers, not Gentlemen?
On the issue of oderlies/ sahayaks/ helpers/' buddies.Simmering class tensions
Earlier this month, the Army announced it was considering doing away with the colonial-era institution of the sahayak, or batmen as they were earlier known — trained soldiers who are assigned to serve as valets.
The 30,000-odd men serving as sahayaks are expected not just to ensure that their officers' uniforms are in order and their personal comfort cared for, but ferry their children to school and help with their spouses' shopping.
The batman system was long abandoned in the British Army, from where India drew it; even Pakistan dropped the institution in 2004. In India, however, it remains in place — a major cause of humiliation for men enlisted to serve their country.
It isn't only the institution of the sahayak, though, that is a cause of friction: India's two-class Army, divided rigidly between sahibs and men, ill-reflects the social realities of the country today.
For its part, the officer corps is ill-equipped to deal with a changing world. In a recent article, scholar Srinath Raghavan pointed out that the Army recruits officers "at a much younger age than most other democracies."
Colonial-era culture
Their subsequent in-house education submerges young men to the military's colonial-era culture, leaving them ill-equipped to understand the changed values and aspirations of the soldiers serving under their command.
"In the first decades after Independence," a retired officer told The Hindu, "enlisted men came from backgrounds which led them to unquestioningly accept feudal attitudes and values. The officers were also products of the same feudal landscape. It doesn't exist any more — but the institutions remain."
In the Hindu article, it says that the chap walked in without knocking while the lady was showering.How do you know he was a peeping Tom? The report you posted suggests otherwise.
No, it would apply to all ranks.Was it because the officers' wives were there in violation of the rules, and to escape punishment, they made this entire ruckus?
Psychologists more so the Defence psychologists would term that as 'societal; herd mentality' caused by 'self preservation'! Or such equal crap!And why were all the officers rushing to protect their wives? Something is fishy here.
Yes, they use to be Non Combatants (Enrolled) but are now classified as full fledged soldiers.Also, Ray Sir, kindly confirm, aren't barbers also part of the army?
No it is lack of faith and bonding.Sad to see that in the end, the cause winds down to women.
You are absolutely in disdain of the brotherhood, the sense of fraternity that prevails in the armed forces when you state that the sahayak is equivalent to a personal slave. Everyone in the army are brothers and no true soldier thinks of his brothers as slaves. IMHO, the sahayak system was one which could bring better bonding and sense of discipline in the army. I would even go as far as to say that the country needs conscription and I would gladly be a sahayak in the residence of my superior officer if the country needs me to be so.Army officers can't have personal slaves in the form of Sahayaks. This 2012 and Sahayak system is totally out of date.
I've relatives in the army. I know what Sahayaks do, what they work is , a male servant would do in the household. The respect they get is entirely dependent on the officer's family. My relatives generally treat their Sahayaks with compassion ,but from the outside you know he is basically a servant.
Its also against the idea of having a lean and mean tech oriented army .
Misinterpretation and mischievous reporting to sensationalise the incident by some sections of print and electronic media need to be dispelled. Main issues are as under:
(a) The entire episode can at worst be seen as an isolated act of indiscipline. It can in no way be termed as mutiny.
(b) No arms and ammunition have been used by anybody. The armoury has not been captured by the troops as is being wrongly reported.
(c) The Court of Inquiry will identify the complicity of the officers and men. However, nobody has been removed, dismissed or suspended.
(d) Col P Kadam, the Commanding Officer was not assaulted by other officers, as has been wrongly reported. The CO as well as Maj AK Sharma and Sepoy Suman Ghosh who suffered superficial injuries, have been given medical treatment.
(e) The situation is well under control.
Ha Ha Ha ..... so for you, the crux is "why Stalin sent so many of the Tsarist officers to the gallows" .. you would have been foremost instigator and calling for gallows !!If the soldier was a 'peeping Tom,' it was clearly his fault; if the major's wife was there in clear violation of the rules, that was the major's fault, if the soldier ran away after seeing the major's wife, as the other report suggests, then it is not his fault, if the Commanding Officer saw the mood of the soldiers and scolded the majors publicly, then it was his fault, but then again, the majors were also at fault, even a greater fault, for beating someone up and then refusing medical assistance.
Army Act or not Army Act, if it is true that the soldiers waited patiently long enough and then lost their cool, then how can this be mutiny? It weren't the soldiers who resorted to violence first, it were the majors. This cannot be mutiny. The Army also says it is not mutiny. The soldiers had every opportunity to loot the weapons and go berserk, but instead, they stuck to using sticks.
I was earlier unsure, but now I think this strict hierarchical BS of the 'batman' system has to be done away with. Now I see why Stalin sent so many of the Tsarist officers to the gallows. In the long run, it only helped foster equality. The sooner we get rid of this imperial practice, the better. The other thing that needs to be weeded out of the Indian Army is the ethnicity based nomenclature of regiments. Two evils still lingering since the days of the British Empire.
I presume a PA to a Minister is also a slave and so is the peon of the DM and the orderly to the SP.Army officers can't have personal slaves in the form of Sahayaks. This 2012 and Sahayak system is totally out of date.
I've relatives in the army. I know what Sahayaks do, what they work is , a male servant would do in the household. The respect they get is entirely dependent on the officer's family. My relatives generally treat their Sahayaks with compassion ,but from the outside you know he is basically a servant.
Its also against the idea of having a lean and mean tech oriented army .
What is mysterious is that were the women also staying in tents, wherein there are no doors as such and instead there are flaps. The so called 'bathroom' is a small 40 lb tent that is just behind. It can't be that the lady was bathing with flaps open. I thought they were staying at the GREF camp. GREF camps are proper barracks and rooms!If the soldier was a 'peeping Tom,' it was clearly his fault; if the major's wife was there in clear violation of the rules, that was the major's fault, if the soldier ran away after seeing the major's wife, as the other report suggests, then it is not his fault, if the Commanding Officer saw the mood of the soldiers and scolded the majors publicly, then it was his fault, but then again, the majors were also at fault, even a greater fault, for beating someone up and then refusing medical assistance.
Army Act or not Army Act, if it is true that the soldiers waited patiently long enough and then lost their cool, then how can this be mutiny? It weren't the soldiers who resorted to violence first, it were the majors. This cannot be mutiny. The Army also says it is not mutiny. The soldiers had every opportunity to loot the weapons and go berserk, but instead, they stuck to using sticks.
I was earlier unsure, but now I think this strict hierarchical BS of the 'batman' system has to be done away with. Now I see why Stalin sent so many of the Tsarist officers to the gallows. In the long run, it only helped foster equality. The sooner we get rid of this imperial practice, the better. The other thing that needs to be weeded out of the Indian Army is the ethnicity based nomenclature of regiments. Two evils still lingering since the days of the British Empire.