Report on 'Army Movement' trashed, no breach of protocol

[Anshu Attri]

Armymen laugh at bureaucrats for hitting panic button

Troop movement: Armymen laugh at bureaucrats for hitting panic button - The Times of India

A day after a news report about unauthorized military movements kicked up a row, defence ministry sources picked holes in the conspiracy theory, stressing that it was silly that sections of the government acquiesced in the scare about the intent of units when they were only engaged in routine exercises.

A senior officer said that even if a "reckless" Army chief were to think of flexing muscles, it wouldn't make much sense for a few hundred troops to be moved from Hisar and Agra.

Over 6,000 trained soldiers are posted within Delhi throughout the year as part of the larger Army deployment. Several others pointed to the fact that thousands more soldiers were in the national capital during the period. These troops had come to Delhi for the Army Day celebrations and the Republic Day parade. Thousands of trained troops arrive in the national capital weeks ahead of January 15, the Army Day.

Sections in the government made the authorities press the panic button by representing the movement of two units on January 16 as a sinister manoeuvre by the supporters of Army chief General V K Singh.

There are other reasons also why many in the government find it mysterious that supposedly seasoned people bought into the suggestion that the movement of two units was actually meant to be muscle flexing by supporters of the Army chief.

Many in the defence ministry pointed out that it would have been an extremely foolish step to mobilize troops along the crowded national highways over several hours, if the intent was to flex muscles. Officers also drew attention to the fact that every unit of the Indian Army carries out mobilization exercises at least once every quarter, since the Operation Parakram days.

"Why would you want to bring a few hundred soldiers via road, taking several hours," an officer asked.

When India mobilized its troops to the Pakistan border in the wake of the December 13, 2001 terrorist attack on Parliament, serious problems with swift mobilization were exposed. Worst was the extreme slowness with which troops mobilized to the border.

Ever since Operation Parakram, all Army units carry out regular mobilization exercises. These involve the troops mobilizing vehicles, weapons, rations, fuel etc to figure out preparedness. The units move out of their base and go several kilometers ahead before turning back. Then a review is carried out. What the mechanized infantry unit based in Hisar and the 50 Para Regiment based in Agra did was the same - they moved ahead as part of regular mobilization.

 

[Oracle]

I am not saying he has turned out to be cry baby or anything. Sometimes he makes sense, sometime sounds ridiculous. Maybe it has something to do with young age & upward career growth.

Mate, I did not say you said it. That is my personal observation. And yes, sometimes he get too aggressive. Actually, I hav stopped watching all the Hindi News Channels. In 24 hours, News is for 8 hrs and Ads are for 16 hrs.

 

[Bhadra]

I don't like Arnab Goswami because he is too aggressive.

However, he and his channel is the only one, right or wrong, does not toe the Govt line.

He is quite fair. He got AVM Ahluwalia who is a chamcha of the Govt, for good reasons too!

NDTV and CNN IBN does not toe the Govt line all the way!

In fact, NDTV can replace DD in loyalty!

I don't get News X.

That Ahluwalia is pathetically anti army as he bitterly contested election for President of Gymkhana Club Delhi and lost it to an Army General. See how senseless he speaks !

 

[Bhadra]

Why civil-military conflict is GOOD for India

The ongoing dispute between General V K Singh and the government is an important -- albeit costly -- test of policy and institutional efficacy in an area of governance that is normally hidden from public view, feels Dr Sunil Dasgupta, co-author of the acclaimed Arming Without Aiming: India's Military Modernization.

Civil-military disputes may be unseemly and potentially perilous to democracy, but Indians should welcome the feud between Indian Army [ Images ] chief General V K Singh and the Manmohan Singh [ Images ] government.

With India no longer in danger of a military coup, the disagreement is an important --albeit costly -- test of policy and institutional efficacy in an area of governance that is normally hidden from public view, often in the name of secrecy.

The seeming scandal bolsters the twin requirements of any national security system: Verifying the principle of civilian control over the armed forces even as it brings scrutiny to the mechanism of providing for defence.

The classic model of civil-military relations is absolutist: Civilian leaders have a right to be wrong, but failure is their burden to bear alone. In practice, however, civil-military relations have always been a two-way street.

Military officers, by virtue of their expertise and avowed apolitical character, can and do appeal directly to the people over the heads of their political masters. Political leaders, in turn, often leave the management of defence to professional military officers, both to avoid hard decisions about a subject matter rife with uncertainty and to shift the responsibility if things go badly.

Consequently, most civil-military disputes follow a similar script: The military leader accuses the politician of sacrificing the country's security, sometimes with charges of corruption, and the political leader accuses the general of breaching rules that undermine the oath to serve and protect.

The current case certainly follows this pattern, as did India's last civil-military relations fracas, when former Indian Navy chief Admiral Vishnu [ Images ] Bhagwat and then defence minister George Fernandes [ Images ] conducted their public war of words in the late 1990s.

There is, of course, no absolute standard of national security. It is a relative concept. Governments try to match military threats with capacity. Doing less can invite attack. Doing more imposes an unnecessary burden on the nation. In most countries, military and political leaders differ over how much defence is necessary.

The question of how much defence India should have against China is debatable, but there is good reason for the relative positions of the two countries today: Military capacity has followed strategic policy. That China is militarily superior to India was established in 1962; confirmed in 1964, when China acquired nuclear weapons; and consolidated since 1979, when China launched its economic reform programme that turned the country into the fastest growing economy in the world.

India has periodically contested Chinese military superiority, and may do so again, but since the mid-1980s, New Delhi [ Images ] has sought detente with China. The Manmohan Singh government has continued a China policy that even the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government, under Atal Bihari Vajpayee [ Images ], adopted. It is hardly surprising, then, that successive Indian governments have tried hard not to cast its developing relationship with the United States as anti-China.

Many Indians chafe at the idea of a detente with China, but these are not the people who run for elections. Politicians, regardless of their party, have decided repeatedly that it is better to have detente with China.

Not only China, India's elected officials have generally seen India's security environment as relatively benign; thought of armed force as an unacceptable instrument of State policy (with some notable exceptions, such as the 1971 war); sought to escape regional security dilemmas rather than engage in arms racing; and given priority to economic development over military spending.

The assertion by General Singh that the Indian tank fleet is 'devoid of critical ammunition' seems like criminal neglect, but when is India going to fight another tank battle?

The border with China is not tank terrain. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and has repeatedly said that it will use nuclear weapons if Indian tanks cross the border. Indian leaders have wisely chosen not to test whether that is an empty threat.

General Singh also claims that the India's air defence is '97 percent obsolete' -- how does anyone arrive at such a measure and what does the Indian Air Force have to say about it?

General Singh's letter mentions other, more credible gaps in the army's capacity, but, by all publicly available accounts, he does not lay out his priorities, without which it is impossible to determine how bad things really are. For example, the question of whether the tanks lack necessary ammunition cannot be answered without first answering the question of how many tanks India needs. In the melee following the leak of General Singh's letter, this remains unanswered.

The content of the March 12 letter should never have been surprising. For a number of years, Indian and foreign observers have been highlighting deep-set problems in India's defence policymaking. I would imagine that General Singh's predecessor and successor would write very similar letters, if they were asked.

What makes the letter extraordinary is the fact that it is not a routine matter for Indian military chiefs to write frankly to the country's prime minister on the state of readiness. That is the only acceptable explanation for why the letter has caused national consternation in India.

The alternatives are scandalous: Did General Singh write to the prime minister earlier, and was he ignored? Or, did the Army chief's date-of-birth problem cause him to be more critical of the government? The general has been willing to name names of those who tried to bribe him, but far more important evidence will be his prior reports on military readiness to the government, if ever these could be made public.

The problem in Indian defence goes beyond resources. Unlike other areas of government neglect such as school education, basic health care and road safety, defence has not suffered from the lack of resources.

For much of the last decade, Indian defence budgets have grown handily. There are reports that the armed forces are not being able to spend the money fast enough -- and the military has actually returned unspent money to the General Fund of India.

The dysfunction in Indian civil-military relations has its roots in the lessons of the defeat in the 1962 China war. India stumbled into and lost the war because of political interference. Since then, Indian political leaders have been wary about intervening in military issues.

The 1971 Pakistan war confirmed the military autonomy model, but since then few political leaders have taken a direct interest in military matters. The fear of intervention combined with the belief against the utility of armed force in politics resulted in political disinterest in military matters. All the political leaders wanted to do -- and were expected to do -- was to provide the resources and get out of the way.But, of course, the politicians did not really leave the military alone even as they stepped back from publicly intervening in military matters. Instead, they installed a thick layer of bureaucracy to exercise proxy civilian control. There is now consensus outside Indian government circles that the bureaucratic insulation between the politicians and the generals does not serve India well.

Without regular and frank exchange of civil and military views, it takes civil-military conflict to break the news of dysfunction. Civil-military disputes can help correct imbalances in the national security policymaking system.

All other military reforms -- from the new position of the chief of defence staff, to a more effective military R&D system, to a clean and legitimate procurement process -- are predicated on political engagement of the military that usually follows a period of civil-military tension.

Whether this round of civil-military tension will lead to a period of reform in India is not yet clear.

The Indian government's first instinct seems to be to let this wind blow over with Singh's retirement on May 31. General Singh's own credibility is poor given the controversy over his date of birth.

But as more scandals arise, a new constituency for defence reform is bound to emerge and the country's political leadership will not be able to remain disengaged from military matters for long.

Sunil Dasgupta is director of the political science programme at the Universities at Shady Grove, part of the University of Maryland, and a non-resident senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC.

He is co-author, with Stephen P Cohen, of Arming Without Aiming: India's Military Modernization (Brookings Institution Press, 2010).

Sunil Dasgupta

Why civil-military conflict is GOOD for India - Rediff.com India News

 

[Bhadra]

These days there are Coups galore, military conflicts persisting in many parts:
The biggest news and rumours of Coup is from China.
Syria is riddled with intense military conflict.
Sudan has military actions on their hands.
Pakistan has perpetual Coups.
Bangladesh has perpetual fear of coups by BDR or the opposition.
Srilanka is hardening military postures on the pretext of LTTE.
Nepal is stifled with problems of military integration.

I think Indian journalist and politicians could have avoided that False Alarmist story in such a period.
It is also strange and dishonouring the Army is being used by two senior politicians of UPA in their political struggle of being closer to Madam and power centre. MMS has been sidelined. Central intelligence agencies are busy spying over their own military rather than focus of internal security and external threats. It is unfortunate they are being used by their minister to attain his political agenda and one-upmanship. They have not even spared the Army !

 

[Ray]

That Ahluwalia is pathetically anti army as he bitterly contested election for President of Gymkhana Club Delhi and lost it to an Army General. See how senseless he speaks !

I wonder if he anti Army.

I think he comes out to be a damned fool.

I wonder if he is connected with the people who are behind all this chaos!

 

[Ray]

Sunil Dasgupta apparently is missing the wood for the trees.

 

[Bhadra]

I wonder if he anti Army.

I think he comes out to be a damned fool.

I wonder if he is connected with the people who are behind all this chaos!

You mean he is part of Tejinder's gang ? That would be interesting !

 

[Sridhar]

Gen VK Singh foresaw 'coup' story
Published: Friday, Apr 6, 2012, 9:00 IST | Updated: Friday, Apr 6, 2012, 0:21 IST
By DNA Correspondent | Place: New Delhi | Agency: DNA

Did chief of army staff Gen VK Singh know that stories on an alleged coup would come out in the media? In a startling revelation to the The Week a few weeks ago, the army chief had stated that "even, when our unit, divisions or brigades does an exercise, some people will say that it was not an exercise. (They accuse) they wanted to do something else."

The first part of the recorded interview was published by The Week several weeks ago but had left out these aspects. Now the magazine has published them hinting that a deliberate effort was being made to cause a schism between the civil leadership and the military.

Breaking his silence on The Indian Express report that had hinted at the government getting "spooked" by the army moves, Gen Singh on Thursday dismissed it as "absolutely stupid". According to him, a report on the "unusual" movement of two army units towards Delhi in mid-January, was part of unnecessary attempts to "throw muck" at the government and the army.

Army chief General Singh is on a three-day visit to Nepal. While speaking to media in Kathmandu, he told reporters that they (who do such stories) need to be taken to task.

"This is absolutely stupid," he told reporters when asked to comment on the report in the Indian Express on Wednesday that said the government was "spooked" on the night of January 16-17 because of the movement of a mechanised infantry battalion from Haryana's Hissar and a sizeable section of 50 Para Brigade.

"Whosoever is trying to make stories against the army is deplorable. "And what it shows is that people are unnecessarily trying to throw muck at both the government and the army and such people should be taken to task," he said.

Meanwhile, The Week's interview with the army chief shows that he had suspected that "routine army unit movements" could be reported as an alleged "coup". According to him "there are lots of people who want to make stories these days. Nobody wants to see whether there was truth in it. You just throw much at somebody," General Singh told the magazine.

Gen VK Singh foresaw ‘coup’ story - India - DNA

 

[Bhadra]

Army coup, really? PM, Antony, General must go

by R Jagannathan Apr 4, 2012
What the hell is going on? Wednesday's bombshell of a story by The Indian Express, that there were unexpected movements of key army units "towards Delhi" on the night of 16 January, suggests that all hell is breaking loose in the capital. That was the day the general took his age row to the Supreme Court (Read the full story here).

The Express story says – and the facts are not denied by the army – that on 16 January night, some central intelligence agencies reported that a mechanised infantry unit based in Hisar, Haryana – part of the 33rd Armoured Division – began moving towards Delhi. A little while later, another military movement "towards" Delhi, this time a part of the airborne 50 Para Brigade based at Agra, also moved towards Delhi.

It's not our purpose to give you all the details here, but suffice it to say that it took a late night meeting called by Defence Secretary Shashi Kant Sharma to summon Lt Gen AK Choudhary, Director General, Military Operations, and order the units back. He was asked to give an explanation, says the Express, and it ran something like this: the army movement was intended to check if units could be deployed quickly in fog in case of an emergency.

The issue no longer is whether the army's explanation is right or wrong, but whether the level of mistrust between the ministry and the army has reached such a low that one can even think of the possibility of a military coup in India. Does the government see a conspiracy everywhere?

In fact, the Express story is the last straw — additional proof that the UPA is afraid of its own shadow, and unable to govern in the country's interests. No norms are being followed in this government, no confidences are being kept, and every possible leak looks intended to damage someone's reputation or the other.

Mistrust is breeding in a way in which no politician, no party, and no institution seems to care about anything but very narrow personal interest. The country's interests are being sold down the river.

A few observations can be made about the Express story.

"¢ Given the amount of detail in the story, co-authored by none else than the newspaper's editor Shekhar Gupta, it is very clear that the story was leaked right from the top. Whodunnit? The PMO, the defence ministry and disgruntled sections of the army are some of the top suspects.

"¢ The leak is unlikely to have come from Gen VK Singh himself, since the army's movements coincided with his petition in the Supreme Court – and he would anyway have been suspected of leaking it.

"¢ The story shows both the army and the defence ministry in poor light – which means Defence Minister AK Antony may not have wanted it known. Given the fact that both Antony and Gen Singh have been talking friendly in recent days, the story would have come from somewhere else.

It is no one's case that the general has conducted himself too well ever since the age controversy cropped up as a major issue last year. His recent gambits, including his disclosure to a Hindi TV channel that he was offered a Rs 14 crore bribe, show him as someone with a grouse, who may go to any lengths to get even with those who may have harmed him. This shows that he is not being discreet, and his judgment on what can or cannot be said by a serving army chief leaves much to be desired. He clearly needs to put in his papers urgently.

However, no one has yet made the case that Gen Singh comes with a dubious reputation, and since it is now clear that he will retire on schedule anyway next month, it makes no sense for him to rock the boat – unless he wants to damage himself. Whatever he wants to disclose, he can do so after he retires. There is no need to sully the army any further while he is still its chief and wears the uniform.

So where does that leave us?

Unfortunately, the Manmohan Singh government's own conduct is reminiscent of the last days of Bahadur Shah Zafar, when an empire in decline was subject to all kinds of rumours.

UPA-2 has reached rock-bottom with this episode that hints of a potential army coup when there wasn't a whiff of it. The Express report has been vehemently denied by both the ministry and the army.

Both Manmohan Singh and AK Antony also need to go. Here's why.

We already know that the Big Three in the UPA – Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee and P Chidambaram – have an uncomfortable relationship.

We also know that the relationship between Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh is not quite what it was in UPA-1. The PMO is now run by Pulok Chatterjee – who apparently has the confidence of both the PM and Sonia. But this only suggests that the PMO has to achieve what the PM himself cannot – and that speaks volumes for what Sonia really thinks of Singh's abilities.

We know that the defence minister and the army chief do not share a great equation, despite efforts at a recent patch-up.

The Express has earlier carried leaks that talked of Antony's office being bugged – the unstated innuendo was that the general must have done it.

We also had the general's letter to the PM – on the state of army preparedness – being leaked, again to the general's disadvantage.

And we have had leak after leak – from the PMO, from the finance ministry and other ministries — that damage someone or the other. The finance ministry's office memo on the 2G scam, which said Chidambaram could have stopped A Raja's moves, came from an RTI filed with the PMO.

Then we had the leak of the Radia tapes – which could have come only from the tax department, or the CBI or the home ministry, since only they had access to it. We do not know if the leaks happened due to a rogue official lower down or were authorised from the top.

The UPA is unable to govern and almost every policy issue has ended up in court: 2G, CWG, Vodafone, et al.

Is this any way to run the government of the world's largest democracy? Is it worth running such a government just for the record?

We need a clean-up. At the very least, the PM, the defence minister and the army chief must be asked to go before we can believe anything this government does.

But then, isn't an election the best way to really clean-up?

 

[Bhadra]

Link for the above:

Army coup, really? PM, Antony, General must go | Firstpost

 

[Bhadra]

Did arms lobby neuter both Antony and Gen VK Singh?

Very interesting piece by RSN Singh

Did arms lobby neuter both Antony and Gen VK Singh? | Firstpost

 

[Ray]

Did arms lobby neuter both Antony and Gen VK Singh?

Very interesting piece by RSN Singh

Did arms lobby neuter both Antony and Gen VK Singh? | Firstpost

Interesting:

It is rather well known that the defence minister has always held the army chief in very high esteem for reasons of personal integrity, something which resonates with his own personality. Some sources have revealed to this author that Antony had almost decided to rule in favour of Gen VK Singh in respect to the date of birth controversy after the first opinion of the law ministry, which categorically upheld the general's contention. It was then that powers in positions superior to Antony compelled him to readdress the case to the law ministry. It did weigh heavily on his conscience, and there were political offers and assurances to recompense the hurt caused by the deliberate miscarriage of truth and justice in ways more than one.

The political class, prodded by a megalomaniac bureaucracy for fear of the 'succession plan' being upset in deference to the arms lobby, as also the unacceptable adverse political fallout for reasons of political funding requirements, began to threaten the general that should he choose to offer his resignation it would not be accepted.

It is not that the army was not confronted earlier with such instances of discrepancies in dates of birth of officers. They are routine and are resolved quickly and appropriately. An exactly similar case was resolved in the late 1990s just one day before the retirement of one Col Ramesh Chandra Dixit. VK Singh was made the first and last exception. Last exception, because the MoD or the Army Headquarters consequent to their ruling on Gen VK Singh's age, cannot legally dare to reiterate that the Army List, or the Military Secretary's Branch enjoy primacy over the Adjutant General's Branch with matters pertaining to date of birth of officers.

What was therefore perpetrated on the army chief was a fraud. A fraud so outrageous that it seemingly reduces India to the category of Banana Republic. Who perpetrated this fraud? It was two army chiefs in succession, whose reputations are today under attack for their unsavory deeds and involvement in various scams. Imagine an army chief appropriating flats meant for families of Kargil martyrs.

Can it get worse? It is no wonder that these army chiefs, who as father figures, should have protected the professional and personal integrity of their subordinates, chose to force Gen Singh to accept a particular date of birth, failing which there was an implied threat that the controversy would be used to derail him. They should have instead apologised for the omissions and commissions of a particular branch of the army headquarters. Once the so-called 'acceptance' was obtained on the repeated plea of 'organisational constraints', the army chiefs began to breath easy.

Gen Singh's subsequent pleadings to explain the 'organizational constraints' fell on deaf ears. The sigh of relief was because the 'succession plan' as desired by the arms lobby was now in place.

The bureaucrats became part of the design only after Gen Singh raked up the issue of his date of birth as COAS (Chief of Army Staff). Four former chief justices of India, all of them with impeccable credentials, gave opinions in his favour, but this did not appeal to the moral sense of the ministry. That the law ministry gave an opinion categorically upholding Gen Singh's stand, did not help. When the general said it was not a question of additional few months, but his honour, it did not help. He was ridiculed, not only "¦"¦"¦"¦"¦.by the political and bureaucratic establishment but by some retired generals as well.

These retired generals are now, courtesy television channels, very familiar faces. All of them have a dubious past. One of them was forced to resign from the army because of IB reports regarding his indiscriminate womanising. The other is known to have run away with his senior's wife, and the third was in the dock for possessing a false degree. So much for the detractors of Gen Singh!

Who are these chaps?

I know of the indiscriminate womaniser. The other two?

The fabrication of the story regarding the bugging of the defence minister's office at the behest of the general should be seen in this backdrop. The story was so poorly scripted that it fell apart. The writers of this script continue to enjoy immunity. The letter leak (from the general to the prime minister) should also be viewed in the same vein. The clamour for the chief's head by some bizarre quarters was also at the behest of the arms lobby.

A former diplomat, who messed with India's national security, was pulled out of the cobwebs to suggest that the general should be sent on 'forced leave', little realising that there is no such provision in army law. He did not prefer 'sacking' probably due to his own vulnerabilities. Another former diplomat with no locus-standi and no knowledge of army functioning has been taking special delight in VK Singh bashing. The man, it is apparent, has more than one motivation in doing so. This diplomat claimed that the unprecedented media campaign against Gen Singh unleashed by a daily newspaper published from the north was with the tacit approval of the PM. A prime minister getting after his own army chief via the media, if true, can happen only in Banana Republics.

Brajesh Mishra and.....?

Lord Wavell had predicated the survival of India as one entity on the preservation of the Indian army as an effective and irreproachable instrument. This instrument is not fraying from the edges but is under threat from the top.

 

[pmaitra]

India conducts exercises at a very high frequency. US-India exercise concluded recently and another Naval exercise is coming up. Really? India is low on stocks?

Things don't quite add up.

Or is it that India is exhaustive massive amounts of reserves in these exercises and not replenishing them quickly enough?

 

[Yatharth Singh]

The Hindu,
April 6, 2012

 

[arya]

The Hindu,
April 6, 2012

nice cartoon bro

 

[Ray]

No need to notify government on troop movement, says Army chief

NEW DELHI: Army Chief Gen V K Singh has dismissed reports of "unusual" movement of two elite units of army towards the capital in mid-January calling it "routine" for which there was no no need to "notify" the government.

"Notify for what? What was happening? We keep doing this so many times," he told 'The Hindu' .....

To a question whether the government had sought a clarification on the January 16 movement of troops, Gen Singh said, "It was not not like that. No clarification was asked for. These were routine issues. I don't think one or two units ever bother anyone. It was not not as if the whole of the armoured division was marching towards Delhi. This is just a figment of imagination."

......... "How is there any connection. You have gone to the Supreme Court. What is there to scare the government for? These are fables of a sick mind," the army chief said.

No need to notify government on troop movement, says Army chief - The Times of India

 

[sayareakd]

so if war break down or internal emergency, all enemy has to do is to look for notification about the movement and then take action.

 

[Bhadra]

No surprises hereKaran Thapar
April 07, 2012
No surprises here - Hindustan Times

'What do you make of the Express 'coup'?' This time I sensed Pertie really wanted to know. It wasn't a trick question. Well, here's my considered answer. For a start, it's a disingenuous story. The size, scale and the language suggests it's about a potential coup that was nipped in the bud. But the term itself is never used. Why? Did the paper lack the courage of its alleged discovery?

Yet, when the article says "New Delhi has come to be totally relaxed and trustful of the apolitical and professionally correct nature of its military leadership" isn't it hinting that, suddenly, there were grounds for a nasty surprise?

Second, the story relies on slender, if not improbable, detail. How can the movement of two units, totalling at the most 1,400 soldiers, presage a coup? By some counts there are already 10,000 soldiers in and around Delhi. If General VK Singh was planning one, he had enough manpower at hand. He didn't need this insignificant addition.

Third, the story hinges on an order that does not exist. It asks: "Why was the well-set protocol, that any military movement, at any time, in the NCR (National Capital Region) has to be pre-notified to MoD (Ministry of Defence) not followed?" It's the alleged violation of this order that is the clinching suggestion of mischief. But as a former chief, a former Director General Military Operations (DGMO) and a former defence secretary have confirmed - and the present defence secretary, too - there is no such order. So, it follows, there was no violation of it. Hence, no mischief.

Fourth, it relies on certain 'facts' to convince you that the government panicked. It says the defence minister was alerted late at night, the PM "at the crack of dawn" and the defence secretary asked to cut short his visit to Malaysia and, on return, "opened his office late at night" and asked the DGMO for an explanation. We have no proof of this. We simply have to accept it.

But"¦ The Hindu says the defence secretary returned on the morning of January 17. So surely he could have met the DGMO at once and not waited till his office was closed and then reopen it and summon him? And if the PM was woken at the crack of dawn, he could have summoned the army chief and sought an immediate explanation and not waited for the defence secretary to act 12 hours later?

Fifth, at least half the Express facts were revealed by the army itself in a press briefing on March 10. Rediff.com did a story based on those details three days later. Now, when has any army held a press conference on a failed coup?

If you look at the Rediff story, the details of the movement of the Para Brigade are the same as those 'revealed' by the Express. The interpretation is radically different. Who's correct?

So, what's my conclusion? I can accept that mischief-makers mispresented routine troop movements to worry the government and create suspicion of the army chief. In the circumstances, this battered government would have easily lost its sang·froid.

But can you credibly suggest this was a putative coup? And, despite its vulnerability, did the government really panic? That's where my reservations - actually, my doubts - begin.

In smaller type and on an inside page this would have been an interesting, if quirky, story. But splashed all over the front page, with a three-tier headline, it was way over the top.

But by now I can bet Pertie is snoring!

Views expressed by the author are personal

 

[Bhadra]

so if war break down or internal emergency, all enemy has to do is to look for notification about the movement and then take action.

Well said. One clerk or a peon in MoD is good enough to intimate to Pakistan that war has started as Babu has notified !