Sent from my iPad
Dear Seema MustafaOn 25 January 2013 18:06, seema mustafa <seemamustafa@gmail.com> wrote:Ridiculous comments by some in the story. If the CO can't ensure the conduct of his men towards women all the more reason for the ordinary criminal laws of the land to be made applicable instead of protecting sexual molesters under AfSPA.The false case excuse has been heard many times before. One there are very few women who will say they have been raped when they have not; and besides surely the courts and the investigating authorities can be trusted to being justice? The army can always represent its men if it is convinced of their innocence in the courts.
Seema MustafaWhat can be our stand on this issue?
Verma commission report draws armed forces' fire
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Verma-commission-report-draws-armed-forces-fire/articleshow/18174402.cms
NEW DELHI: The J S Verma Committee report has come under intense criticism from security forces for suggesting "breach of command responsibility", holding a commanding officer (CO) responsible if a junior commits rape. The report's suggestion to amend the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) has also been opposed by the armed and the paramilitary forces.
Many COs and senior officers are arguing that the breach of command responsibility was unacceptable and could lead to COs ending up in jail for upto seven years for the misdeeds of a junior.
"I have almost 1,000 personnel under me, and they are spread across some five kilometres. They could go on leave, or temporary duty. How am I to ensure their sexual conduct throughout the year, 24 hours a day?" asks the CO of an Army unit.
Officials in the Union home ministry too were taken aback by the panel's "unusual" suggestion to include "breach of command responsibility" as an offence under Section 376. "How can the officer commanding a battalion be held responsible if a junior he sends on a patrol suddenly chooses to go morally astray?" asked an officer, adding that vicarious liability in such a case is "nothing short of absurd".
Another senior officer of the security establishment indicated that the forces deployed in conflict zones like Jammu & Kashmir, Maoist-affected states and the insurgency-hit areas in the north-east, have to constantly guard against foisting of false cases by local, self-proclaimed rights groups who may actually be a front of terrorist or extremist groups. "The J S Verma committee's suggestion, if accepted, will only give such activists a legal handle to falsely implicate not only the jawan but his CO as well," the official warned.
A senior CRPF officer posted in a Naxal-infested area said, "Inserting breach of command responsibility in Section 376 is stretching the law too far. There is so much moral degradation in the society. Anyone can commit a crime on a given day. How can you hold the commanding officer responsible because a constable has gone berserk. No one will work for the forces then."
A BSF officer from the Eastern frontier added, "This is akin to jailing the mother for the crime of the son. We already have a mechanism where commanding officer is reprimanded for transgressions of a junior officer; administrative actions are taken. But punishing him for individual aberration is just not on. Unless there is an organised criminal behaviour in a unit, commanding officer cannot be held responsible."
The J S Verma Committee has recommended the introduction of a new section 376F in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for offence of breach of command responsibility. The proposal is to hold responsible "whoever, being a public servant in command, control or supervision of the police or armed forces...or assuming command whether lawfully or otherwise, fails to exercise control over persons under his or her command, control, or supervision and as a result of such failure" rape and similar offences are committed.
The COs would be held "guilty of the offence of breach of command responsibility" if he "failed to take necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress the commission of the said offences," the committee has recommended.
Presently, there is no criminal liability for a CO of an Army unit in cases where his subordinates are involved in any kind of breach of discipline. It does of course invite administrative action, or even dismissed from service. The introduction of a criminal liability by a CO for actions of a junior would add a completely new and extremely challenging burden to being a CO, say army officers.
The Committee has also recommended amendments to the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), saying, that "impunity for systematic or isolated sexual violence in the process of Internal Security duties is being legitimized" by AFSPA.
Post: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net"
Exit: "indiaresists-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net"
Quit: "https://lists.riseup.net/www/signoff/indiaresists"
Help: https://help.riseup.net/en/list-user
WWW : http://indiaagainstcorruption.net.in-- tDear Seema Mustafa, Read your comments on the Security Forces, have you ever appreciated what the command of a unit involves . Can you make a person responsible for the acts of his more then 850 subordinates?more so when his is not present with them. I am sure you do not have any idea what commanding troops means. As it is strictures are passed on the commanding officers of any incident involving his subordinates. Pushing him to the wall will only be at the cost of his responsibility. Imagine what the CO of Rajputana Rifles must have gone through after the Krishna Ghati incident, can the CO be held responsible for the deeds of the enemy. In your opinion he must be, this is just commenting for commenting sake without application of logic. I wish you could gather closer knowledge by being with a unit for few days and also go through the hell when deployed on LOC or counter insurgency duties. Regards,
Col Madan Sharma (Veteran)Indian InfanteerHAPPINESS IS JOURNEY, NOT DESTINATION
CONSERVE & HARVEST RAIN WATERPLEASE GO GREEN BY USING BIODEGRADABLE PACKING MATERIAL
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.