Monday, January 28, 2013

Re: [IAC#RG] Fwd: Justice Verma Report: Verma commission report draws armed forces' fire

It seems forces which are  insisting on "fixing and to rein in"Defense Forces are also known supporters of demand for removal of Army from troubled areas of Kashmir? Alternatively, they are for severely curtailing their  powers to make them ineffective.

Do we get the link? Correct me if I am wrong.

From: JK Chaudhry <jkchaudhry@gmail.com>
To: 'Satish Oberoi' <oberoi50@yahoo.com>; indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Sent: Monday, 28 January 2013, 19:27
Subject: RE: [IAC#RG] Fwd: Justice Verma Report: Verma commission report draws armed forces' fire

Who is responsible for conduct  of
Kalmadi
A.Raja
Y S R Reddy
Amarinder Singh
And
COMMENDABLE  but HARSH steps of K P S Gill eradicating Terrorism in Punjab,with help of Beant Singh.
Steps to break strike of Railway men in seventies?
J.K.Chaudhry
 
Recollect move to introduce ,Prohibition and Khadi in  Army,and how Chief of  army staff dealt with it.
Discussion on torture, RENDITION,collateral damage by moralists ,
Apart from,
State of women in India at home,job,school and market……and Durbar of Dhrit rashtra
 
From: indiaresists-request@lists.riseup.net [mailto:indiaresists-request@lists.riseup.net] On Behalf Of Satish Oberoi
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 10:42 PM
To: indiaresists@lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Fwd: Justice Verma Report: Verma commission report draws armed forces' fire
 
It is clear that Justice Varma has written the report without really understanding working conditions on ground. We do not blame him for lack of understanding, but it is evident that he did not consider taking an  advice on working conditions in forward areas. It is even more  important in hostile areas where false charges are often made against soldiers .
 
Regards,
 
Satish Oberoi
 

From: Brig V A Subramanyam <vasubramanyam@gmail.com>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 26 January 2013, 21:07
Subject: [IAC#RG] Fwd: Justice Verma Report: Verma commission report draws armed forces' fire
 
The comment 
 
"If the CO can't ensure the conduct of his men towards women" 

I believe should be equally applicable to civil officials also. As the  Commanding  Officer in the  Defence Forces should  ensure such behaviourof the troops under his command, similarly, the civil officials should ensure behaviour oft he people that they are "ruling". In other words, it should be a level playing field for everyone. We have a number of MPs and MLAs etc who have sworn statements that they are facing such charges. In such cases, it would appear that the   concerned PM/CM is guilty of dereliction of his duties and as such should be held responsible and accountable.
 
Best Wishes.  
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: seema mustafa <seemamustafa@gmail.com>
Date: 25 January 2013 18:06
Subject: Re: [IAC#RG] Justice Verma Report: Verma commission report draws armed forces' fire
To: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>
Cc: "indiaresists@lists.riseup.net" <indiaresists@lists.riseup.net>

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 Mustafa

On 25-Jan-2013, at 9:40, swarup sarkar <swarup1973@gmail.com> wrote:

What can be our stand on this issue?

Verma commission report draws armed forces' fire

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.




 
--
Take time to laugh, for it is the music of the soul.
HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY
Have a Happy and Wonderful Day.
== Subramanyam   


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.