India’s aviation space is grappling with more than just a pilot deficit problem as industry experts highlight the need for the government and the aviation regulator to step in.
New infra projects involve not just repair work of runways and creation of additional taxi ways to enable better tempo of operations, but also storage of spare parts and munitions.
As the BJP heads for a likely third successive term in power, it's fascinating to debate how true it looks to the original proposition: a party with a difference.
Does the tenure of a Lt Gen really matters? They all maintain the status quo during their tenures anyway. The odd ones who try to change things , are gently told not to reinvent the wheel . Name one Army Cdr or Corps Cdr who has come out with any earth shaking idea to change his formation’s laid out tactics , what to talk of an Op Order, in last couple of decades.
Appointing Army Commander is a promotion. Though three star he has under him corps commanders and chief of staff of command headquarters, all three stars, under him. Army commanders are appointed strictly on seniority base. Is there any example to the contrary? Then what is the fuss of talent base.
By tweaking some more people will be eligible and seniormost of them will be army commander. Simple. Thats where apprehensions come.
In any case army does not follow its own policies. Two months residual service of army commanders were quoted as required for continuity. This is flouted more often than not. Present eastern army commander was shifted from south western command. Army commander southern command has been shifted from ARTRAC.
Tslking of policies. For valid reasons DGMO had to have commanded a Corps. Last two DGMOs commanded Corps after DGMO tenure. We have to believe there were no three stars after command of a Corps was worth to become DGMO!
THEY SAY SHOW ME THE MAN MS BRANCH WILL SHOW THE RULE.
Please show me the rule of appolnting DGMO.
It does not happen in advanced countries. Present NSA of USA was not cleared to become Brig Gen. McMaster had done wonderfully well in first gulf war. Was part of team of writing CI Doctrine by Petreus. Still he did not make it. Secy of Defence and Secy of Army had to order a special board under the chairmanship of Petreus to promote him.
Every body in the army knows how successive Chiefs have promoted Cols to Brig from his own regiments against all odds. A gentleman from Sikh Light Infantry was promoted as Brig flouting all norms and then was posted in 25 Inf Div sect in the show window with disasterous consequenses. I am sure he still would have got a 9 point report from his IO.
Army has to be very strict in following own policies. In todays world your slip will show, transparently!
Policies are made to benefit some so implementation after some years will be of no consequence to makers. Once a sr officer beautifully brought out ‘ Rules are for fools’ so we will keep having such policy changes as per requirement.policeies are made for certain reason and side effects can be sorted out later
Too many changes to an established policy is avoidable.To my mind stability in a senior assignment is more important for combat effectiveness.Reduced and frequent changes do not add any better efficiency!Such moves invariably get viewed as favouring someone.Armed Forces will always require younger age profile at top leadership levels.
The whole game of Indian Armed Forces ranks and promotions revolves around the Nehruvian imerative ensuring that they are less competent than and subservient to Neta-Babus rather than what is in the interests of national Security. No different from other “Social Engineering” Policies such as “reservations” or fabouring alien religions and ideologies at the expense of native religions and cultures.
This tweak is being viewed in defence circles as being tailor made for the ex DGMO who will be the first to benefit on 31/5/18. So rather than fading away into the sunset and cultivating his roses, the General Officer will now also have his hat in the ring for the next COAS.
You say “The current decision will no doubt throw up more talented officers to remain in contention for the C-in-C appointments”. Whats the point of having more Lt Gens “in contention” if the principle of seniority ie date of birth / intra IMA course seniority still continues to be the main plank for elevation to Army Cdr?. Merit and not your date of birth should be the criteria for elevation from Corps Cdr to Army Cdr.
An article written by an ex MS must make sense to every reader.
As understood, the number of vacancies have been reduced and age profile of retirement for Cols has been increased.
Tampering with policy appears to be warped and will create dissatisfaction since in a vacancy based system upward mobility is possible only if and when people superannuate or there is an increase in vacancies.
In the past too such antics have been tried much to the dissatisfaction of many.
A policy change must not be made to favour a few.
Can you explain
1.how increasing tenure for Heads of Arms and services is detrimental and same is not so for C -in -C?
2. What is the rationale for 18 months? If boards are held every year …Why not a tenure of 12 months?
3. While you have given historical facts…Can you carryout a detailed prognosis on the impact? Justify how it will through up more talent?
4. Any policy when tweeted or changed has an adverse impact on the immediate ..Which is unwarranted…Therefore …In HR issues don’t you think it is appreciate to implement wef a future dt when the current contemporaries who tweeted the policy do not stand to benifit or otherwise?
Does the tenure of a Lt Gen really matters? They all maintain the status quo during their tenures anyway. The odd ones who try to change things , are gently told not to reinvent the wheel . Name one Army Cdr or Corps Cdr who has come out with any earth shaking idea to change his formation’s laid out tactics , what to talk of an Op Order, in last couple of decades.
Appointing Army Commander is a promotion. Though three star he has under him corps commanders and chief of staff of command headquarters, all three stars, under him. Army commanders are appointed strictly on seniority base. Is there any example to the contrary? Then what is the fuss of talent base.
By tweaking some more people will be eligible and seniormost of them will be army commander. Simple. Thats where apprehensions come.
In any case army does not follow its own policies. Two months residual service of army commanders were quoted as required for continuity. This is flouted more often than not. Present eastern army commander was shifted from south western command. Army commander southern command has been shifted from ARTRAC.
Tslking of policies. For valid reasons DGMO had to have commanded a Corps. Last two DGMOs commanded Corps after DGMO tenure. We have to believe there were no three stars after command of a Corps was worth to become DGMO!
THEY SAY SHOW ME THE MAN MS BRANCH WILL SHOW THE RULE.
Please show me the rule of appolnting DGMO.
It does not happen in advanced countries. Present NSA of USA was not cleared to become Brig Gen. McMaster had done wonderfully well in first gulf war. Was part of team of writing CI Doctrine by Petreus. Still he did not make it. Secy of Defence and Secy of Army had to order a special board under the chairmanship of Petreus to promote him.
Every body in the army knows how successive Chiefs have promoted Cols to Brig from his own regiments against all odds. A gentleman from Sikh Light Infantry was promoted as Brig flouting all norms and then was posted in 25 Inf Div sect in the show window with disasterous consequenses. I am sure he still would have got a 9 point report from his IO.
Army has to be very strict in following own policies. In todays world your slip will show, transparently!
Policies are made to benefit some so implementation after some years will be of no consequence to makers. Once a sr officer beautifully brought out ‘ Rules are for fools’ so we will keep having such policy changes as per requirement.policeies are made for certain reason and side effects can be sorted out later
Too many changes to an established policy is avoidable.To my mind stability in a senior assignment is more important for combat effectiveness.Reduced and frequent changes do not add any better efficiency!Such moves invariably get viewed as favouring someone.Armed Forces will always require younger age profile at top leadership levels.
The whole game of Indian Armed Forces ranks and promotions revolves around the Nehruvian imerative ensuring that they are less competent than and subservient to Neta-Babus rather than what is in the interests of national Security. No different from other “Social Engineering” Policies such as “reservations” or fabouring alien religions and ideologies at the expense of native religions and cultures.
This tweak is being viewed in defence circles as being tailor made for the ex DGMO who will be the first to benefit on 31/5/18. So rather than fading away into the sunset and cultivating his roses, the General Officer will now also have his hat in the ring for the next COAS.
You say “The current decision will no doubt throw up more talented officers to remain in contention for the C-in-C appointments”. Whats the point of having more Lt Gens “in contention” if the principle of seniority ie date of birth / intra IMA course seniority still continues to be the main plank for elevation to Army Cdr?. Merit and not your date of birth should be the criteria for elevation from Corps Cdr to Army Cdr.
An article written by an ex MS must make sense to every reader.
As understood, the number of vacancies have been reduced and age profile of retirement for Cols has been increased.
Tampering with policy appears to be warped and will create dissatisfaction since in a vacancy based system upward mobility is possible only if and when people superannuate or there is an increase in vacancies.
In the past too such antics have been tried much to the dissatisfaction of many.
A policy change must not be made to favour a few.
Can you explain
1.how increasing tenure for Heads of Arms and services is detrimental and same is not so for C -in -C?
2. What is the rationale for 18 months? If boards are held every year …Why not a tenure of 12 months?
3. While you have given historical facts…Can you carryout a detailed prognosis on the impact? Justify how it will through up more talent?
4. Any policy when tweeted or changed has an adverse impact on the immediate ..Which is unwarranted…Therefore …In HR issues don’t you think it is appreciate to implement wef a future dt when the current contemporaries who tweeted the policy do not stand to benifit or otherwise?