OROP. :THE FUTURE OF "O.R.O.P." (पापी पेट के लिए ही सब करना पड़ता है सरजी )

            THE FUTURE OF "O.R.O.P."

पापी पेट के लिए ही सब करना पड़ता है सरजी 
                                                                            BY
                   "Sivasankar Vidyasagar

A good technical analysis of the situation. ...a personal conclusion. ..needs validation from those who know the inside truth. ..the andar ki baat. ..known to very very few. ...who are very closely associated. ..with those in power

"Sivasankar Vidyasagar" csvidyasagar

here are my own analysis of political situation in our country.

The India Today in Sep 1981 wrote a main article that Ms Indira Gandhi then hon'ble PM overruled objections of Mr Pranab Mukerjee (Yes you guessed it correctly, the only intelligent guy who knew Congress will be  wiped out in 2014 elections and reported to have arm twisted Ms Sonia Gandhi to nominate him to post of President so that for five years he is not dragged to courts by CBI etc)..............Was then Min of State for Finance and his battalion of Babus in Min of Fin not to grant Entilted Rations in 1983.

It is rumoured ( published in The India Today of 1982 ) that Gen KV Krishna Rao sought and got an appointment with Ms Indira Gandhi and submitted her, his resignation letter and reported to have told her  "I have lost moral courage to command Army". 

She called Mr Pranab and ordered him  "I want implementation letter tomorrow at 1000 hrs on my table.!!!" Mr Pranab Mukherjee rattled at this development cajoled COAS to accept ration money which the latter flatly refused. 

 

Gen KV Krishna Rao never bargained for post retirement benefits but was appointed Governor of Nagaland and then J & K for his Military Qualities and forthrightness. I tend to believe this story of The India Today.

This incident if it is true ( I do not have reasons not disbelieve) makes me to draw following conclusions :-

(a) Mr Narendra Modi even today is not as strong as Ms Indira Gandhi in 1982. He has to fight his battles within BJP. So he can not throw out all those who served Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee in 1999 - 2004 in one go. I am sure you know Mr Modi is no where in the same league as Mr Arun Jaitley (Law Minister at that time), Ms Sushma Swaraj (Cabinet Minister) Politically and even in BJP. He was a rank outsider. So how does he deal with such senior lot ?

He has to pretend to listen to Mr Arun Jaitley who is bent on not granting OROP. He is not comfortable with Mr Jaitley and wants him to make some goof up and then drop him from his council of ministers.

(b) Mr Arun Jaitley, Ms Sushma Swaraj are waiting to strike at Mr Modi at opportune time. So Modi cannot afford to annoy them anymore. So he needs to gain some time to gain an upper hand over them. For this he needs time till he gains adequate courage to tell them to grant OROP.

So my guess is OROP will not be granted for next two to three years.

The first step is to anoint Mr Amit Shah as BJP President so that he can take full control over Govt and Party. I am sure such actions need approval of old guard of BJP presently in his cabinet and so Mr Modi has to oblige them. It makes one thing clear :

If Mr Modi has to wage a battle with Mr LK Advani and others, he needs support of Mr Jaitley and Sushma Swaraj for some time till he becomes all powerful as he was in Gujarat in 2013. Pl see Mr Narendra Modi in 2002 when he was nominated to post of CM and the same Mr Modi in Sep 2013 as CM of Gujarat. His was last word in Gujarat and it took him good about 5 to 6 years to reach that autocratic position.

(c) What benefit will Mr Modi get by granting OROP now though he has promised OROP several times? Wada todne ke liye diya jataya hai Sir. Don't you know famous words of Mr Arun Jaitley  

" We make lots of promises before elections but all can not be fulfilled"..!!

 

(d) Mr Arun Jaitley also can not take his sword out and jab at Mr Modi as Jaitley is not capable of winning even a corporator seat in MCH and forget about winning Lok Sabha election. So it is blow hot and blow cold.

 He can bark at Mr Modi but can not bite.

(e) What is the reaction of PMFs and CAPFs if OROP is granted is the question for which Mr Modi has no answer. IB which is again a IPS dominated organisation will give wrong intelligence reports that there will be mutiny in PMFs and CAPFs if OROP is granted only to faujis. So either grant OROP to all or do not grant OROP to faujis at all is their likely recommendation to Mr Modi.

No PM can overlook advice of Director IB. You may call OROP as Military Pension but these police organisations who got more allowances than faujis would not keep quiet. How to quieten them? Their strength is also as much as faujis. So will they not lose their votes ?

 

(f) All the old guard in BJP want Mr Modi to fail miserably so that they can take revenge for being sidelined. So Mr Modi has to walk a tight rope.

 

(g) There are Congis (who just defected to BJP in  

end of 2013 and two to three of them are

ministers with blessings of Ms Sonia Gandhi

to sabotage BJP from within) are planted in BJP

by Congress High Command. They will exploit all

possible rumblings in BJP like Shakuni of Maha

Bharat did to Kauravas and bring downfall of Mr

Modi's Govt. They pretend to be servile to Mr

Modi and will stab him in the back and return to  

Congress after their triumphant victory

(h) Old guard of BJP want their party to lose in

Bihar and lose miserably like in Delhi. Then you

see approval ratings of Mr Modi within BJP will

come down and slowly the old guard led by Mr LK

Advani ably supported by Mr Arun Shourie,

Murali Manohar Joshi, Maj Gen BC

Khanduri, Arun Jaitely, Susham Swaraj will bray

for blood of Mr Modi for bringing BJP to such

a pass.

(k) If BJP does not get elbow room in West Bengal then Mr Modi can pack up his bags and go back to Gandhi Nagar.

Let us analyse the Present COAS. He is not a Gen KV Krishna Rao even by a light year. He is implicated in dacoity case in Jorhat, Assam when he was GOC 3 Corps and is one of the accused in the hon'ble High court of Guwahati for the crime committed by his Int & Svl gp of 3 Corps which was directlyunder him and who carried out dacoity in Jorhat.

Can he afford to annoy even Desk

Officer of Min of Def ?

 IB would be definitely maintaining a file on him. So he is told to go to Jhajjar and make a grand announcement just before Haryana elections that OROP letter will be issued before 30 Mar 2015. So he is acting as messenger of BJP to get victories in state elections for BJP.

Papi pet ke liye he sab karna padta

hai sirjee.

 

COAS is ordered to cajole ESM organisations not to stage any protest rallies by arranging meetings with RM, FM and even PM. 

So he is just a HIS MASTER'S VOICE.

Can you ever dream that he can thump his 56 inch chest and say

 

" Give OROP or I am going to resign".

Just imagine what would you do if you are in place of Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag.He is waiting for his tenure to finish and want to enjoy enhanced OROP thanks to 7th CPC. He in all likelyhood will beg to be appointed as Governor of tiny Puducheery so that he is not called by High Court of Guwahati post his retirement.

I am told IESM has repeatedly asked for an audience with PM but PMO does not want to grant it in the near future.

Pl draw your own conclusions. I could be totally naive and wrong in my conclusions.

I wish I am wrong.

 

NUCLEAR WARFARE : How The Next US Nuclear Accident Could Happen

Source :http://thebulletin.org/how-next-us-nuclear-accident-could-happen8441

How The Next US Nuclear Accident Could Happen

                                    By

                        Hugh Gusterson



VIDEO :-
How To Detect A Secret Nuclear Test  

  (  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daZ7IQFqPyA  )

 

The science of detecting nuclear explosions

Henry Reich

In this animation, Henry Reich at MinutePhysics, a YouTube-based platform for explanatory videos, examines the efforts of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization to monitor the world for nuclear explosions. With simple drawings, Reich explains the science behind the CTBTO’s International Monitoring System, which is capable of detecting nuclear explosions anywhere on Earth, whether above ground, under water, or under ground. Reich also explains how the failure of eight countries to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty hampers the work of the CTBTO.

 

 

gusterson.jpeg

Hugh Gusterson

Hugh Gusterson is a professor of anthropology and international affairs at George Washington University. His expertise is in nuclear culture, international security, and the anthropology of science. He has written two books on the culture of nuclear weapons scientists and antinuclear activists: Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (University of California Press, 1996) and People of the Bomb: Portraits of America's Nuclear Complex (University of Minnesota Press, 2004). Gusterson also co-edited Why America's Top Pundits Are Wrong (University of California Press, 2005) and its sequel, The Insecure American (University of California Press, 2009). He is currently writing a book on the polygraph. Previously, he taught at MIT's program on Science, Technology, and Society, and at George Mason's Cultural Studies program

Subscribe

You learn a lot about a society from the way its accidents happen.

Safety analysts have found that Korean plane crashes were facilitated by a culture in which junior pilots do not challenge senior pilots, even when keeping quiet may result in their own deaths. Respect for elders, highly valued in Korean culture, can be a danger.


Meanwhile Sonja Schmid, in an excellent book on the 1986 Chernobyl disaster published earlier this year, has connected that fateful nuclear accident to a wider Soviet culture that insisted its own reactors not mimic American ones, and in which designers of nuclear power plants were siloed in a separate organization from the operators, whom they treated as a lesser breed with little need to understand in detail how their plants worked.


And what of the United States?

( Please refer to  Y-12 National SecurityComplex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-12_National_Security_Complex )


We can learn a lot about the potential for safety failures at US nuclear plants from the July 29, 2012, incident in which three religious activists broke into the supposedly impregnable Y-12 facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the Fort Knox of uranium. Once there, they spilled blood and spray painted “work for peace not war” on the walls of a building housing enough uranium to build thousands of nuclear weapons. They began hammering on the building with a sledgehammer, and waited half an hour to be arrested. If an 82-year-old nun with a heart condition and two confederates old enough to be AARP members could do this, imagine what a team of determined terrorists could do.


We have a detailed understanding of this incident thanks to energetic reporting by Frank Munger, Dan Zak, and, finally, a recent tour de force account in the New Yorker by Eric Schlosser, who has established himself as the premier reporter on nuclear accidents waiting to happen. Their cumulative reporting suggests that the Achilles’ heel of US nuclear safety culture lies in a fondness for automated security technologies, the delegation of government functions to private contractors, and a predilection for hollow facsimiles of effective audit procedures.


Where some other countries often rely more on guards with guns, the United States likes to protect its nuclear facilities with a high-tech web of cameras and sensors. Under the Nunn-Lugar program, Washington has insisted that Russia adopt a similar approach to security at its own nuclear sites—claiming that an American cultural preference is objectively superior. The Y-12 incident shows the problem with the American approach of automating security. At the Y-12 facility, in addition to the three fences the protestors had to cut through with wire-cutters, there were cameras and motion detectors. But we too easily forget that technology has to be maintained and watched to be effective. According to Munger, 20 percent of the Y-12 cameras were not working on the night the activists broke in. Cameras and motion detectors that had been broken for months had gone unrepaired. A security guard was chatting rather than watching the feed from a camera that did work. And guards ignored the motion detectors, which were so often set off by local wildlife that they assumed all alarms were false positives. (Hospital studies report, in the same vein, that nurses often ignore automated warnings of sudden dips in vital signs because so many are false positives).


Instead of having government forces guard the site, the Department of Energy had hired two contractors: Wackenhut and Babcock and Wilcox. Wackenhut is now owned by the British company G4S, which also botched security for the 2012 London Olympics, forcing the British government to send 3,500 troops to provide security that the company had promised but proved unable to deliver. Private companies are, of course, driven primarily by the need to make a profit, but there are surely some operations for which profit should not be the primary consideration.


Babcock and Wilcox was supposed to maintain the security equipment at the Y-12 site, while Wackenhut provided the guards. Poor communication between the two companies was one reason sensors and cameras were not repaired. Furthermore, Babcock and Wilcox had changed the design of the plant’s Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility, making it a more vulnerable aboveground building, in order to cut costs. And Wackenhut was planning to lay off 70 guards at Y-12, also to cut costs.


Incidentally, we hear similar stories coming out of Los Alamos, where the private contractor responsible for packaging nuclear waste for the Waste Isolation Pilot Project put pressure on an undertrained workforce to pack as many barrels of nuclear waste as possible everyday, if necessary by cutting safety corners to maximize profit.


These are the hazards of outsourcing essential state security functions to private contractors: They prioritize profit and, like the Soviet bureaucratic organizations Sonja Schmid blames for Chernobyl, they often find it hard to work together.


The efficacy of Y-12 security procedures, and the diligence of the contractors superintending them, was supposed to be guaranteed by government audit procedures. But according to Schlosser,

“… security officers at Y-12 had been cheating on performance tests for years. Before responding to mock attacks, Wackenhut officers were told in advance which building at Y-12 would be targeted, which wall of the building would be attacked, and whether their adversaries would use diversionary tactics … Before the tests, members of the security force allegedly disabled their Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System gear—removing the batteries, inserting the batteries backward, covering the laser sensors with tape or Vaseline —so that during a simulated gunfight they could not be ‘shot.’ Failing a performance test might reduce Wackenhut’s fee from the government.”

 

 

The United States loves to use statistical metrics and audit procedures to decide which teachers and principals at public schools should be fired or retained, which professors should be given the biggest raises, who qualifies for a mortgage and so on. But audit procedures can be gamed. We have recently learned that school teachers changed their pupils’ answers on standardized tests, that the mortgage industry enabled the falsification of applications, and that middle managers at the Veterans Administration faked information on veterans’ waiting time for treatment in order to have good-looking audits. Much beloved by graduates of our MBA programs, audits are too often Potemkin reviews cooked up to offer a false sense of security.


This time the nuclear facility was broken into by highly principled peace activists intent on symbolically spilling their own blood to make a point. Next time the intruders may be more malevolent, intending to spill others’ blood. If there is a next time, be prepared for an inquiry that shows a misplaced faith in automated security technology, private contractors cutting corners to make a buck, and government managers astonished that their reviews didn’t catch the problem.























 

WAR CRIMES : You have a message about NK Kalia’s petition‏

WAR  CRIMES- You Have a MessageAbout NK Kalia’s  Petition‏

.@PMOIndia @SushmaSwaraj Take Pakistan to International Court of Justice for torturing and murdering Kargil war hero Capt. Saurabh Kalia Petition by NK Kalia · 128,754 supporters

Take the next step. Share the petition with people you know to increase its chances of winning. Share Tweet Or, copy this note and email it to your friends Hello, I just signed the petition, ".@PMOIndia @SushmaSwaraj Take Pakistan to International Court of Justice for torturing and murdering Kargil war hero Capt. Saurabh Kalia." I think this is important. Will you sign it too? Here's the link:   http://www.change.org/p/pmoindia-sushmaswaraj-take-pakistan-to-international-court-of-justice-for-torturing-and-murdering-kargil-war-hero-capt-saurabh-kalia   Thanks

OROP :Defence Matters: ‘One Rank One Pension’ Quandry

Source:

Defence Matters: ‘One Rank One Pension’ Quandry

                               By

           Lt Gen Harwant Singh (retd)

 Jun 29, 2015


The resolution of ‘one rank one pension’ (OROP) has been hanging fire for close to three decades. The issue arose because of the gross injustice done to the defence services in a range of areas concerning their pay and pension as compared to civil services. Right from the time the demand for OROP was projected, every conceivable ploy has been deployed by successive governments to stall the case.



Now, when this issue is expected to be finally resolved, some hearts in the government have started bleeding for the soldier and have come up with the observation that in this OROP, soldiers stand to gain very little as compared to officers. Where were these ‘bleeding hearts’ all these decades when a soldier was persistently and grossly discriminated against?


Till about the fifties, a defence services retiree drew 70% of his last pay drawn as pension, whereas a civil employee’s pension was 30% of his last pay drawn.

Higher pension for defence personnel was due to their rather early retirement and extremely limited promotion avenues, leaving aside the travails of military service. The government reduced the pension of defence services retirees from 70% to 50% and jacked up that of civilian employees from 30%to 50%. This was done without any justification as there was no change in the employment parameters of the two set of employees.


To earn full pension, that is, 50% of the last pay drawn, an employee has to serve for 33 years. But in the case of army, over 85% are compulsorily retired before that length of service. Later, dispensation of 10 years was given which was subsequently increased to 12 years. Even with this dispensation, 80% of military personnel do not get 50% of the last pay as pension. In their case pension works out to approximately 37% of the last pay drawn. It has been a simple case where you compulsorily retire a soldier after 17 years’ service and then tell him that he cannot get full pension because he did not serve up to 33 years.


LATEST MOVE

The latest move has been to instigate some directors general of central police organisations to contend before the Union home minister that the grant of OROP to defence personnel would lower the morale of their police personnel. One has to be a complete moron to weigh in the same scale the one who retires at 60 with another who is compulsorily retired at age 34-37 (even ignoring all the travails of military service) and then demand principle of parity in pensions, based on OROP.


Yet another ploy to delay and perhaps deny OROP is a crude attempt to create some rift between officers and soldiers, when the government alleges that it is the officers who stand to gain more than soldiers. This is being done by highlighting the gap in the increase in pension in the case of officers and that of soldiers. False and mischievous as it is, it has all the portents of creating serious problems in officer-man relationship in the military. Such false projections will greatly harm military as a cohesive and potent force.


Equally in this mischief the babu is deliberately concealing some pertinent facts. What is not being adequately explained is that on July 1, 2008, and again on September 24, 2012, as a sort of modified OROP, pension of only other ranks was increased, while officers (other than Lt Gens) were left out. However, in their case, the increase in their pension should have been from 2006, rather than from 2008. Unfortunately, successive governments have been given to cheating and cutting corners when it comes to defence services personnel’s entitlements.

So the aim to now rig up this issue of lesser increase for soldiers compared to officers is to put one more spanner in the works. These ‘bleeding hearts’ who have suddenly come alive should rather pitch in for waiving 33 years’ conditionality to earn 50% of the last pay drawn as pension, in the case of soldiers. This is what the top brass of the defence services must pitch in for.

They owe this to their soldiers.



SUGGESTION BY FM

Now, notwithstanding the clarity brought about by the Koshyari Committee of Parliament, the finance minister has come up with yet another suggestion of a base pension for each rank and an additional amount for each year of service, in lieu of OROP. He seems to propose that all this be put before the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) to work out the details. He is merely further muddying the waters.


The Koshyari Committee had opined that payments be made from April 1, 2014, till the award of the 7th CPC was announced. Thereafter, the salaries of the serving personnel may be fixed by the 7th CPC and consequently pensions of defence personnel will follow as per rules. However, in all fairness, the 7th CPC needs to restore the differential of pension as existing prior to the 3rd CPC, which affects the largest number of exservicemen. The increase in civilian pensions and decrease in pensions of defence personnel was patently unjustified and against all norms of justice.

Tags
• One Rank One Pension
• OROP
• INdian Army
• Soldiers
• equal pay

 

O R O P :Delay in OROP Implementation Could Affect Morale of Soldiers

Source:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/delay-in-orop-implementation-could-affect-morale-of-soldiers/article1-1364959.aspx

Delay in OROP Implementation Could Affect Morale of Soldiers

                                        By

                          Gurmeet Kanwal

 Jul 01, 2015

The fast for justice being held by India’s ex-servicemen at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi and in over 50 other cities has now entered its third week. The protesting veterans are demanding the rollout of the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme, which has not been honoured by successive governments.

The quest of the veterans for OROP, a term coined by a Parliamentary committee headed by KP Singh Deo in 1983, goes back several decades.

 In 1973, while implementing the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission, the government reduced the pensions of armed forces personnel from 73% of the last pay drawn to 50%.


The concept of ‘military pension’, designed to provide monetary compensation for truncated service due to early retirement, was diluted. Soldiers, sailors and airmen opt to retire between 35 and 37 years of age when most of their family responsibilities are still ahead of them, while most of the officers retire at the age of 54.



Despite their discipline, dedication and talent, they find it difficult to get jobs.


Personnel in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) like the BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, SSB and the state police retire between the ages of 57 and 60 years.

The Fifth Pay Commission had recommended that armed forces personnel be laterally transferred to the CAPFs after five to seven years of service.


This would enable the armed forces to maintain a young profile and reduce the pension bill of the government.

However, the government of the day lacks the political will to push through this win-win measure.



Officers of the CAPFs and all other civilian officers (IAS, IFS, IPS, IRS) retire at the age of 60 years, while only 0.84% of armed forces officers make it to the rank of major general, who retire at 58. A still smaller number are lieutenant general and retire at 60.

Incidentally, every IAS officer is routinely promoted to the position of joint secretary, considered equal to a major general. 


The national consensus favours the implementation of OROP for the armed forces. The Congress-led UPA government gave a commitment to implement OROP and even allotted a sum of Rs 500 crore in the interim budget for FY 2014-15. Union finance minister Arun Jaitley doubled it to Rs1,000 crore when he presented the budget in July 2014.


Prime Minister Narendra Modi unequivocally promised to implement OROP while addressing the veterans at an election rally at Rewari in September 2013.

 However, in a surprise to 25 lakh veterans and three lakh widows, the prime minister recently said that it was a “complex” issue and that there were several definitions of OROP.


                   [ ( MARK MY WORDS 

           " MODI  IS  A  NAVTANKI " ) ]

                                                                 - Vasundhra


Veterans, however, agree to an unambiguous definition of OROP. In February 2014, the following definition of OROP was approved in a meeting chaired by the defence minister: “OROP implies that uniform pension be paid to the armed forces personnel retiring in the same rank with the same length of service, irrespective of their date of retirement and any future enhancement in the rates of pension be automatically passed on to the past pensioners.”


The recommendations made by the defence minister, in consultation with the chiefs of the armed forces and the veterans, are reportedly being opposed by the finance ministry on the grounds that the annual cost of Rs8,400 crore is unaffordable and that a similar demand may spring from the CAPFs. It appears that the issue might be referred to the Seventh Pay Commission for a ‘holistic’ overview.

Often, the personnel in CAPFs serve much longer than the ones in the armed forces, which means that they earn more increments and therefore must not be equated for pension. The additional expenditure on OROP is less than 10% of the pension bill of Rs88,521 crore for 2015-16, which is much less than other subsidies.
 
           

Hence, the recommendation of referring the issue to the Seventh Pay Commission is seen as an insidious plot to scuttle the OROP scheme.


Civil-military relations in India have a troubled past and any attempt to indefinitely delay a long-pending welfare measure will only aggravate the situation.



As it is, the serving and retired members of the armed forces feel wronged at having been deprived of their dues in several cases in the past, including the ‘rank pay’ case, 36 pending anomalies in the implementation of the awards of the Fifth and the Sixth Pay Commissions, and the withholding of non-functional upgradation (NFU) of pay for officers denied promotion for lack of vacancies.

Also, the ministry of defence has repeatedly appealed against the court judgements that favour the veterans and soldiers’ widows — often contesting that the award of paltry sums, even as the cost of litigation exceeds the amount at stake.


The government must take note of the impact of the prolonged delay in the implementation of OROP on morale — not only of the veterans, but also of the serving soldiers; it may also affect many second or third generation soldiers who are witness to the sad plight of those before them.

The day a soldier takes his oath, he undertakes to selflessly serve his nation and even make the supreme sacrifice when necessary. He swears allegiance to Naam, Namak, Nishan and has never faltered.



In turn, the nation’s covenant is that no effort will be spared to look after his welfare and that of his family. Addressing the United States servicemen some years ago, US President Barack Obama said,


“…when you take off the uniform, we will serve you as well as you’ve served us — because no one who fights for this country should have to fight for a job, or a roof over their heads, or the care that they need when they come home.”



Indian veterans also need to be given a similar assurance, but one that is credible. 
  
Gurmeet Kanwal is an army veteran and a Delhi-based strategic analyst

(The views expressed are personal)  

                     BUT  ARE  BITTER  TRUTH 

                                                            -Vasundhra

Tags
• OROP
• Narendra Modi
• NDA
• UPA
• BSF