OROP :: Drafting the OROP Letter.

🎩🔫ARTICLE 9

Series of articles by

Lt Gen BPS Mander (Retd)

OROP :: Drafting the OROP Letter.

SOURCE : FACE BOOK 

🎩🔫ARTICLE 9

Series of articles by

Lt Gen BPS Mander (Retd)

ARTICLE 9 – Drafting the OROP Letter.

Lt Gen BPS Mander (Retd)

🎩🎩We have read some serious stuff on OROP and now it is beginning to
take its toll. So to take your mind off, this is just a little humour,
which you all understand is an international language. This article is
just in jest. Smile if you can while reading it. But if you are not
with the humour, dismiss it – but without cynicism.

🎩🎩Major General Lathbir Singh, a Veteran, and Defence 

Secretary Sohan Kumar are detailed to draft the 

government letter for sanction of

OROP, in the shadowy office of the latter


.🔫Lathbir, looking forward to the issue, ‘should we begin?’

🎩The Secretary who was pre prepared, ‘No General, there is no need. We always take a head start on such issues. We have already drafted it to save you the effort. Please read it.’

🔫Lathbir at a loss to understand, ‘how can you draft it without a discussion; against what was decided at the last meeting. How do you know what is our position on the issue

🎩'Very simple, elementary stuff General; we have given a draft to the Minister to read, and all points have already been included in it.

🔫'But we have not yet given all our points. These were to be discussed today and then included’

🎩'Don’t worry General, the minister has been briefed and we are giving you much more than you had asked for. You don’t have to worry as long as we are sitting here to back you.

🔫Lathbir, visibly agitated but not flustered, ‘how have you given us more?

🎩'See you asked for one rank one pension. We have recommended one rank five pensions. Imagine one rank five pensions.’ And after a pause allowing for the gravity to sink in, ‘the minister had to step in,
otherwise we were wanting to sanction one rank ten pensions.’ Ha ha, he starts to laugh, but is constrained to suppress it, because of the
look on Lathbir’s face.

🔫Lathbir, now bewildered, ‘but we did not ask for any such thing.’

🎩'You may not ask; as government servants it is our duty to look after the defence forces.’

🔫Lathbir, visibly angry, ‘ok tell me what all else have you given us which we did not ask for?’

🎩'Well in fact it is a lot.’

🔫'Let us hear it.’

🎩'Firstly since the proceedings of the Koshyari Committee were not traceable, we have given you all in keeping with the recommendations of the Hoshyari Committee.’

🔫'And who is the ‘hoshyar’ babu who drafted the recommendations?’

🎩'Look General, let us not get personal. Stick to the larger issues.These are national level issues and we will not reach anywhere if we keep passing side remarks.’

🔫'OK so what is the delay?’

🎩'There are some issues we need to resolve before we issue out the final letter.’

🔫'And what are these?’

🎩'First we cannot include those who have taken Pre Mature Retirement, since they have left voluntarily.’

🔫'Why? This is one rank one pension. Whoever is getting pension is entitled to it. They have done minimum pensionable service and are helping to keep the profile of the Army, young. And ours is not a golden handshake like yours. That is meant for those who hold the gold. We hold steel in our hands.’

🎩The Secretary now getting used to the barbs, ‘ok ok, the next issue is that we cannot revise this every year. The data base does not support it.’

🔫Lathbir was now at the end of his tether, ‘tell me aren’t we getting pension now? We are? So which ever agency/ agencies are giving pension; can they not be asked to give out the revised ones. In this era of computers, I am sure you can do it. Isn’t yours being revised every year?’

There was no reply. By now Lathbir had reached his limit of tolerance, and he said,

‘I need to ask a few questions; ‘first why do you keep

changing the goal post in the same game? Even a 

moron can see through it.’ There was stunned silence 

but no answer. Lathbir continued, ‘you want us to play 

football with hockey goalposts?’ And before the 

Secretary could reply he continued, ‘while you play 

hockey with the football goalposts.’ Before they could 

recover, Lathbir had fired the second question, ‘the 

bureaucracy has been non-functional since 

independence; so how come you thought of a Non 

Functional Upgrade, a NFU, so late for yourselves, while 

leaving the others out?’

🎩This was the time that they realised that he was getting aggressive and decided the other approach. ‘General, this is something to be kept under wraps, we have discussed with all concerned, and if I may say, a
gubernatorial post awaits you.’

🔫'You mean a guber- notorious post?’

🎩'Again the snide remarks. I am making you an elitist offer and you are dismissing it summarily.’

🔫'This is defeatist offer. Are you advocating treachery?’

🎩'General, you must see the good side. There is nothing in agitations.These are routine and will peter out after some time.’

🔫'No this one won’t peter out, since there are no Peters and Pauls leading this movement. These are hard boiled, battle hardened veterans who will see it to its logical end.’

🎩'Again you get emotional General.’

🔫'Why don’t you come to Jantar Mantar to see the mood 

for yourself? Of course when you come there, ask the 

same Delhi police who attacked the veterans, to give 

you security. Let’s see if they can protect you? A

few politicians tried coming to Jantar Mantar, but had to 

do a Choo Mantar.’

🎩'You see this is what is wrong with you Faujis. You become offensive at the drop of a hat.’

🔫'Yes because we don’t drop hats easily. Only a mad hat in the forces does that. And when he does, it is not one hat; the minimum is a hat trick. Not understood? Come to Jantar Mantar, we will explain.’

🎩🎩🔫With that was pended the draft of the 

                              OROP, 

which will now be after the Bihar elections.

OROP : POSTAL ADDRESS DIRECTORATE OF VETERANS , EXTENSION JANTAR MANTAR

POSTAL ADDRESS - OROP  

  DIRECTORATE  OF VETERANS ,  EXTENSION  JANTAR MANTAR 

जंतर मन्त्र पर फौजी झुगी झोंपड़ी बनेगी मोदी जी। फैसला करदो वरना ये झुगी नहीं उखाड़ सकोगे ।

                        OFCOURSE
    IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED EVEN                                   'LEECHES LANDING"
                  AT THE SAME PLACE 
                                     IN
        THE JUNGLES OF EASTERN INDIA

Modi ji kahin aisa na ho jaye ki hum

 Veterans ko Jantar mantar mein rehne 

mein maza aane lage. Isse pehle ki aadat 

pad jaye faisla kar dijiye.

The eminent lawyer, who had recently taken on the 

Prime Minister on the black money issue, described the 

handling of the OROP issue as “a case of cruel breach 

of faith, insulting and hurtful to those who lay down 

their life for the security and survival of India as a 

Vibrant free Nation”.

One Rank One Pension – 

“A Case of Cruel Breach of Faith” – Jethmalani

Prakash Malankar October 11, 2015 Defence Services

One Rank One Pension – “A Case of Cruel Breach of 

Faith” – In a severe attack on the PM earlier this month, 

Jethmalani, a former Law Minister in the Atal Bihari 

Vajpayee government, had accused him of “cheating” 

the people.

In fresh remarks targeting Prime Minister Narendra 

Modi, expelled BJP leader Ram Jethmalani on 

Saturday accused him of “breach of faith” in addressing 

the ‘One Rank, One Pension’ demand of ex-

servicemen.The eminent lawyer, who had recently taken 

on the Prime Minister on the black money issue, 

described the handling of the OROP issue as “a case of 

cruel breach of faith, insulting and hurtful to those who 

lay down their life for the security and survival of India 

as a Vibrant free Nation”.

Referring to the Lok Sabha poll campaign which saw the 

BJP win power at the Centre last year, he said on his 

blog, “When you decided to wage an almost impossible 

battle for becoming India’s Prime Minister, you 

did realise the importance of votes of our jawans and 

their pending demands. “Did you at any time either in 

your election manifesto or oral speeches tell the jawans 

that you will not accept their demands in full. In fact, 

you promised full satisfaction. Your manifesto amongst 

ten items under the heading External Security

mentioned ‘implement One Rank One Pension’ without 

any qualification.”

The lawyer also sought to remind the prime minister of 

Anna Hazare’s complaint over the “unfair dealings with 

jawans” on OROP and asked why their demand was not 

being met even when the previous UPA government had 

decided to accept and implement it in full.

In a severe attack on the PM earlier this month, 

Jethmalani, a former Law Minister in the Atal Bihari 

Vajpayee government, had accused him of “cheating” 

the people. The government had last month announced 

the OROP scheme. However, some of the veterans have 

objected to the scheme, expressing unhappiness with, 

among other things, the government taking the calendar 

year 2013 instead of financial year 2013-14 for fixing the 

base.

Source: India Today

GEO- POLITICS : WHY INDIA WON’T GET PERMANENT MEMBERSHIP AT THE UNITED NATIONS

SOURCE  :http://moderndiplomacy.eu/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1025:why-india-won-t-get-permanent-membership-at-the-united-nations&Itemid=645


Instead of angling for a permanent seat, Modi should concentrate on his vision of making India a $20 trillion economy. That matters more than rubbing shoulders with spent powers like the UK and France in a comatose UN.

   EVEN THAN "INDIA" WILL NOT GET A PERMANENT SEAT UNTIL & UNLESS  INDIA BUILDS UP ITS ARMED FORCES TO A LEVEL OF A FORCE TO BE RECKONED -Vasundhra


*********************************************************************************

WHY INDIA WON’T GET PERMANENT MEMBERSHIP AT THE UNITED NATIONS

• OCTOBER 12, 2015
 
• WRITTEN BY RAKESH KRISHNAN SIMHA
 
• PUBLISHED IN ASIA

In 1998 when Germany attempted to push the United Nations General Assembly for a vote on new permanent members, Italy’s ambassador Francesco Fulci managed to scuttle the move, saying his country had an equal right to such a position because “after all Italy too had lost World War II”.

Fulci’s sarcasm is a pointer to the global rivalries that are checkmating attempts at expanding the UN Security Council’s permanent membership from the current five or P5 – China, France, Russia, the UK and US.

Reports in the Indian media that Russia betrayed India are the result of the imagination of misinformed journalists who also lack a basic grasp of geopolitics. Russia – like most large nations – has few friends in its neighbourhood. If Germany and Japan – both American allies – become permanent members at the Security Council, they are likely to create more headaches for Moscow.

Russia is only protecting its interests as any self-respecting country is entitled to. Those expecting India to be a shoo-in to the UN’s inner sanctum are only delusional.

 If anyone has betrayed India, it is its own 

elites, which we will come to in a moment.

On its own, India had a remote chance at permanent membership, but it was lost when it formed the Group of Four or G4 with Japan, Germany and Brazil. three countries face much stronger opposition aroThese und the world than India.

China, for instance, is paranoid about any proposal that allows permanent membership for Japan. Even if it settles its old disputes with India, Beijing cannot overcome the fear of its ancient enemy.

Japan also faces Russian opposition. Again, France, Russia and the US don’t share Germany’s enthusiasm for inclusion. The US continues to be spooked by Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour.

And the US, UK and France are certainly not keen to see European strength diluted by more Asian, African and South American members.

It gets more complicated at the regional level. In a paper titled ‘The Reform of the Security Council of the United Nations: Why Still an Open Question’ for the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies, ambassador Fulci writes

: “In Asia, countries like Pakistan, Indonesia and South Korea are adamantly opposed to a virtual hegemony of India and Japan. In Latin America, Mexico, Argentina and Colombia harbour similar feelings toward Brazil. In Europe, and more broadly in the western group, countries such as Italy, Spain, Canada and Turkey strongly reject the idea of being ‘downgraded’ and marginalised not only vis-à-vis France and the UK, as already happens, but also with respect to Germany.”

Beggars Can’t Be Choosers

It’s demeaning that economic powerhouses like Germany, Japan and India need to beg for permanent membership. 

Such shameful supplication is taking place even as these countries are playing prominent roles in bodies such as the G-20, APEC and BRICS, which are more effective at shaping the world’s future.

Any self-respecting Indian would cringe at news that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi sought support for India’s permanent membership from such geopolitical heavyweights as Ireland and the UAE. Apart from the fact that India has repeatedly fallen short of the required numbers at the UN, don’t Indian diplomats realise both Ireland and the UAE are close allies of the US? Will Modi beseech Somalia next?

Ramesh Thakur, former UN Assistant Secretary-General, writes about India’s amateurish foreign policy in The Wire: 

“It happens with distressing frequency: the Indian political and foreign service elite loves to get a sound-bite on the matter from every single visiting dignitary, no matter how irrelevant – for this purpose – his or her country may be. And the mainstream media dutifully reports it as an indicator of India’s global standing. In reality, it just confirms to all serious observers of global affairs that at heart India retains a supplicant mentality, except that the begging bowl has changed from requests for financial aid to affirmations of status.”

According to Thakur, a distinctive pathology of Indian foreign policy is that “it is typically aspirational without being programmatic”.

Thakur offers a solution to this geopolitical Gordian Knot:

 “To begin with, the G4 should refuse to take part in the elections to the non-permanent seats. By participating in the process and taking two-year turns as elected members, they effectively legitimise the Security Council as currently structured. Conversely, the likes of all four of them not serving on the Council for a decade or more would thoroughly delegitimise it.”

The G-4 should then refuse to contribute troops, civilian personnel or funds for UN operations. “They should let others provide the necessary personnel and, since peacekeeping operations are funded by voluntary contributions, they should refuse to volunteer any funds. Where the US has led in showing the effectiveness of purse diplomacy, they should follow,” Thakur says.

Since India has been one of the largest contributors – 180,000 troops since 1950 – and has lost more soldiers (157) in UN operations than any other country, India’s absence will be felt.

According to Thakur, such steps will “throw a monkey wrench in the UN system”, forcing the UN’s five permanent members or P5 to “tackle the thorny issue instead of the preferred posture of permanent procrastination”.

Is it worth it?

The moot question is should India aspire for permanent membership in an organisation where – to use the words of George Orwell in Animal Farm – “all animals are equals but some animals are more equal”?

“The Permanent Five have behaved and continue to behave in ways that suggest that they see the power that they hold as rightful and free, to be exercised by them in whatever manner they choose,” writes Richard Butler of the Penn State University School of International Affairs in a paper titled 'Reform of the United Nations Security Council'.

“The notion that this power was given to them, over strenuous objections, but for the reason of the good that it might do in preserving the peace, has been substantially replaced by the idea that they have a power that they can use to protect and extend their own individual national interests. This selfish outlook is often not consistent with the purposes and principles of the (UN) Charter.”

While India has got its priorities wrong, it is nevertheless true it has a better claim to permanent membership than either the UK or France. According to Butler, “There is no longer a reason for the UK and France to have permanent membership in their own right, unless of course membership in the UN is based on the continuation of the Battle of Agincourt of 1452.”

Neither France nor the UK deserves to be in the P5. French influence is down to a last few pockets in Africa. As for the UK, it can’t fight a war without big brother America providing protection.

India: Lost Opportunities

But does India deserve permanent membership? The country’s political leadership must realise that their primary – and only – duty is to place India’s interests foremost. But they suck at this simple task.

In 1955 India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru declined an offer by Russian Premier Nikolai Bulganin to accept a permanent seat in the Security Council. Nehru had suggested that the seat, till then held by Taiwan, be offered to China instead. S. Gopal writes in ‘Jawaharlal Nehru – Vol II’: “He rejected the Soviet offer to propose India as the sixth permanent member of the Security Council and insisted that priority be given to China’s admission to the UN.”

In a paper titled ‘Not at the Cost of China’, Anton Harder of the Wilson Center writes that Nehru lied in Parliament about the offer of a permanent seat. “Despite Nehru’s denial then, and online debates now, the 1955 offer from the Soviets is in fact well-documented, although perhaps not widely known.”

Before Bulganin’s offer, the US had in 1950 suggested that India take China’s place in the P5. But Nehru rejected the offer, saying, 

“It would be a clear affront to China and it would mean some kind of a break between us and China. I suppose the State Department would not like that, but we have no intention of following that course. We shall go on pressing for China’s admission in the UN and the Security Council.... India because of many factors is certainly entitled to a permanent seat in the Security Council. But we are not going in at the cost of China.”

Nehru’s misplaced magnanimity is haunting India to this day. What Modi is campaigning for now is what Nehru and his acolytes lost six decades ago. Clearly, India has been betrayed by its own elites and no one else.

Instead of angling for a permanent seat, Modi should concentrate on his vision of making India a $20 trillion economy. That matters more than rubbing shoulders with spent powers like the UK and France in a comatose UN.

Tagged under

• India
• United Nations
• Diplomacy
• Russia
• United States

RAKESH KRISHNAN SIMHA

New Zealand-based journalist and foreign affairs analyst. According to him, he writes on stuff the media distorts, misses or ignores.

Rakesh started his career in 1995 with New Delhi-based Business World magazine, and later worked in a string of positions at other leading media houses such as India Today, Hindustan Times, Business Standard and the Financial Express, where he was the news editor.