Former MiG-21 pilot sues Indian government

[Manindra]

How many Migs are operational with the IAF?

Currently 105 MIG-21 Bison variant is operational & 159 are in reserve & grounded.

264 if I've got the fig's right.

These are total MIG-21 but currently only 105

 

[Jango]

Looking at this case another way...standing in front of a gun also violates your right to life. So why not have a petition about it as well?

This seems very illogical, in the military you are supposed to be taking risks. Before taking commission the officer knew that MiG-21's were the starter aircraft and in what condition they were in, nobody forced him to join the AF.

 

[third eye]

Looking at this case another way...standing in front of a gun also violates your right to life. So why not have a petition about it as well?

This seems very illogical, in the military you are supposed to be taking risks. Before taking commission the officer knew that MiG-21's were the starter aircraft and in what condition they were in, nobody forced him to join the AF.

While what you say is valid however if the gun you use is established to be fault prone and has more chances of damaging the firer more than the enemy then a soldier has the right to ask for a weapon that is reliable & gives him a fighting chance.

While the profession of arms is danger prone it would not be out of place for a soldier to want to come back home alive.

What I think the pilot is highlighting is the indifference towards defence basic requirements .

 

[Jango]

While what you say is valid however if the gun you use is established to be fault prone and has more chances of damaging the firer more than the enemy then a soldier has the right to ask for a weapon that is reliable & gives him a fighting chance.

While the profession of arms is danger prone it would not be out of place for a soldier to want to come back home alive.

What I think the pilot is highlighting is the indifference towards defence basic requirements .

But saying that this violates the right to life?

You are in this situation because of your own free will. You have given consent to be placed in a situation like this. It isn't as if you were duped in some way by the AF and cajoled to be in the cockpit of a MiG-21.

It's all on your own free will, I don't think that this case should hold any water because you have given prior consent.

For example, the recent rape case thing in Dubai. THe court decided in the end that the woman gave consent for sex, so it doesn't constitute rape.

If you were forcibly drafted in to the Army, or something like that, then you can say that your right to life is being violated.

If we take the officer's line of argument and yours that the equipment is inferior, then a pilot of some third world AF can also say that his right to life is being violated since he is in a 70's era Soviet plane while the American flies in an F-22! Afghan AF can say the same.

Even a Pakistani soldier can then say, we are being provided tin can Mitsubishi pickups to go into the battlezone, this violates the right to life.

This IMO is a very serious breach of discipline and might even lead to a revolt or mutiny.

let's see how this case pans out.

 

[third eye]

But saying that this violates the right to life?

You are in this situation because of your own free will. You have given consent to be placed in a situation like this. It isn't as if you were duped in some way by the AF and cajoled to be in the cockpit of a MiG-21.

It's all on your own free will, I don't think that this case should hold any water because you have given prior consent.

If you were forcibly drafted in to the Army, or something like that, then you can say that your right to life is being violated.

If we take the officer's line of argument and yours that the equipment is inferior, then a pilot of some third world AF can also say that his right to life is being violated since he is in a 70's era Soviet plane while the American flies in an F-22! Afghan AF can say the same.

Even a Pakistani soldier can then say, we are being provided tin can Mitsubishi pickups to go into the battlezone, this violates the right to life.

This IMO is a very serious breach of discipline and might even lead to a revolt or mutiny.

let's see how this case pans out.

The case not hold much water - agreed. What it shall do hopefully is to sensitise the Babus & Politicians on the core issue - delays in decision making.

There is no question of revolt or mutiny - the fundamentals are way too strong. Its only a sign of the times where ppl do speak up.

If the tin mitsubishi is prone to stalling due to faulty components which are being made locally the soldier has a right to complain.

The life & performance of a soldier depends entirely on the quality & integrity of an L1 bidder.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Your point is indeed valid. But if the planes were reliable and the crashes been few and far between, I would have agreed with you. But they are not. They are so old and past their shelf life that the maintenance crew can do nothing. It is like feeding expired drugs to patients. He has not filed a suit against the Air Force or his military superiors. Instead he filed against the Government. So this is not a mutiny. Just a complaint for a grievance as an Indian citizen. As for your Mitsubishi 'tin' cans - they don't crash at least

But saying that this violates the right to life?

You are in this situation because of your own free will. You have given consent to be placed in a situation like this. It isn't as if you were duped in some way by the AF and cajoled to be in the cockpit of a MiG-21.

It's all on your own free will, I don't think that this case should hold any water because you have given prior consent.

For example, the recent rape case thing in Dubai. THe court decided in the end that the woman gave consent for sex, so it doesn't constitute rape.

If you were forcibly drafted in to the Army, or something like that, then you can say that your right to life is being violated.

If we take the officer's line of argument and yours that the equipment is inferior, then a pilot of some third world AF can also say that his right to life is being violated since he is in a 70's era Soviet plane while the American flies in an F-22! Afghan AF can say the same.

Even a Pakistani soldier can then say, we are being provided tin can Mitsubishi pickups to go into the battlezone, this violates the right to life.

This IMO is a very serious breach of discipline and might even lead to a revolt or mutiny.

let's see how this case pans out.

 

[Tshering22]

I am not expert on this but Armed force personnel demanding the right to work in safe environment sounds a little strange

Soldiers join military divisions to fight, kill and if need be, die for the country in wars.

Not in corruption laden, delay-prone, vintage machines that have lived their service lives twice and over.

 

[janon]

But saying that this violates the right to life?

You are in this situation because of your own free will. You have given consent to be placed in a situation like this. It isn't as if you were duped in some way by the AF and cajoled to be in the cockpit of a MiG-21.

It's all on your own free will, I don't think that this case should hold any water because you have given prior consent.

For example, the recent rape case thing in Dubai. THe court decided in the end that the woman gave consent for sex, so it doesn't constitute rape.

If you were forcibly drafted in to the Army, or something like that, then you can say that your right to life is being violated.

If we take the officer's line of argument and yours that the equipment is inferior, then a pilot of some third world AF can also say that his right to life is being violated since he is in a 70's era Soviet plane while the American flies in an F-22! Afghan AF can say the same.

Even a Pakistani soldier can then say, we are being provided tin can Mitsubishi pickups to go into the battlezone, this violates the right to life.

This IMO is a very serious breach of discipline and might even lead to a revolt or mutiny.

let's see how this case pans out.

While you are right in a general sense that joining the armed forces is entirely voluntary, and that the armed forces are an inherently risky profession, I think I (personally, not legally) would side with the plaintiff on this particular issue. Should soldiers be asked to do jobs that are more risky than necessary? Should a soldier be sent into a Taliban stronghold in a tin-can if better alternatives are available? Should IAF pilots be asked to fly 50 year old mig 21s when better alternatives are available? And if better alternatives are not available, is that not the fault of the employing organization (IAF)? If it was due to lack of funds that the IAF is flying ancient widow-makers, then I suppose the case has no merit. But the IAF is not starved for funds, and has not been, since 2001.

Why should a mig-21 pilot put his neck on the guillotine every day, for every sortie, during peace time? Why are a few pilots expected to endanger themselves far more than other personnel in the armed forces? A cavalry officer or sailor does no face such a high degree of risk every single day. Nor do sukhoi or mirage pilots.

The mig-21s should have been replaced by now. There are no two ways about it. With what is a good question, with many good answers. It is an institutional failing of the IAF and MoD, that replacing decaying old platforms should take decades, rather than months. If this court case highlights this failing, and serves to rectify it, I would be very pleased.

However, the plaintiff may not be on solid ground, legally. I would expect that the courts would find his case to be devoid of merit. In my opinion, legally he is wrong, but morally he is right. Just my two cents, FWIW.

(Consider this for instance - the IAF is demanding (and have got) and integrated electronic warfare suite on the tejas before they will use it - and yet, they are going to fly mig-21s and 27s till 2019. That's a feature that is not available on their most sophisticated platforms. And Tejas Mk2 has to have an AESA, but they will fly the mig 27s which does not even have a radar. An air force that has such sophisticated toys like MKIs and mirage-2000-5s (soon) and rafales and phalcon AEWACs should not be flying 200 fifty year old mig21s.)

 

[Jango]

While you are right in a general sense that joining the armed forces is entirely voluntary, and that the armed forces are an inherently risky profession, I think I (personally, not legally) would side with the plaintiff on this particular issue. Should soldiers be asked to do jobs that are more risky than necessary? Should a soldier be sent into a Taliban stronghold in a tin-can if better alternatives are available? Should IAF pilots be asked to fly 50 year old mig 21s when better alternatives are available? And if better alternatives are not available, is that not the fault of the employing organization (IAF)? If it was due to lack of funds that the IAF is flying ancient widow-makers, then I suppose the case has no merit. But the IAF is not starved for funds, and has not been, since 2001.

Why should a mig-21 pilot put his neck on the guillotine every day, for every sortie, during peace time? Why are a few pilots expected to endanger themselves far more than other personnel in the armed forces? A cavalry officer or sailor does no face such a high degree of risk every single day. Nor do sukhoi or mirage pilots.

The mig-21s should have been replaced by now. There are no two ways about it. With what is a good question, with many good answers. It is an institutional failing of the IAF and MoD, that replacing decaying old platforms should take decades, rather than months. If this court case highlights this failing, and serves to rectify it, I would be very pleased.

However, the plaintiff may not be on solid ground, legally. I would expect that the courts would find his case to be devoid of merit. In my opinion, legally he is wrong, but morally he is right. Just my two cents, FWIW.

(Consider this for instance - the IAF is demanding (and have got) and integrated electronic warfare suite on the tejas before they will use it - and yet, they are going to fly mig-21s and 27s till 2019. That's a feature that is not available on their most sophisticated platforms. And Tejas Mk2 has to have an AESA, but they will fly the mig 27s which does not even have a radar. An air force that has such sophisticated toys like MKIs and mirage-2000-5s (soon) and rafales and phalcon AEWACs should not be flying 200 fifty year old mig21s.)

My opinion is the same as yours.

Morally, you can find some justification for his lawsuit, and also agree with him. But legally he doesn't have any leverage.

 

[Foo_Fighter]

I think there is a difference, there might be a legal leverage to it however morally he should't have done it. India whatever said and done is still a 3rd world country and everyone knows about corruption in India. Best thing out of this would be a strong protest by people of India to force MoD to acquire LCA/Rafael at a rapid pace and get these old warriors into retirement.

My opinion is the same as yours.

Morally, you can find some justification for his lawsuit, and also agree with him. But legally he doesn't have any leverage.