SekrutYakhni
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 3,284
- Reaction score
- -11
- Country
- Location
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_army-chief-faces-dissent-from-his-commanders_1283555
New Delhi: Army headquarters has become a cold war zone, with army chief General Deepak Kapoor facing serious dissent from some of his key commanders. The bone of contention is General Kapoor's promotion policy which, some believe, will promote sycophancy rather than professionalism. Three senior lieutenant generals, all members of the army promotion boards, have written to the army chief questioning the changes.
At the centre of the heartburn are two moves initiated by army headquarters which will impact the promotion of officers to senior ranks, especially to the ranks of lieutenant general and major general. The first move brings to life a proposal originally mooted by General K Sundarji, when he was army chief in the late 1980s, to split senior officers into two streams: staff and command. The former would be given administrative and staff duties while the latter would be given corps and army commands.
In January this year, the army chief and his eight army commanders, who together make up the promotion board, cleared 15 major generals for promotion to the rank of lieutenant general. The army commanders are the senior-most lieutenant generals who include the vice-chief of the army staff, the heads of the north, east, west, south, southwest and central army commands, and the army training command.
Army headquarters sent the names split into two lists -- 10 for the command stream and the rest for the staff stream -- to the ministry of defence for final clearance. According to a couple of dependable sources, the promotion board had not agreed to split the recommendations into command and staff, and had witnessed "heated arguments" over the proposal. General Kapoor had, at the meeting, apparently agreed to carry out a study on the impact of such a move, according to thesources.
At least three of the army commanders who participated in the promotion board meeting have now opposed in writing the move to split the promotion list into two, sources told DNA.
It is not clear if the army chief has acted on the objections of the generals whose consensus he claimed while forwarding the promotion list to the ministry.
The ministry, civilian sources told DNA, cleared the 15 names after "some amount of haggling" with army headquarters. When the proposal was originally made almost two decades ago, the ministry had objected to it and the idea was shelved, but the file remained "alive", and has now resulted in promotions with two streams - command and staff.
One of the affected officers told DNA that the move was "hurried through on January 9 before the last Republic Day," which resulted in a few surprises in the rank list. If the board had taken into account the Republic Day awards announced a few days later, "some of the generals in the staff stream would have been in the command stream and vice versa," he told DNA.
This is because promotions are based on a merit ranking system that takes into account an armyman's annual confidential report (ACR), which also covers parameters such as courses attended, commands held, and awards received. In fact, 95% of the marks are allotted on these considerations. The remaining 5% was awarded by senior generals on the basis of the reputation of an officer ("spoken reputation").
General Kapoor initiated his second controversial change to change this. He made the assessments automatic with 5% marks being proportional to marks in the ACR. This took away all the discretion left with senior officers to identify promising officers who may otherwise have scored a bit less in their ACRs.
A senior army officer in the headquarters, however, defended General Kapoor's moves, saying the decisions have "actually made the system much more scientific, and it is not left to the discretion of seven or eight army commanders now."
Many army commanders have objected to this saying that giving undue weightage to what is on the ACRs "will breed sycophancy." A senior army officer whom DNA spoke to said that the contributions of army officers who dared to speak up, while remaining within discipline, must be recognised. "And it cannot be left to the ACRs and awards alone. Leadership is more than that, depending much on spoken reputation."
Another officer pointed out that the increasing trend of "begging for awards" and "high marks in ACRs" was taking away the sheen from a "mechanical marking" system. "We cannot create a class of brahmins within our ranks based on good ACRs that are given at the discretion of an officer's immediate senior. It would just boost chamchagiri (sycophancy) in our ranks," he said.
As a result of these ongoing standoffs, all three promotion boards for senior ranks, one for lieutenant general and the other two for major generals, have witnessed arguments this year between the army chief and his senior commanders.
hmmmm....
???
I did not understand it......???
New Delhi: Army headquarters has become a cold war zone, with army chief General Deepak Kapoor facing serious dissent from some of his key commanders. The bone of contention is General Kapoor's promotion policy which, some believe, will promote sycophancy rather than professionalism. Three senior lieutenant generals, all members of the army promotion boards, have written to the army chief questioning the changes.
At the centre of the heartburn are two moves initiated by army headquarters which will impact the promotion of officers to senior ranks, especially to the ranks of lieutenant general and major general. The first move brings to life a proposal originally mooted by General K Sundarji, when he was army chief in the late 1980s, to split senior officers into two streams: staff and command. The former would be given administrative and staff duties while the latter would be given corps and army commands.
In January this year, the army chief and his eight army commanders, who together make up the promotion board, cleared 15 major generals for promotion to the rank of lieutenant general. The army commanders are the senior-most lieutenant generals who include the vice-chief of the army staff, the heads of the north, east, west, south, southwest and central army commands, and the army training command.
Army headquarters sent the names split into two lists -- 10 for the command stream and the rest for the staff stream -- to the ministry of defence for final clearance. According to a couple of dependable sources, the promotion board had not agreed to split the recommendations into command and staff, and had witnessed "heated arguments" over the proposal. General Kapoor had, at the meeting, apparently agreed to carry out a study on the impact of such a move, according to thesources.
At least three of the army commanders who participated in the promotion board meeting have now opposed in writing the move to split the promotion list into two, sources told DNA.
It is not clear if the army chief has acted on the objections of the generals whose consensus he claimed while forwarding the promotion list to the ministry.
The ministry, civilian sources told DNA, cleared the 15 names after "some amount of haggling" with army headquarters. When the proposal was originally made almost two decades ago, the ministry had objected to it and the idea was shelved, but the file remained "alive", and has now resulted in promotions with two streams - command and staff.
One of the affected officers told DNA that the move was "hurried through on January 9 before the last Republic Day," which resulted in a few surprises in the rank list. If the board had taken into account the Republic Day awards announced a few days later, "some of the generals in the staff stream would have been in the command stream and vice versa," he told DNA.
This is because promotions are based on a merit ranking system that takes into account an armyman's annual confidential report (ACR), which also covers parameters such as courses attended, commands held, and awards received. In fact, 95% of the marks are allotted on these considerations. The remaining 5% was awarded by senior generals on the basis of the reputation of an officer ("spoken reputation").
General Kapoor initiated his second controversial change to change this. He made the assessments automatic with 5% marks being proportional to marks in the ACR. This took away all the discretion left with senior officers to identify promising officers who may otherwise have scored a bit less in their ACRs.
A senior army officer in the headquarters, however, defended General Kapoor's moves, saying the decisions have "actually made the system much more scientific, and it is not left to the discretion of seven or eight army commanders now."
Many army commanders have objected to this saying that giving undue weightage to what is on the ACRs "will breed sycophancy." A senior army officer whom DNA spoke to said that the contributions of army officers who dared to speak up, while remaining within discipline, must be recognised. "And it cannot be left to the ACRs and awards alone. Leadership is more than that, depending much on spoken reputation."
Another officer pointed out that the increasing trend of "begging for awards" and "high marks in ACRs" was taking away the sheen from a "mechanical marking" system. "We cannot create a class of brahmins within our ranks based on good ACRs that are given at the discretion of an officer's immediate senior. It would just boost chamchagiri (sycophancy) in our ranks," he said.
As a result of these ongoing standoffs, all three promotion boards for senior ranks, one for lieutenant general and the other two for major generals, have witnessed arguments this year between the army chief and his senior commanders.
hmmmm....
???
I did not understand it......???
