This operation is symbolic of an unlearning nature of the Indian army. Unfortunately, nothing will change even now.
The operations against terrorists in the Mendhar forest against militants got over with an egg on the face of the Indian Army. One JCO and one soldier was killed with the weapon of the JCO sieged by the militants. Neither a single militant was captured nor was a dead body found in the area.
Best of the armies encounter failures but the really great ones draw the right lessons from those experiences. An experience of over four decades in counterinsurgency in the North East, nearly two decades fighting Islamist insurgents in Kashmir and more specifically, a similar experience with Mast Gul and gang at Charar-e-Sharif 13 years back should have prepared the army better to handle such situations.
The reactions to this incident will be the most obvious. The army will try its level best to find some scapegoats — sack the Brigade Commander, crucify the local battalion commander and full stop. Things will get back to the usual after that pretty soon. The prevalent culture in the services will not allow any in-depth study of the incident, quick dissemination of the lessons to other units in COIN operations, introduction of new tactics and induction of latest equipment or weaponry to prevent such incidents in the future. The unintended message to junior and middle ranking officers from all this is to follow the proverbial eleventh commandment — Thou shall not get caught.
If the internal mechanisms in the army are failing, then the external entities are doing no better. The highly voluble veterans community which was so strident on the pay commission issue will not even point out this weakness of the Indian army. The ignoramuses in the mainstream media, will continue to treat army like a holy cow and brush this incident under the carpet.
This downhill slide of a professional force, which is hell-bent on drawing its strength solely from the past and is blithely unconcerned about its future, will continue till a military tragedy of calamitous proportions strikes the nation. Then there will be many queuing up to lambast the defence services. By then it will be too late for constructive criticism, one that seeks constant improvement and betterment of the Indian Army.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Monday, December 29, 2008
SUPPRESSING INDIAN HISTORY
The anniversary of Ayodhya has come and passed. Once more, many of India's intelligentsia felt that the destruction of the mosque has signalled the end of a certain tolerant India, for which secularism was the unifying factor and has planted a dangerous seed of Hindu "nationalism" in India's psyche. Yet, one should remember that the Hindu 'fundamentalists' did not kill a single soul in Ayodhya, whereas the bombs planted a while later in revenge by Indian Muslims with the help of Pakistan, killed more than 350 innocent human beings. In fact, during its long history, Hinduism has been one of the most peaceful creeds in the world, accepting the reality of different beliefs, never trying to convert -even in a non-violent manner, like the Buddhists did in Asia - and submitting itself rather meekly, except for a Shivaji, a Guru Gobind or a Rani of Jhansi, to numerous invasions. The same thing cannot be said about Islam, whatever N. Ram says in Frontline. Many historians, amongst them Will Durant, Louis Frederick, or Alain Danielou, have remarked that the Muslim invaders were so certain that they were doing their holy duty by razing temples and killing Hindus, that they had recorded down carefully and proudly their deeds in their own archives.
Mahmud of Ghazni, for instance, who patronised art and literature, would recite a verse of the Koran every night after having razed temples and killed his quota of unbelievers. Firuz Shah Tughlak, personally confirms that the destruction of Pagan temples was done out of piety and writes: "on the day of a Hindu festival, I went there myself, ordered the executions of all the leaders and practionners of his abomination; I destroyed their idols temples and built mosques in their places". Aurangzeb did not just build an isolated mosque on a razed temple, as Romila Thapar would like us to believe, he ordered all temples destroyed, among them the Kashi Vishvanath, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism and had mosques built on a number of cleared temples sites. All other Hindu sacred places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on them. A few examples: Krishna's birth temple in Mathura, the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujurat, the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir mosque now overlooking Benares and the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in 4, if not 5 figures. This is a small excerpt of his own official court chronicles: "Aurangzeb ordered all provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the Pagans and to make a complete end to all pagan teachings and practices". Or:: "Hasan Ali Khan came and said that 172 temples in the area had been destroyed... His majesty went to Chittor and 63 temples were destroyed. Abu Tarab, appointed to destroy the idol-temples of Amber, reported that 66 temples had been razed to the ground".. Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples, their users were also wiped-out; even his own brother, Dara Shikoh, was executed for taking an interest in Hindu religion and the Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb's forced conversions. As we can see Romila Thapar and Percival Spear's statement of a benevolent Aurangzeb is a flagrant attempt at negationism (the negation of historical crimes). Even the respectable Encyclopedia Brittannica in its entry on India, does not mention in its chapter on the Sultanate period any persecutions of Hindus by Muslims, except "that Firuz Shah Tughlaq made largely unsuccessful attempts at converting his Hindu subjects and sometime persecuted them".
Indian school books seem to have taken their cue from the Encyclopedia Brittannica , as there is hardly any mention of this dark aspect of India's past. But why does India negate its history? We know that Nehru and Gandhi wanted to keep Pakistan within India and wished to avoid the splintering away of Muslim groups. But was it a good enough reason to suppress information about Muslim atrocities during ten centuries of bloody invasions and the massive destruction of Hindu temples ? On the contrary this has only created more terrorism. Denying and suppressing the history cannot keep the harmony. In its place, truth and reconciliation are necessary. Hiding the truth denies sympathy to the victim, civilization and culture. A nation unless, it is ready to face its own history - the Good and the Bad, the Courageous and the Cowardly - can never bloom into its full plenitude. Hidden aspects of its own history sooner or later will surface and bring with them the guilt, anger, regret, which are the necessary ingredients to wipe-off that particular black karma. In Germany, for instance, Germans have been reminded again and again about the atrocities committed by the Nazis during World War II, and that has brought a sense of guilt, which has acted as a deterrent to future atrocities
The Jews have constantly tried, since the Nazi genocide, to keep alive the remembrance of their six million martyrs. This has got nothing to do with vengeance. Do the Jews of today want to retaliate upon contemporary Germany? No. It is only a matter of making sure that history does not repeat its mistakes, as alas it is doing today in India : witness the persecution of Hindus in Kashmir, whose 250.000 Pandits have fled their 5000 year old homeland, or the oppression of Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan. To remember, is to be able to look at today with the wisdom of yesterday. No collective memory should be erased for appeasing a particular community. Hiding the facts and justifying past Muslim crimes has led to terrorism in the Indian sub-continent. Muslims were never held accountable. One of the first steps to curb violence is to make one aware of past mistakes. Guilt in the culprit and forgiveness in the victim can put an end to self-righteousness and the kind of terrorism we see today in Kashmir, in spite of India's peace overtures.
FRANCOIS GAUTIER
Mahmud of Ghazni, for instance, who patronised art and literature, would recite a verse of the Koran every night after having razed temples and killed his quota of unbelievers. Firuz Shah Tughlak, personally confirms that the destruction of Pagan temples was done out of piety and writes: "on the day of a Hindu festival, I went there myself, ordered the executions of all the leaders and practionners of his abomination; I destroyed their idols temples and built mosques in their places". Aurangzeb did not just build an isolated mosque on a razed temple, as Romila Thapar would like us to believe, he ordered all temples destroyed, among them the Kashi Vishvanath, one of the most sacred places of Hinduism and had mosques built on a number of cleared temples sites. All other Hindu sacred places within his reach equally suffered destruction, with mosques built on them. A few examples: Krishna's birth temple in Mathura, the rebuilt Somnath temple on the coast of Gujurat, the Vishnu temple replaced with the Alamgir mosque now overlooking Benares and the Treta-ka-Thakur temple in Ayodhya. The number of temples destroyed by Aurangzeb is counted in 4, if not 5 figures. This is a small excerpt of his own official court chronicles: "Aurangzeb ordered all provincial governors to destroy all schools and temples of the Pagans and to make a complete end to all pagan teachings and practices". Or:: "Hasan Ali Khan came and said that 172 temples in the area had been destroyed... His majesty went to Chittor and 63 temples were destroyed. Abu Tarab, appointed to destroy the idol-temples of Amber, reported that 66 temples had been razed to the ground".. Aurangzeb did not stop at destroying temples, their users were also wiped-out; even his own brother, Dara Shikoh, was executed for taking an interest in Hindu religion and the Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was beheaded because he objected to Aurangzeb's forced conversions. As we can see Romila Thapar and Percival Spear's statement of a benevolent Aurangzeb is a flagrant attempt at negationism (the negation of historical crimes). Even the respectable Encyclopedia Brittannica in its entry on India, does not mention in its chapter on the Sultanate period any persecutions of Hindus by Muslims, except "that Firuz Shah Tughlaq made largely unsuccessful attempts at converting his Hindu subjects and sometime persecuted them".
Indian school books seem to have taken their cue from the Encyclopedia Brittannica , as there is hardly any mention of this dark aspect of India's past. But why does India negate its history? We know that Nehru and Gandhi wanted to keep Pakistan within India and wished to avoid the splintering away of Muslim groups. But was it a good enough reason to suppress information about Muslim atrocities during ten centuries of bloody invasions and the massive destruction of Hindu temples ? On the contrary this has only created more terrorism. Denying and suppressing the history cannot keep the harmony. In its place, truth and reconciliation are necessary. Hiding the truth denies sympathy to the victim, civilization and culture. A nation unless, it is ready to face its own history - the Good and the Bad, the Courageous and the Cowardly - can never bloom into its full plenitude. Hidden aspects of its own history sooner or later will surface and bring with them the guilt, anger, regret, which are the necessary ingredients to wipe-off that particular black karma. In Germany, for instance, Germans have been reminded again and again about the atrocities committed by the Nazis during World War II, and that has brought a sense of guilt, which has acted as a deterrent to future atrocities
The Jews have constantly tried, since the Nazi genocide, to keep alive the remembrance of their six million martyrs. This has got nothing to do with vengeance. Do the Jews of today want to retaliate upon contemporary Germany? No. It is only a matter of making sure that history does not repeat its mistakes, as alas it is doing today in India : witness the persecution of Hindus in Kashmir, whose 250.000 Pandits have fled their 5000 year old homeland, or the oppression of Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan. To remember, is to be able to look at today with the wisdom of yesterday. No collective memory should be erased for appeasing a particular community. Hiding the facts and justifying past Muslim crimes has led to terrorism in the Indian sub-continent. Muslims were never held accountable. One of the first steps to curb violence is to make one aware of past mistakes. Guilt in the culprit and forgiveness in the victim can put an end to self-righteousness and the kind of terrorism we see today in Kashmir, in spite of India's peace overtures.
FRANCOIS GAUTIER
Saturday, November 1, 2008
How Wall Street operates
Once upon a time in a village in India, a man told the villagers that he would buy monkeys for Rs. 200 each.
The villagers seeing there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest and started catching them.
The man bought thousands at Rs. 200, but, as the supply started to diminish, the villagers stopped catching monkeys. The man further announced that he would now buy at Rs. 250. The villagers renewed their efforts and caught more monkeys. Soon the supply diminished even further and people started going back to their farms. The offer rate increased to Rs. 300 and the supply of monkeys became so little that it was an effort to even see a monkey, let alone catch it!
The man now announced that he would buy monkeys at Rs 500 each! However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would now act as buyer, on his behalf.
In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers: “Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that my boss has collected. I will sell them to you at Rs. 400 and when he returns from the city, you can sell them back to him for Rs 500.”
The villagers squeezed together their savings and bought all the monkeys.
Then they never saw the man or his assistant again, only monkeys everywhere!
Welcome to WALL STREET
The villagers seeing there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest and started catching them.
The man bought thousands at Rs. 200, but, as the supply started to diminish, the villagers stopped catching monkeys. The man further announced that he would now buy at Rs. 250. The villagers renewed their efforts and caught more monkeys. Soon the supply diminished even further and people started going back to their farms. The offer rate increased to Rs. 300 and the supply of monkeys became so little that it was an effort to even see a monkey, let alone catch it!
The man now announced that he would buy monkeys at Rs 500 each! However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would now act as buyer, on his behalf.
In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers: “Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that my boss has collected. I will sell them to you at Rs. 400 and when he returns from the city, you can sell them back to him for Rs 500.”
The villagers squeezed together their savings and bought all the monkeys.
Then they never saw the man or his assistant again, only monkeys everywhere!
Welcome to WALL STREET
Monday, October 13, 2008
Why industrialists prefer Modi to Buddha
Industrialists always like to deal with governments that are stable, can take quick decisions and are capable of handling political opposition to any idea or project they support.
Till the Left Front took charge of West Bengal in 1977, industrialists were scared of taking up new projects in that state. Even if the government gave the go-ahead, the opposition political parties, then led by the Left, would manage to obstruct the smooth implementation of projects. Even running projects would be a headache.
All this began to change after the Left Front came to power and Jyoti Basu was sworn in as the chief minister of West Bengal. Industrialists realised that the Left Front at the helm was the best insurance they could hope for against industrial unrest affecting their factories and plants in West Bengal.
There were three distinct advantages. One, the Left Front government in the state was stable, with a huge majority the Left parties enjoyed in the Legislative Assembly. Two, Jyoti Basu was the undisputed leader of the government and he was empowered to take the final decision once he made up his mind. And three, the state was left with hardly any opposition political party of any significance.
So, all that an industrialist in West Bengal had to do was to have a good working equation with the Left Front chairman (who headed the Left coalition, of which the CPI-M was obviously the dominant partner) and Jyoti Basu (who headed the state government). Once the industrialists took care of these two offices, they would not face any problem - either from the government or from the employees' unions, which were invariably controlled by the ruling Left parties.
If industries still did not make a beeline for investments in West Bengal, it was primarily because the Jyoti Basu government did not pursue rapid industrialisation with private capital as one of its goals and, of course, it had to contend with an investor-unfriendly reputation that refused to die easily.
In any case, the first ten years of the Left Front rule saw Jyoti Basu spending most of his energies on land reforms and a sustained battle with the Centre to get more public sector investments in the state and a larger share in central taxes. He achieved significant success in his efforts at land reform and managed to convert centre-state fiscal relations into a national issue, but failed miserably in attracting central investments to the state.
A few years after the launch of the economic reforms by Manmohan Singh in 1991, Jyoti Basu also changed his industrial policy and began attracting private investment for industrial projects in the state.
His successor, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, built on this industrial policy. It appeared that Mr Bhattacharjee was making some headway in his plan for industrialisation in West Bengal with the help of private capital. If Ratan Tata decided to invest in Singur to produce the world-famous Nano from West Bengal, it was largely because he and his advisors had reckoned that Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee ruled the state like Jyoti Basu.
But what became clear to the Tatas in the last few months was that things had changed in Bengal and these were changes that even Mr Bhattacharjee and his administration failed to recognise and take appropriate remedial measures.
A powerful opposition political party by the name of Trinamool Congress had grown its roots in West Bengal and had won a majority of the seats in the Panchayat elections in Singur.
Worse, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee failed to act as a chief minister who was in complete command of the situation. His government was stable. Yet he failed to act decisively and quickly to resolve the crisis and face the challenge posed by the chief opposition party in the state. After the Trinamool Congress protests began and disrupted work at Singur, Ratan Tata waited for more than a month before taking the final decision to pull out from West Bengal.
If Tata Motors [Get Quote] has now gone to Gujarat to relocate the Nano project there, it is largely because its chief minister, Narendra Modi, offers those very qualities which industrialists love in a state government. Mr Modi's government is stable, he is known for taking quick decisions and has nothing to fear from any opposition political party in the state. There is no Mamata Banerjee in Gujarat.
Nothing else really matters for industrialists when they have to decide on the location of their projects. The riots in Ahmedabad, Surat and other cities in Gujarat after the Godhra train fire may have been condemned by industry leaders. Minority communities may still not feel safe in Gujarat today. For industrialists, however, Narendra Modi meets all the criteria for choosing his state as their next investment destination.
That is where Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee has lost out to Narendra Modi. Panicked by riots in Gujarat after the Godhra riots, Kutubuddin Ansari, a resident of Ahmadabad, had fled his state and secured a safe refuge in Kolkata.
Narendra Modi lost Kutubuddin Ansari. But that did not come in the way of his convincing the Tatas to set up their prestigious Nano factory.
Till the Left Front took charge of West Bengal in 1977, industrialists were scared of taking up new projects in that state. Even if the government gave the go-ahead, the opposition political parties, then led by the Left, would manage to obstruct the smooth implementation of projects. Even running projects would be a headache.
All this began to change after the Left Front came to power and Jyoti Basu was sworn in as the chief minister of West Bengal. Industrialists realised that the Left Front at the helm was the best insurance they could hope for against industrial unrest affecting their factories and plants in West Bengal.
There were three distinct advantages. One, the Left Front government in the state was stable, with a huge majority the Left parties enjoyed in the Legislative Assembly. Two, Jyoti Basu was the undisputed leader of the government and he was empowered to take the final decision once he made up his mind. And three, the state was left with hardly any opposition political party of any significance.
So, all that an industrialist in West Bengal had to do was to have a good working equation with the Left Front chairman (who headed the Left coalition, of which the CPI-M was obviously the dominant partner) and Jyoti Basu (who headed the state government). Once the industrialists took care of these two offices, they would not face any problem - either from the government or from the employees' unions, which were invariably controlled by the ruling Left parties.
If industries still did not make a beeline for investments in West Bengal, it was primarily because the Jyoti Basu government did not pursue rapid industrialisation with private capital as one of its goals and, of course, it had to contend with an investor-unfriendly reputation that refused to die easily.
In any case, the first ten years of the Left Front rule saw Jyoti Basu spending most of his energies on land reforms and a sustained battle with the Centre to get more public sector investments in the state and a larger share in central taxes. He achieved significant success in his efforts at land reform and managed to convert centre-state fiscal relations into a national issue, but failed miserably in attracting central investments to the state.
A few years after the launch of the economic reforms by Manmohan Singh in 1991, Jyoti Basu also changed his industrial policy and began attracting private investment for industrial projects in the state.
His successor, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, built on this industrial policy. It appeared that Mr Bhattacharjee was making some headway in his plan for industrialisation in West Bengal with the help of private capital. If Ratan Tata decided to invest in Singur to produce the world-famous Nano from West Bengal, it was largely because he and his advisors had reckoned that Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee ruled the state like Jyoti Basu.
But what became clear to the Tatas in the last few months was that things had changed in Bengal and these were changes that even Mr Bhattacharjee and his administration failed to recognise and take appropriate remedial measures.
A powerful opposition political party by the name of Trinamool Congress had grown its roots in West Bengal and had won a majority of the seats in the Panchayat elections in Singur.
Worse, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee failed to act as a chief minister who was in complete command of the situation. His government was stable. Yet he failed to act decisively and quickly to resolve the crisis and face the challenge posed by the chief opposition party in the state. After the Trinamool Congress protests began and disrupted work at Singur, Ratan Tata waited for more than a month before taking the final decision to pull out from West Bengal.
If Tata Motors [Get Quote] has now gone to Gujarat to relocate the Nano project there, it is largely because its chief minister, Narendra Modi, offers those very qualities which industrialists love in a state government. Mr Modi's government is stable, he is known for taking quick decisions and has nothing to fear from any opposition political party in the state. There is no Mamata Banerjee in Gujarat.
Nothing else really matters for industrialists when they have to decide on the location of their projects. The riots in Ahmedabad, Surat and other cities in Gujarat after the Godhra train fire may have been condemned by industry leaders. Minority communities may still not feel safe in Gujarat today. For industrialists, however, Narendra Modi meets all the criteria for choosing his state as their next investment destination.
That is where Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee has lost out to Narendra Modi. Panicked by riots in Gujarat after the Godhra riots, Kutubuddin Ansari, a resident of Ahmadabad, had fled his state and secured a safe refuge in Kolkata.
Narendra Modi lost Kutubuddin Ansari. But that did not come in the way of his convincing the Tatas to set up their prestigious Nano factory.
10 Indian peacekeepers in Congo sex scandal
Fresh investigations into a sex-for-cash scandal involving Indian UN peacekeepers deployed in the Democratic Republic of Congo have revealed that at least 10 soldiers may have had sex with prostitutes. The United Nations code of conduct in Congo prohibits peacekeepers from soliciting prostitutes.
Lifting the lid on their actions, the North Kivu Indian brigade has gathered sufficient evidence to prove the peacekeepers used children to hire Congolese girls for sex in Masisi, an exhausting five-hour drive from Goma.
The UN Organisation Mission in Democratic Republic of Congo (known by its French acronym MONUC) is served by 4,554 troops.
Hindustan Times has learnt that five children have identified the peacekeepers from 1 Jammu and Kashmir Rifles after they were shown photographs of around 100 peacekeepers based in Masisi when allegations of sexual misconduct were made last year.
North Kivu brigade commander Bipin Rawat told HT, “Initial findings confirm their involvement. We have sent our report to the army headquarters in New Delhi and recommended a thorough probe in view of new evidence.”
The peacekeepers involved returned home in April as part of half-yearly troop rotation. Charges against them would be corroborated in India before prosecutions, Rawat said.
The 18,931-strong MONUC, the largest and costliest UN deployment across the globe, is the only mission where troops can be prosecuted for sex with prostitutes. The act falls within the definition of sexual exploitation and abuse.
The investigation conducted by the North Kivu brigade, on the orders of army vice-chief Lieutenant General M.L. Naidu who was here this May, challenges the findings of a previous inquiry by the United Nations' Office of Internal Oversight Services in Congo.
To the consternation of the Indian Army, the powerful UN investigating agency had charged almost 60 soldiers with soliciting sex from prostitutes and some 40 troops with employing child labour earlier this year. Considering the findings of the army inquiry, the rot may not run as deep as the UN agency had made it out. But pre-emptive measures have been put in place to discipline troops.
Brigadier Rawat has formed flying squads to snoop on his men garrisoned in and around North Kivu's capital Goma. Raids are regularly conducted at no-go places such as nightclubs, bars and red light areas. The squads include personnel drawn from the Bangladesh military police.
Troops finishing their tenure have been placed under surveillance as sexual abuse and exploitation usually takes place during the last two months, said an officer. There is evidence to prove that posts held by soldiers provide safe haven for such activities.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=dba2bd1a-440a-4bc9-a34c-5325b8368282
© Copyright 2007 Hindustan Times
Lifting the lid on their actions, the North Kivu Indian brigade has gathered sufficient evidence to prove the peacekeepers used children to hire Congolese girls for sex in Masisi, an exhausting five-hour drive from Goma.
The UN Organisation Mission in Democratic Republic of Congo (known by its French acronym MONUC) is served by 4,554 troops.
Hindustan Times has learnt that five children have identified the peacekeepers from 1 Jammu and Kashmir Rifles after they were shown photographs of around 100 peacekeepers based in Masisi when allegations of sexual misconduct were made last year.
North Kivu brigade commander Bipin Rawat told HT, “Initial findings confirm their involvement. We have sent our report to the army headquarters in New Delhi and recommended a thorough probe in view of new evidence.”
The peacekeepers involved returned home in April as part of half-yearly troop rotation. Charges against them would be corroborated in India before prosecutions, Rawat said.
The 18,931-strong MONUC, the largest and costliest UN deployment across the globe, is the only mission where troops can be prosecuted for sex with prostitutes. The act falls within the definition of sexual exploitation and abuse.
The investigation conducted by the North Kivu brigade, on the orders of army vice-chief Lieutenant General M.L. Naidu who was here this May, challenges the findings of a previous inquiry by the United Nations' Office of Internal Oversight Services in Congo.
To the consternation of the Indian Army, the powerful UN investigating agency had charged almost 60 soldiers with soliciting sex from prostitutes and some 40 troops with employing child labour earlier this year. Considering the findings of the army inquiry, the rot may not run as deep as the UN agency had made it out. But pre-emptive measures have been put in place to discipline troops.
Brigadier Rawat has formed flying squads to snoop on his men garrisoned in and around North Kivu's capital Goma. Raids are regularly conducted at no-go places such as nightclubs, bars and red light areas. The squads include personnel drawn from the Bangladesh military police.
Troops finishing their tenure have been placed under surveillance as sexual abuse and exploitation usually takes place during the last two months, said an officer. There is evidence to prove that posts held by soldiers provide safe haven for such activities.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=dba2bd1a-440a-4bc9-a34c-5325b8368282
© Copyright 2007 Hindustan Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
