Pinakamahusay na oras upang maglaro ng jili slot,Makakuha ng libreng 700pho sa bawat deposito

Why was Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat's services terminated? What is certain so far is only that there must have been a reason. Even the Ministry of Defence does not sack a naval chief without reason. But let us examine the ones given, in a series of progressive ministerial leaks. One: a Pakistani aircraft overflies an Indian frigate. Overflying is not allowed; flying past is legitimate. The naval chief tells the Director of Naval Intelligence (DNI) to lodge a protest. The DNI's staff officer writes out a protest and sends it to the Pakistan High Commission, and copies to the MOD and MEA, instead of routing the original through them. The minister tells the nation that a Lieutenant Commander's mistaken bit of babugiri is reason to sack a chief.

Two: the chief criticised RAW, saying it was inept. The statement itself would surprise no one, not even the minister, but the truth is that the Admiral wrote to the minister on December 15 that the newspaper report of December 1 is not attributable to him, and RAW itself appeared to take no notice. So now the chief is sacked for an erroneous newspaper report. Three: the chief lied about rear admiral S.V. Purohit. Purohit, as the whole navy knows, is the navy's best known logistician. Any chief would want him as the chief of logistics. But an anonymous letter reaches the PMO with allegations against Purohit. Despite clear government rules that anonymous accusations are not to be acted upon, the government demands a probe. Naval Headquarters conducts a probe and finds Purohit innocent. Not satisfied, a joint MOD/naval HQ probe is conducted which finds Purohit in the clear. Not satisfied, 'someone' initiates a CBI probe, which has so far produced no results. In the meanwhile, Purohit recovers from a heart attack.

Four: the chief leaked out matters affecting national security. If the chief did so, then they are obviously secrets no longer. So could the Indian nation be told what these are, since the implications is that Pakistan and China already know? Five: the chief did not implement the Cabinet Committee on Appointments order on the deputy chief of naval staff. Bhagwat has never refused to implement the order; he has merely stated that the order was unimplementable since the regulations for the Indian navy, the sole document relevant to the case, says ...appointments shall be made by the Government on the recommendation of the chief of the naval staff.

Only the naive would believe that it is a straight contest between the Cabinet committee and the naval chief. Lurking in the wings is the dark perpetrator, the evil munshi of Hindi movies, the defence ministry bureaucrat, already facing contempt charges before the Delhi High Court for misrepresenting facts on a different promotion case to the committee. Can the leopard change its spots? Of course, the government order states that the chief was dismissed for 'defiance of Cabinet authority over a period of time'. Serious indeed; but how will a reasonable person describe the five detailed ones? Trivial, perhaps frivolous for the first two, ridiculous for the third and fourth, and preposterous for the fifth. Why should seniority be more important than merit? Napoleon, when promoting a young dashing officer to the rank of Marshal of Cavalry, said, if seniority were the sole criteria, 'my baggage mule would be the Marshal. He's been with me for 18 years.

The Civil Service rules says 'selection is based on the criteria of merit and competence'. So why should the navy chief and the promotion board not decide who has merit and who doesn't? After all seniority and merit are like maternity and paternity.The first is obvious to everyone, including the bureaucrats; but paternity, like merit, is not so obvious?and is better left to naval officers.

So come back to the original question?what is the reason? During the last one year Vishnu Bhagwat got together a think tank at naval headquarters and published:

The personnel policy for the navy in the 21st century.

The technology policy for the navy in the 21st century.

Information warfare in the 21st century.

The energy security policy of India?the first multi-disciplinary report on the critical issue of energy shortage likely to face India in 20 years.

The soldier and the state, which describes the unwarranted dysfunction between the armed forces and the government, caused by keeping the soldier out of government.

Cry in the wilderness. A compilation of indictments by the parliamentary standing committee of defence, and the parliament estimates committee on the malfunctioning of the defence ministry over a number of years.

To cap all of this, at the annual commanders' conference in October he delivered a stinging speech before the PM and Raksha Mantri stating that a nation with the hierarchy that India possesses will be rapidly shut out of the emerging world competition in the techno-military field. More pointedly, he stated that in the national security milieu of the 21st century, a generalist bureaucracy simply has no place anywhere in the security hierarchy of any nation. Clearly a chief with a vision, whose goals chart a route to India's greatness, that excludes even a non-speaking role for the bureaucracy. Hence revenge. Those who have served in the forces for 40 years know the signs. The bureaucracy largely exercises control of the armed forces by intervening in promotion boards. But, why did the minister throw in his lot with the bureaucracy?

One day George Fernandes must tell the nation; but Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat out of office has already achieved what 48 chiefs before him could not?restructuring of the ministry, a process, which could start by denying any bureaucrat access to the confidential reports of service officers of any seniority.