Army Initial Counseling Examples: Fill & Download for Free

While serving in IPS, I have personally worked in the Maoist/Naxalite infested areas for quite some time. That was some 30 years back. Frankly speaking, I find it shocking that the Indian state is so weak that it is not able to control the Maoist problem despite having fought them for such a long duration. Our approach has not been determined and strong. It is our duplicity that we raise a finger at Pakistan when terrorists arrive from that country (excluding the state-sponsored ones) as if Pakistan is not able to control them, at a time when we are ourselves not able to control militancy deep in the heart of our own country even after about half a century.Let me first deal with the second part of your question. Maoists are not at all fighting for the people’s rights. On the other hand, they are exploiting the poor tribal citizens. They are goons. They are extortionists and murderers. Even at the time when I was working in the Naxalite areas, they had almost lost their so-called ideology though at that time at least some of them had some sincerity in their ideology howsoever misconceived such ideology might have been. Today, they are armed mercenaries, armed gangs. Nothing more and nothing less.Let me narrate an incident. Some 28 years back, I was posted as SP of a naxal-infested district (Gadchiroli) in Maharashtra. One particular night, at about 2 am around midnight, I travelled about 40 km by road in my official car in thick jungles for some urgent official duty. The road was a road only in name. It was in bad shape. We were only three persons in the car. Myself, the driver and a constable. We had two carbine machine guns in the vehicle, one with me and another with the constable. There was no other police vehicle with us. Yet, I covered the distance safely. Nothing special in that.But, about a week later, I happened to meet one prominent social activist in the district, who is well-known person, even at the national level. I don’t want to disclose his name due to obvious reasons. He used to reside in deep jungles. Often, Naxalites would visit him for a certain reason. By the way, this social activist is a person of highest character and integrity. We would rarely get people of such high credentials, doing selfless service to the tribal citizens with almost complete anonymity. I had developed good friendship with him and whenever I happened to be in his area, I often tried to meet him. Now, this time, when I met him, he told me that when I moving in the jungle at around midnight (as narrated above), the Naxalites had already planted landmines on the road and they were ready for an ambush. As one Naxalite dalam commander had told this activist about the incident, those Naxalites were expecting another police vehicle (with about 20 personnel) and they were ready to blast the vehicle and ambush it. Instead of that, when my car reached that spot, the Naxalite responsible for activating / detonating the landmine was about to do so, however seeing SP’s car from a distance (it was at a slow speed due to bad road conditions), the said dalam commander hurriedly stopped him from detonating the landmine. I was not ambushed and was allowed to go safely. In fact, since at midnight, I did not even notice them as they were hiding by the roadside behind a rock (as I was told later), I was not aware of this incident.Now, what was the reason for this special treatment for me? Why did they not kill me? This is what that social activist told me – quoting that dalam commander. His logic was that this SP was sympathetic to the tribals and was trying to help them genuinely instead of harassing them; if they killed the SP, some other SP would head the district police but then they would lose the SP who was good to the tribals and who never harassed them. Their experience was that most police officers were harassing the local population, so why kill someone who was not doing so. When I heard this narration, I jokingly told the social activist, “…in that case, I should not worry about my life and should not carry any security with me!” The answer to this was a further revelation. He quoted the dalam commander saying that while they were reluctant to initiate attack on me, if I were to attack them then they would retaliate and kill me!! By the way, I had a few encounters with firearms with the Naxalites even after this incident.So, in a way, we can say that they still followed at least some principles. But, then there were many other incidents that clearly showed that they did not follow any perceived ideology. Many brutal murders of tribals, exploitation of tribals (such as using them as shield against police), extortion from industries / contractors working in forest areas (running into tens of crores, even at that time), not using such extortion money for welfare of tribals which was supposed to be their avowed objective, and many more such things, showed that they were armed gangs. This was some 30 years back. Today, the situation is much worse. Maoists are nothing but armed gangs. I am speaking not only on the basis of information gained through media, but also on the basis of direct feedback that I receive from many friends who are directly dealing with the problem in field in top positions.Let me now come to the first part of your question.Please appreciate that there is a vast difference between the working of army and police. Likewise, there is a big difference between an external war and an internal war.Army works on the principle of maximum damage by use of maximum force to the enemy. However, police is supposed to work on the principle of minimum damage by using the minimum possible force; or rather, on the principle of using no force at all.An internal war, even if you can call it a war, has to be fought within the four-walls of the legal provisions applicable in the country. They have to comply with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Criminal Procedure Code envisages use of minimum force or no force by police while dealing even with riots and even with armed gangs.Other difficulties of fighting militants in a democratic country, especially in a country like India where double standards prevail in all walks of life, include hesitation to openly embrace the principle of bullet for bullet. While the militants know of no law and their gun is their only law, the security forces are supposed to act in accordance with the laws of the land. Before opening fire, the securities forces have to think ten times as to how they would be able to explain the same in the ensuing enquiries and court proceedings. Remember what happened to many security personnel in Punjab after normalcy was restored after years of terrorism. Many police officers had to face murder charges for encounter killings of terrorists. There are examples of police officers committing suicide when they could not live with such murder cases. There are plenty of so-called human rights brigades, funded from abroad by our enemies, who are bothered only about acts of security forces. We are an ungrateful nation with proven short memories.So, if you want to deploy army in the Maoist areas, you have to first think of these issues. Will you allow army to use maximum force with maximum effect against Maoists? Will you allow army to kill the Maoists even without provocation? Will you ensure that army would be allowed to use its full force in the way they are trained to use? If yes, then, well, deploy army by all means.But, if you are going to curtail the operational freedom of army and ask them to use minimum force and that too only in retaliation and not in a proactive way, then, well, you are going to defame and weaken the army and at the same time not getting results in the operations in which they are engaged. Why? Because, in that case, the army would also be more or less equally handicapped as the police forces are.Remember, army has been deployed in certain north-east states to fight militancy. Assam Rifles, which works on the army ethos, and is commanded by army officers, is deployed there. Army is deployed in Jammu & Kashmir to some extent. Yet, we are not able to solve the militancy / terrorism in these states. Why? Because we have curtailed the powers of army to work as per our laws, asking it to use minimum force. Army cannot use the force as it uses against external enemies, i.e., maximum force with the aim to destroy the enemy. Remember, what happened in Shopian (J&K) recently? An FIR for murder offence was registered against army officers and jawans for firing at violent protestors who were attacking the army convoy itself. So, when army officers fired in self-defence even then they were being charged with the offence of murder and were expected not to retaliate!!!Have you ever heard of an offence being registered against army officers when they fired and killed Pakistan soldiers in firing across the borders?I have handled certain high-profile cases on behalf of army in the Supreme Court as a special counsel on behalf of Union of India. So, I am telling you from my personal experiences.So, this is a major difference. If you deploy army for internal security duties without giving them the power to use maximum force as per their training and usual mandate (against external enemies), it would also be not fully effective. No doubt, our brave army soldiers would be much more effective than police officers, but the end result would not be achieved generally. On the other hand, army will unnecessarily be wasting its resources in internal duties, when it is supposed to be protecting our borders against external enemies. If you tie the hands of army while dealing with internal problems, and yet ask it to do such internal security duties, you will be lowering their morale if they fail to achieve objectives. This can have huge adverse consequences for future wars. It is the courage, determination and motivation that win a war more than your resources and strength. By unnecessarily involving army in internal security problems, and that too without giving it full operational freedom and legal protection (such as from FIRs, for example), you are going to achieve not much but lose a lot.Also remember that it is more difficult to defend against an internal or proxy war than against a regular war. Compare them with fighting against a snake and a tiger respectively. Both are dangerous and difficult to fight against. But, it is perhaps easier to fight against a tiger if you are well equipped because you at least know as to where you stand and where the enemy is. The enemy is visible to you and you can anticipate his movements. So, you can plan and can stand a fair chance of winning with proper equipment, resources, manpower and planning. But fighting a snake or a proxy war? You are not sure where the enemy is, what the next move of the enemy is, what the comparative strength of the enemy is. The enemy can unexpectedly and surreptitiously strike you anywhere and anytime. Uncertainty is the name of the game. And, they say that an unknown devil is more dangerous than the known devil. Fighting a war against armed citizens is fraught with risks and limitations in a democratic country.In view of this, fighting the Maoists is comparatively more difficult. Security forces fight with their hands tied. There are many so-called human rights organisations, who would approach the courts at the drop of the hat. You will have false FIRs registered against security forces, including of fake encounters, fake rape charges, fake violence, fake arrests, and what not.So, what is the solution? Is it impossible to solve the Maoist problem?Well, not exactly. Our security forces have the courage to do it. But, it requires proper planning and mobilisation of resources. It is beyond the scope of this answer (which is in response to a limited question) to go into exhaustive details, but let me explain it in brief.During our NPA training days, we were taught that three important ingredients for a successful policing are: (1) strength, (2) surprise and (3) consistency. You must have a reasonable strength of personnel. But, since you cannot have one policeman for every criminal, you must include the element of surprise to take care of your less strength. With your surprise visits, etc., here and there, criminals should feel that you are everywhere (even though you have less strength). And, such surprise must be given with consistency. Giving a surprise once in a blue moon is not sufficient. You need consistency and regularity.What we are lacking in Maoist areas is perhaps all these three ingredients. So, we must have sufficient securities forces (perhaps, 10 times the requirements in the beginning) and use them effectively in accordance with above principles. Then, we must equip them with technology. Use Drones to watch movements, explosive-detectors, landmine detectors, infrared sensors, and much more. I’ll not go into these details any further, as the answer has already become too longish.Further, you need both development and the show of strong arm of the state to win back the Maoist areas. Carrot and stick, both. Our state response is too slow. Development in these areas is extremely slow. Having personally worked in these areas, I can tell you the ground situation is pathetic, to say the least. Development funds are stolen on the way, by corrupt babus and politicians. And, our state is always hesitant to use full force, and, in fact, even the show of force.Using concerted efforts of development with proper security (including, proactive security), you can solve the problem. What is needed is will power and determination. On the other hand, what sometimes I feel is that there are some powerful vested interests which want the problem to continue, since it serves their interests.So, let there be genuine intent to solve the Maoist problem. Let there be strong determination. Let there be sufficient strength of securities forces, or I would be say 10 times the sufficient strength of security forces to begin with, at least. Mobilise them from other parts of the country. Security forces must have a proactive approach, with certain legal protections given to them. Use latest technology, not in a cosmetic manner but in a real effective way. And, lastly, let there be development, development and development. Results would be guaranteed, then.

Yes.Army's policy prohibits tattoos or brands that might be considered offensive, regardless of where they appear on the body. Specifically, the regulations forbid:Extremist tattoos. According to the regulations, these are tattoos or brands "affiliated with, depicting, or symbolizing extremist philosophies, organizations, or activities." This would include tattoos that: feature philosophies, groups or activities that promote racial or gender intolerance; encourage discrimination based on numerous factors, including race, gender and religion; advocate violence or "other unlawful means of depriving individual rights under the U.S. Constitution, and Federal or State law."Indecent tattoos. These include tattoos or brands that are "grossly offensive to modesty, decency, propriety, or professionalism." The Army's regulations do not provide examples of tattoos that would fall under these descriptions.Sexist tattoos. These include tattoos and brands that "advocate a philosophy that degrades or demeans a person based on gender," according to the regulations.Racist tattoos. Tattoos or brands that "advocate a philosophy that degrades or demeans a person based on race, ethnicity, or national origin" are not allowed.Tattoos That Are Allowed Under Army RulesGenerally, the Army's tattoo policy allows most tattoos (with the exception of those that fall into the "offensive" categories above), but forbids most of those that would be visible in uniform.The Army regulations do, however, allow one ring tattoo on each hand, although it must not extend beyond where a ring naturally would rest on your finger (between the lowest knuckle and your hand).As a result of these placement and visibility rules, tattoos and brands are not allowed on:Your headYour faceYour neck above the t-shirt lineInside your eyelids, mouth or earsYour wristsYour handsSo-called "permanent makeup," which includes tattoos used as permanent eyebrows or eyeliner, is allowed as long as it follows the Army's rules on makeup. Those rules, covered in the same Army regulation, allow makeup only for women, and require the makeup to be "applied modestly and conservatively."More on the Army's RulesThe Army doesn't allow recruits or soldiers to cover disallowed tattoos with bandages or makeup.Before soldiers decide to obtain a new tattoo, the regulations advise speaking with a unit leader to make sure the tattoo that's envisioned will abide by Army rules.If a soldier is found to have a tattoo that breaks the rules, the commander is instructed to take several steps, beginning with counseling of the soldier about the tattoo rules. If a soldier with a disallowed tattoo or brand refuses to have it removed, then the commander is instructed to initiate administrative separation proceedings.Source:Army Regulation 670-1Coast Guard Policy on Tattoos, Body Art and BrandsMarine Corps Policy on Tattoos, Body Art and BrandsGeneral Army Grooming and Uniform StandardsWhat Is the Air Force's Policy on Tattoos and Piercings?

This is a bold statement to make and contains a huge fallacy and that is: “Generalization”.Generalization of anything can lead to erroneous results. It is quiet wrong to generalize a bunch of group based on their educational slabs. Both the groups landed into the top premiere institute not because they lack talent or because B. tech students are more smart that is why they landed there first but because they worked hard in their respective time zones (which they thought was best for them).There shouldn’t be any question of whether some one is more talented than other. We should understand that the ultimate goal for everyone is to succeed and live a purposeful life.Let us understand this by taking an examples: “Let there be a person A” and “Let there be a person B”.Person A was a very smart person from his childhood and was very much interested in Computers, he developed that interest at an early age and went on to write codes for various programs and games at an early age of his childhood. That guy went on to pursue his further education after graduation from a top institute in the world “Harvard University”. There he had this image of go-to software developer in his campus. He later was presented with an opportunity from some of his colleagues to work on a project, after initially working for them he dropped out and went on to pursue his own interest that was somewhat an extension of the previous project that he was working on. That guy was “Mark Zuckerberg” and he later went on to create the largest social networking site “Facebook” at an age of 20.On the other hand second person B:Was not very lucky in his early life lost his biological father at an early age, his mother was working in a tomato cannery to feed his family. He at that time was left to look after and cook food for his siblings. His mother married another man and here too he had a tumultuous relationship with his stepfather. He left his home at an age of 13 and went on to work as: a conductor, served in Army, worked as a blacksmith, fireman and worked in various other odd jobs in order to survive. He lost his son at an early age. Later on in his life facing so many failures, difficulties and unwanted circumstances, he was presented with an opportunity to sell chickens, there too he faced certain unwanted situations and later went on to establish “Kentucky Fried Chicken” at an age of 62 years. That guy was “Colonel Sanders”.Who among them was more smart?Obviously both are successful and smart but the main thing is the circumstances in which they succeeded. So that is why generalization of anything is not correct. Everyone is working in their time zone and just because you tasted success first doesn’t makes you more smarter than the one’s that are yet to taste it.So obviously no this notion that B.Tech students in IIT’s are more smarter then M.Tech students is wrong on many levels.Hope this would helpKnowledge GATEFor all counseling related queries in the field of Computer Science and Engineering for the students preparing for GATE/ NET/ PSU’s and Private Jobs, we have launched our career counseling program “Counseling Guruji” , in which various experts from the industry would be counseling you for a better career growth. Please refer to the blog to know more about it: Counselling GurujiWe are offering a discount of 60–75% on all our packages.