Home| IAS Exam| Bank Exams| Contact us
14th June 2010
ANALYSIS
MILITARY MURDERERS BRING DOWN THE SACRIFICES OF TRUE PATRIOTS
The personnel of an Indian Army unit tempted three north Kashmiri rural men with promise of jobs and killed them last month alleging them as jihadists attempting to infiltrate in to India and the Northern Army Commander Lt. Gen. R S Jaswal has assured that the culprits would be brought to book.  That is insufficient, because there is serious dissatisfaction over the counter-insurgency formations of the Indian Army and the internal mistaken means, as seen in the past. Facts available with police, prove that Srinagar based XV Corps should have smelt rat much earlier than the relatives of the dead men filed complaints.  But top Commanders did not know as to what rogue units under them were doing.  Four years back a police investigation unearthed evidence that Rashtriya Rifles formations had been involved in killing of several people in south Kashmir and terming them as jihadists died in combats.  Two years before this, an unknown informer in the Army exposed that four porters hired from Jammu and Punjab had been killed in the same way by 18 Rashtriya Rifles.  These offenders went scot-free since Army authorities were lax to take any action.  Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s assurance of zero-tolerance on human rights violations will be useless until the Army develops a criminal justice system worth its name.

Militaries the worlds over have to struggle with criminal acts by their men on higher scale than what soldiers in Jammu and Kashmir have committed.  Earlier this month, soldiers of the U.S. Army’s 5 Stryker Brigade butchered many Afghan civilians just like the usual torture of alleged terrorists in Iraq.  But, in many instances, military detectives brought in convincing and visible trials.  Indian military heads have, in many cases, instinctively overlooked the transgressions.  From 1993 to 2007, the Army’s Human Right Cell probed 1,321 accusation of human rights breach in J & K and the North East but only 54 incidents were supported by evidence and just 115 were penalized.  Further, the details of investigations and the proceedings were kept as secret.  The assumption that publishing the details will bring down army enthusiasm is not justified.  By the by, the criminal acts of few military personnel degrade the sacrifices of those patriots who risk their lives in real counter-insurgency actions. 

WHO’S DECISIONS SHOULD BE ABOVE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
One year after the World Health Organization confirmed an Influenza A(H1N1) as deadly disease, a joint investigation by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and the Bureau of  Investigative Journalism has raised “worrying questions about how WHO managed clash of interest among the scientists who advised its pandemic planning and about the clearness of the science underlying its advice to governments of the world.” The open access findings are available in the periodical (“Conflicts of interest: WHO and the pandemic flu ‘conspiracies,” by Deborah Cohen and Philip Carter).  Whereas three scientists had financial interests with firms producing influenza drugs and vaccine and had declared their conflicts of interest in other instances, WHO failed to reveal this.  In aias coaching defensive reply to the journal, Margaret Chan, Director General of WHO, own up that the “WHO needs to set up and impose stricter rules of engagement with industry, and we are doing so.” However, at a January 2010 hearings of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly, the WHO refuted any industry pressure on the scientific advice it received.  A report by the Council of Europe has already come down profoundly on WHO for its exploitation of the H1N1 influenza pandemic, which led to “alteration of priorities of public health services all over Europe, and misuse of huge public funds.”

It is obligatory for authors presenting papers to primary medical journals to announce any conflict of interest and as such information becomes part of the published document.  This is a fundamental safeguard inevitable to protect the integrity of academic effort.  By distinction, the BMJ article points out, the investigation reveals “a system under pressure to manage the inherent conflict between the pharmaceutical industry, WHO and the global public health system, while all draw on common pool of scientists.”  Clash of interests by experts advising WHO can have severe financial and healthcare repercussions, especially when the world body declares a pandemic.  Many developed countries spent millions stockpiling drugs and vaccines when not needed and health care systems of developing world were strained too much.  One does not have to buy into conspiracy theories to be able to know that when a pandemic is mis-diagnosed and mis-declared, only the drug companies make a fast buck. Dr. Chan has fervently denied that commercial interests prejudiced the world body’s decision-making.  Meager assurances will not get back the trust lost by WHO.

Archive....
Current Affairs Editorial Team : H.L. Subramania, N.G.Karan, R.Shivaram & N.Poornima
 
HOME | IAS EXAM | BANK EXAM | CONTACT US
Copyright © Jts institute Bangalore
Legal jurisdiction: Bangalore city court only