--- gilbert menezes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The issue was about *the civilians paying for the > military through > payment of taxes* which you had mentioned earlier. > Im afraid that > your payment of some minor local state taxes has got > nothing to do > with the upkeep of the military. If you have also > contribited to Goa > charities, Bravo!, but that has nothing to do with > this issue. > I take strong objection to your linkage of *perks* > to the alleged > *cats whiskers attitude* of the military. It is a > loose canonball > designed to disparage the Armed forces, with no > basis whatsoever. > Furthermore, you have not answered the question, and > identified what > are the perks in the first place. I suspect that > you have no direct > interaction with the Indian Armed forces, and are > therefore illsuited > to make any comment about the attitudes of our men > in uniform. > You have also made some disparaging comments about > Admiral Mehta, > knowing fully well that you cannot receive a > rebuttal from him. > regards, Gilbert Menezes
Well, let me put it this way. Years ago, when I was in Bombay, I won't mention names, but I was witness to an Army bloke collecting of bags of rice from an Army depot - rice that was top-quality, and subsidised substantially. Then when I was in the Brazilian Navy, we used to get duty-free liquor, cigarettes and top cuts of beef from Argentina (from Uruguay during the Anglo-Argentine war). Now don't tell me such things don't occur in the Indian Navy. My comments were to deduce a possible reason why the Naval blokes think they're the best, not to bleat about the "perks". So please don't make an issue out of it. Now allow me to quote a news article by Sandesh Prabhudesai on 5Oct2002, entitled: "Navy downgrades civilians?", on the aftermath of the tragic accident at Dabolim. Quote: However, it is a coincidence that the Vasco police on Thursday arrested a security guard posted by the navy at INS Hansa for wrongfully restraining locals from passing through their area, in spite of the high court passing orders to allow them free access. The local fishermen of Bimbvel, a beach adjacent to INS Hansa, have been allegedly harassed by the navy over a decade now as the whole residential naval colony has been cordoned off, allowing no passage for the fishermen to go to their hutments on the beach. "The harassment continues in spite of all the courts, from the executive magistrate to the high court, instructing them to allow us free access and maintain a register. But they insist on issuing us passes as if we are strangers. We have been staying here much before the naval base came up", states Damaciano Dourado, the local fisherman. However, according to Cdr Roy, it is Dourado who has been harassing the navy with court cases. He fully justifies the action of issuing passes, stating that mere maintaining register will not solve the problem. He also discloses that the navy is now planning to acquire the area where the fishermen are living, from national security point of view. Dourado however alleges that the naval authorities have already privatised the beach, to have their picnics and outings. They even beat up the local civilians who try to go to the public beach and whisk them away, he adds. Unquote. A curious question arises from this news item: is Dabolim a training school, a defence establishment or a R&R place? Regarding the Admiral - I have only reported what Admiral Mehta said in 1996. You can read all about it in http://goacom.com/news/news96/sep/dabolim.html. Quote: "The ownership of the airfield is not negotiable," he told a group of representatives of the tourism industry whom he recently addressed at a face to face meet organised by the Goa Chamber of Commerce and Industry. ... But Admiral Mehta who was well prepared to handle any provocation and criticism that the naval presence had been hampering tourist charter operations to this State, took the wind out of the sails of the tourism lobby, sources said. All procedures were followed and compensation was paid for the land acquired for the naval air station, Admiral Mehta said. Quoting a lease agreement signed between the ministry of defence and the civil aviation department, he pointed out that the use of the airfield for civil aviation purposes was subject to the condition that it would in no way interfere with the functioning of the Navy. Unquote. In the above, it appears he was enforcing his authority on the civilians, does it not? In one place he talks about ownership, then in another, about a lease agreement. A lessee is not an owner. What do you think these two conflicting statements, coming from such a highly-placed individual, imply? Now let's come to Dec 2003. Eduardo Faleiro put a question in "List of Questions for written answers": What is the status of the ownership of Goa's Dabolim Airport? If there was a lease, the Goa Govt ought to have known about it and Mr. Faleiro would have had an answer to the question himself. Therefore, I deduce that there is no such lease, and that Admiral Mehta was not exactly being open with the truth, in 1996. Only if you, Mr. Menezes, or the Admiral can produce this lease document or an untouched facsimile of it, I will gladly retract my statements and present a full apology to all affected. Until then, I stand by what I have said. Cheers, Gabriel. Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com
