Bharat Rakshak

ACM Arjan Singh will be India's first Marshal of the Air Force.

Sir, we salute you.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jan/25iaf.htm

Congrats Sir!<p>My question why did it take 33 years for GOI to make him a Marshall?

Good.<p>Better late than never.<p>Don't know if this page will show up - anyhow click below and try your luck . .<p>http://www.geocities.com/thalsena/pages28.jpg

They don't often make them like Air Chief Marshal Arjan Singh, do they ... ?<p>Among Air Chief Marshal Singh's other distinguished services to the nation, following his retirement as CAS, members might be interested to know that he also served as Chairman of the Board of Governors of IIT Delhi, during the late '70s. During that period, he almost single-handedly changed the character of the IIT administration, among other things, in one tiny respect: He invariably showed up *** on time *** for every function he was invited to. After a few embarassing occasions, when Air Chief Marshal Singh spent time talking, in the absence of anyone else, to the students setting up the PA systems for the function, everyone else got the message; and for a few years thereafter IIT Delhi functions started on the dot. Wonder if they still do?

Congrats to him.......<p>
If only PC Lal were still alive...sigh.

Shiv..i am dissapointed. You had to post a link to geocities when we have Air Chief Marshal Arjan Singh's profile right here on BR?<p><p>Air Chief Marshal Arjan Singh<p>And geocities wont allow you to go directly to a image. You can only post links to the html page.

For the benefit of DOO's here, can someone explain the significance of making him a Marshal. What is a marshal?

Having grown up reading his leadership exploits, I can not but be nostalgic. <p>Richly deserved for he served the nation.<p>I salute you sir.
Jai Hind.

Hi,<p>The title "Marshal" was originally awarded to victorious commanders who sucessfully invested a city or won great victory on the field of battle. Usually a honorary title, not a pay grade or field rank. Traditionally, a serving military commander with the rank of a Marshal was given the privelege of direct access (i.e circumventing the chain of command) to the top political leadership.<p>Its the Nobel prize or Oscar of the military.

Another picture <p>

My best wishes and greetings to the great man.<p>My Salutes, very happy to see the belated recognition.

A great man who richly deserves this honour.
Congrats sir!

My salutes to the Sardar. True soldiers like him don't go after titles, unlike some of the Generals in our neighbouring country. Shows the professionalism of Indian armed forces.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Arun A:
For the benefit of DOO's here, can someone explain the significance of making him a Marshal. What is a marshal?<hr></blockquote><p>Badar is, as usual, accurate in his description of the classical historic background to the designation Marshal. However, a little more contemporary detail, if of interest:<p>The full formal name of the rank that Air Chief Marshal Arjan Singh will hold from tomorrow should be "Marshal of the Indian Air Force". The RAF's equivalent is Marshal of the Royal Air Force, usually abbreviated MRAF. The shoulder and cuff titles will consist of a broad band plus four stripes.<p>This rank is the Air Force equivalent of the Army's "Field Marshal" rank (awarded in India only to Field Marshals Cariappa and Manekshaw), or the Navy's "Admiral of the Fleet" rank (never yet awarded in India). These are five-star ranks, rarely awarded even in the larger armed forces -- the US Army (which at that time included the Air Corps) appointed only four officers to five-star rank during WW2 (The US Army's equivalent rank is "General of the Army" rather than Field Marshal, though); though thy had several million men under arms at the time.<p>Hope this is of interest.

Marshal of the Air Force (or IAF) is a five star rank – the highest – ranking senior to the Air Chief Marshal. In India the five star rank has been conferred so far only on officers from the Army. Gen.Maneckshaw and later Gen.Cariappa were both awarded the rank of Field Marshal. The five-star position in India is not an operational one – only ceremonial in recognition of exceptional service. In UK the five star ranking officer is the operational chief of the service concerned. The 3 five star officers, Admiral of the Fleet of the RN, Field Marshal of the Army, Marshal of the RAF are members of the Defence Staff with one of them chairing it.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by pennathur:

... In UK the five star ranking officer is the operational chief of the service concerned. The 3 five star officers, Admiral of the Fleet of the RN, Field Marshal of the Army, Marshal of the RAF are members of the Defence Staff with one of them chairing it.<hr></blockquote><p>Not so. These days the Chief of Defense Staff(CDS) as well as the 3 chiefs of UK are all 4 stars. It will be patently ridiculous for the presentday Royal Army of half a dozen divisions to be headed by a "operational" 5 star chief to be receiving orders from another 5 star.<p>Just for the record, the current heads are:<p>CDS- Admiral Sir Michael Boyce
VCDS - Air Chief Marshal Sir Anthony Bagnall
First Sea Lord - Admiral Sir Nigel Essenhigh
CGS- General Sir Michael Walker
CAS- Air Chief Marshal Sir Peter Squire <p>Actually, Badar's explanation of the origin of the concept/honor of a 5 star rank is pretty accurate, esp. regarding the direct access thing as that was an explicit rule of Napoleon who had at one point of time more than a dozen "Marshal"s heading his forces. I do not think any army in the last 200 years or so such standardised ranks have been there, (including the mammoth Soviet forces which liberally dosed out "5 star" Marshal ranks) has "operationalised" a 5 star. And for good reason, as doing so will devalue its value as honor, not a right.<p>Now there is one country which has very clumsily tried to go beyond even 5 star. USofA. It handed out the ranks of "General of the Army"(and equivalents) after WW2 to 9 officers, Adm. Leahy onwards to Gen. Bradley with no two awards on a single date. After Bradley in 1950 it has not been awarded since.
But there arose a problem, the honorary ranks of civil war-era Generals Grant, Sherman and Sheridan was "General of the Army of the United States" while in 1919 after end of WW1, the chief of American Expeditionary Force Gen. Pershing was honored with rank of "General of the Armies of the United States". Now this inconsistency as well as the unique phraseology of these 4 honors would have remained as a matter of simple historical curiosity and all of them would have been treated as same 5 stars as the above mentioned WW2 case of 9 awards. But some senator in 1976 came up with this finding that George Washington's rank was "General of the Army" which was somehow lower than that of Generals Grant,Sherman,Sheridan and Pershing and thus an insult to the great man. So the senator wanted Washington to be awarded the "rank" of Gen. Pershing a little over 200 years after any of his exploits on the battlefield. Though US historical society, US Army as well as many Services associations pointed out the nature of these inconsistencies in the phraseology of these honors all of which were similar in intent/scope, US Senate after a quite interesting debate passed the said resolution awarding George Washington the "rank" of "General of the Armies of the United States". From that day, US Army heraldry proclaims these 5 soldiers as a notch higher than the latter day 5 stars, in other word as 6 stars.

Link to a photo of Marshall Arjan Singh and his wife upon hearing the news<p>http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020126/main5.htm

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dbpatra:
I do not think any army in the last 200 years or so such standardised ranks have been there, (including the mammoth Soviet forces which liberally dosed out "5 star" Marshal ranks) has "operationalised" a 5 star. And for good reason, as doing so will devalue its value as honor, not a right.<hr></blockquote><p>Wasn't Paulus (sp?) a marshal when he surrendered at stalingrad? Hitler was upset that he surrendered and quoted to have said = Marshals don't surrender or something.<p>Name may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the guy at staligrad was a marshal and opposed by another marshal from the USSR. So Field Marshals have been on operational duties...<p>PS: I think Rommel was a Field Marshal too.

IIRC Marshal Arjan Singh, won a DFC serving in WW II

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Shalav:
Name may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the guy at staligrad was a marshal and opposed by another marshal from the USSR. So Field Marshals have been on operational duties...<p>PS: I think Rommel was a Field Marshal too.<hr></blockquote><p>You are talking about Von Paulus (?). He was a General during the siege of Stalingrad. Hitler promoted him to Field Marshal just before the garrison capitulated to the russians. The promotion impled that Paulus should commit sucide as no Field Marshal was ever taken POW. but Paulus decided to surrender anyway...and embarras Hitler.<p>In today's context five star ranks are mostly honarary ranks given for recognition rather than for field duties.<p>You dont need to go far to search for field marshal, we had one Field Marshal across the border as the president during the 1965 War. 'Field Marshal' Ayub Khan, who was actually much junior to many of the officer's serving as Lt Gen in the Indian Army at about the same time.

Kudos to AM Arjan Singh! You've done us all proud. Thank you for your long service to the nation.<p>
<I>PS: Lets not sully the thread by bringing in the likes of Ayub Khan, who, like most Pakis in uniform, is a disgrace to all men & women in uniform the world over.</I>

Soviet Marshals are serving soldiers. During World War I and II British Field Marshals commanded operations. As far as the Soviets are concerned, their rank structure is slightly different from the rest of the world. <p>A marshal of the Soviet Union is the big boss as far as operational matters are concerned, but I think their real equivalent of a non operational rank is Generalissimus. Only two people ever recieved it, and one of them was stalin, who awarded it to himself.

My salutes to the great man.
I faintly remember reading how the rank of a Field Marshal was awarded trivially in Nazi Germany, thus diminishing its stature. The incident about von Paulus just serves to reinforce that opinion. In WWI, even Luddendorf did not make it to the rank of a field marshal. India seems to have followed such a tradition in awarding such honours sparingly.
May we have a war soon, affording Gen Padmanabhan the opportunity to qualify to be considered for the position of the third Field Marshal of India. Maybe, it is time we had an Admiral of the fleet (or whatever it is in India).

Will this be a respectable cerimonial title or will GoI introduce this honour on acting Vice Marshall's too?

Sir We Salute you!!!!

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CSchwab:
Sorry if this sounds like a personal attack, but you made a very foolish statement wishing for war to make someone a Field Marshal. I sincerely hope this is not reflective of the general opinion here. Marshal Arjan Singh I am sure did not wish for war nor did any of the other Field Marshals.<hr></blockquote>
I am not wishing for war to make someone a Field Marshal. I am just wishing for war, and the irreversible neutering of TSP. But I do wonder if, our officers, seeing their men, innocent civilians, and babes in arms being slaughtered, our parliament being attacked, aren't itching to open their flies and be covered with glory.

Kudos to a great man!<p>but he still is not a "CHIEF EXECUTIVE" :p (pun intended)!!<p>Jai.

Marshal of the Indian Air Force Arjan Singh deserves all our congratulations on his promotion. Why did it take the system 33 long years to honour him ? <p>You can correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the timing of the honour just the tiny bit suspicious ? I mean on the eve of the Punjab elections a prominent Sikh is promoted while the Akali Dal takes the credit.

Mandeep<p>Sometimes mixed motives have great ends. <p>Congrats to a very deserving warrior and a fine human being.<p>Peeyoosh

Guys keep the politics out. There is always someone who has to complain. Learn to savour the moment.<p>Who cares why, when and how it happened. It happened to a very deserving person. That's all that matters.

So then what's a Colonel General?<p>IIRC the British CDS who a few years back resigned following a "sex scandal" (the sort that the Brits specialise in) was Marshal PEter Harding a 5-star from the RAF.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by pennathur:
So then what's a Colonel General? <hr></blockquote><p>Brigadier's in the US Armed forces are called Brigadier-General ..they are One star generals.<p>I suspect a colonel general is nothing but a "Generalisation" of the Colonol Rank. so you have Col-Gen, Brig Gen, Maj Gen Lt Gen etc etc...I am not sure, i am just shooting in the dark.

A link on Colonel-Generals etc.<p>http://www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/genobst.htm

Originally posted by Mandeep Bajwa:
Marshal of the Indian Air Force Arjan Singh deserves all our congratulations on his promotion. Why did it take the system 33 long years to honour him ? <p>You can correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the timing of the honour just the tiny bit suspicious ? I mean on the eve of the Punjab elections a prominent Sikh is promoted while the Akali Dal takes the credit.<p>Even Gen. Cariappa got his due in 1986, well after he retired. So, there's some precedence in the glacial pace of Indian decision making apparatus.<p>You could be right about the timing, but does it really matter? I, for one am very glad that Marshall Arjan Singh got the well-deserved honor.

A Col. General in the german army during ww2 was equivalent to a full General in the british army

A Maj Gen ranks higher than a Brig Gen. A Lt Gen ranks higher than a maj Gen..shouldnot there be an 2/Lt Gen instead of a Colonel General.. Just kidding...I wonder who devised this ranks..<p>on a serious note, does the Marshal of the IAF also carry a Baton similar to the Field Marshals of the Army? any photographs available on the net?

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jagan:
A Maj Gen ranks higher than a Brig Gen. A Lt Gen ranks higher than a maj Gen..shouldnot there be an 2/Lt Gen instead of a Colonel General.. Just kidding...I wonder who devised this ranks..<p>on a serious note, does the Marshal of the IAF also carry a Baton similar to the Field Marshals of the Army? any photographs available on the net?<hr></blockquote><p>Jagan>> This is purely from speculation.<p>Lt. General ----> Lt to a full General.
Major General -----> Major among Brigadier Generals.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>A Maj Gen ranks higher than a Brig Gen. <hr></blockquote><p>"Brigadier General" is US nomenclature. The British (and Indian) equivalent is simply called "Brigadier".