Indian Army: News & Discussion

[arnab]

Yes, they want a chief who will do as they want, it can be used in multiple places -- implementing religious quotas in army, withdrawl from siachien and what not.

This is exactly a Gen Kaul moment with Antony playing Krishna Menon to V. K. Singh refusing to play Thimayaa.

Well one obviously cannot have evidence of such an 'understanding' with INC and the next Chief. But this still has two issues to be resolved.

1. Assuming Gen VKS wins and stays on for another 10 months. Can a pliable chief not be brought forward then? (So it is an institutional vs individual issue). Elections are due in 2014, am I right?

2. I have been reading in the newspapers of Gen VKS agreeing to a compromise wherein the GOI would accept his assertion of the DOB but he would not seek an extension in tenure (he would go on leave). I do not know if this is true - but if yes - then the problem of a 'pliable' chief remains.

[merlin]

There has to be trust between the Army Chief and the government. At this point the trust has been broken, endangering India's security. The Army Chief must demonstrate 100% of the time the discipline to take orders from the government

Actually most of this country has lost trust in the Government -thats what is endangering the country

Right on, very well said.

[rajrang]

Its not a matter to agree or disagree. There is only one truth. He cant be born on both the dates!

I afraid I do not want to contribute much more against the grain of thinking on BR - because that serves no purpose except irritating everyone. I was not commenting about the accuracy of his DOB.

Have you or anyone on BR been aware of similar appearances of conflict or actual conflict between the top military chief and the government in other mature democracies?

[Pranav]

Actually most of this country has lost trust in the Government -thats what is endangering the country

Isn't it the govt by its conduct that is responsible for the loss of trust. Now what - elect a new people?

[ramana]

Yes. Such conflicts are when the military general doesn't obey orders: Gen MacArthur in Korea, Gen. McChrystal in Afghanistan.

Its never a case where the govt tries to fix the date of birth of a serving officer to determine his length of service.

Again this case is not same as other cases one wants to compare in mature or immature democracies.

Civil supremacy over military is a given in a democracy. Even the Roman Senate was supreme over Julius Caesar. However the supremacy is not used to unfiarly treat the service person. Thats why one has the judicial remedy. Which is being exercised now.

[nachiket]

2. I have been reading in the newspapers of Gen VKS agreeing to a compromise wherein the GOI would accept his assertion of the DOB but he would not seek an extension in tenure (he would go on leave). I do not know if this is true - but if yes - then the problem of a 'pliable' chief remains.

So what other possible reason could the govt. have in going out of its way to deny Gen VKS his full term?

[amit]

Well one obviously cannot have evidence of such an 'understanding' with INC and the next Chief. But this still has two issues to be resolved.

1. Assuming Gen VKS wins and stays on for another 10 months. Can a pliable chief not be brought forward then? (So it is an institutional vs individual issue). Elections are due in 2014, am I right?

2. I have been reading in the newspapers of Gen VKS agreeing to a compromise wherein the GOI would accept his assertion of the DOB but he would not seek an extension in tenure (he would go on leave). I do not know if this is true - but if yes - then the problem of a 'pliable' chief remains.

If we do assume that INC is looking for a pliable chief who will help in giving away Siachen, allow Pakistan say in Kashmir and implement Muslim quotas in the Army, then all this has to be done by 2014. In that case it's useful to name the persons who are likely to succeed V K Singh in different scenarios.

According to IBN, these are the likely scenairos:

If General Singh's date of birth is taken as May 10, 1951 then he will retire in March 2013 and if May 10, 1950 is accepted then his tenure will come to an end in May 2012. The difference of one year will have an affect on who will succeed him as the next Army Chief.
If he retires on May 31, 2012 then Eastern Army Commander Lieutenant General Bikram Singh will take over as the next Army Chief, but if he demits office in March 2013 then Northern Army commander Lieutenant General KT Parnaik could take over from him as Lt Gen Bikram Singh will retire later in 2012.
But if General Singh is removed or resigns before May 31, 2012, then Western Command Chief Lieutenant General Shankar Ghosh, who is the senior most serving officer in the Army, will take on as the 27th Chief of the Indian Army.

Question is, who's the "piliable" candidate among the three? Gen Bikram Singh, who incidentally has a "false encounter" in Kashmir case hanging over his head and allegations that his daughter in law is Pakistani. Or is it General KT Parnaik? Maybe, General Shankar Ghosh?

Note: I think this controversy has been dreadfully managed by INC, especially Antony and they deserve all the brickbats that they are getting and more.

However, I would also like to point out that when an allegation is made that someone within the Army is ready to be a "piliable candidate" to further INC's allegedly "anti-national" moves then one not only tarnishes the INC but one also tarnishes the Army as an institutions and Generals who prima facie (after all they didn't get to their current ranks because they are good looking or TFTA) have given yeoman's service to the country.

One shouldn't cut ones nose to spite the face.

JMT

[Sanku]

Yes, they want a chief who will do as they want, it can be used in multiple places -- implementing religious quotas in army, withdrawl from siachien and what not.

This is exactly a Gen Kaul moment with Antony playing Krishna Menon to V. K. Singh refusing to play Thimayaa.

Well one obviously cannot have evidence of such an 'understanding' with INC and the next Chief. But this still has two issues to be resolved.

1. .....

2 ......

I think the Gen is trying to impose his will to ensure that not only he stays to the full legal term, but also has a suitable influence in choice of immediate successor.

Of course Gen V K Singh can not single handledly take on all the wheeling & dealings of the korrupt ruler and fix the entire country -- so issues will remain. However he can make a +ve difference, however small.

And each such small +ve difference adds to a big picture. Hopefully more people will show spine like him and CAG Vinod Rai.

[Badar]

The more I read of this storm in a teacup the more I get the feeling that someone should release a torrent to clean up the festering Agean stables - Cabals of Army officers in nexus with MoD mandarins torpedoing each others promotions, COAS being nudged out because he is too honest implying his replacement wont be, A COAS who punctured a rivals promotion that might threaten his own, A cabal getting back at the COAS for cracking down on the land scandal, A COAS who puts his own honor before his services, A COAS who chooses an unprecedented appeal to public courts over the established military justice tribunal comprised of his peers, Civil service bureaucrats in a game of oneupmanship with the uniformed ones ... the linen seems to be endless, and no ones comes out smelling of roses.

A most sordid affair, and at the end, of no lasting significance. If it were up to me, 24 new vacancies would open up overnight in High Command and South Block.

[rohitvats]

There has to be trust between the Army Chief and the government. At this point the trust has been broken, endangering India's security. The Army Chief must demonstrate 100% of the time the discipline to take orders from the government and act on them without reasoning why. (He can perhaps express his misgivings about a government order through private channels, not publicly.) This is not TSP army with personal agendas - however legitimate. In no democracy is the army or its Chief above the government or can question the government.

Well, the above is exactly like the sanctimonious BS which is being spread far and wide by the powers that be. There are two sides or parties in a relationship. The onus of maintaining the relationship rests on both of them. The burden of maintaining the healty relationship is not the responsibility of the Soldiers only - the GOI needs to demonstrate that it is keeping its side of the bargain. The way you've put the onus only on the Army or the Services, they are damned if they do and damnded if they don't.

As for discipline is concerned - well, you need to stop masking the true issue behind the facade of discipline or civil-military relationships. It is not about that - as far as the crux of the issue is concerned. It is the imbeciles and low-lifes who masquerade as bureaucracy in India who are spreading the canard of civil-military relationship issue(s). The opinion of the GOI on DOB issue is not a directive from GOI to Indian Army - it is its opinion to an indivisual on a particular administrative matter - not on a policy or even operational matter. The said indivizual has every right to approach the court of the land and ask them to address his concerns.

All this hogwash of bad precendence is because the bureaucracy and netas are afraid that Chiefs will not take their shenanighans lying down in future.

[Sanku]

However, I would also like to point out that when an allegation is made that someone within the Army is ready to be a "piliable candidate" to further INC's allegedly "anti-national" moves then one not only tarnishes the INC but one also tarnishes the Army as an institutions and Generals who prima facie (after all they didn't get to their current ranks because they are good looking or TFTA) have given yeoman's service to the country.

No Sir it does not; it is entirely possible to find a few bad apples within a organization and use it for nefarious purposes.

Kaul and co are examples.

However that did not sully the image of the Army in the least -- it was very clear that the Political masters were screwing the IA with a few of their lapdogs then.

People will see that now.

Choice of Tainted Thomas does not sully the institution of CVC, only of Kangress and Thomas.

This is a false alarm.

[amit]

No Sir it does not; it is entirely possible to find a few bad apples within a organization and use it for nefarious purposes.

Kaul and co are examples.

However that did not sully the image of the Army in the least -- it was very clear that the Political masters were screwing the IA with a few of their lapdogs then.

People will see that now.

Choice of Tainted Thomas does not sully the institution of CVC, only of Kangress and Thomas.

This is a false alarm.

OK so you feel that the Army can have a "few bad apples". Then there are two questions:

1) Which of the three Generals do you think is the "Bad Apple?" As of now there's no chance of any sudden new candidate appearing on the scene.

2) If the Army can indeed have a few "Bad Apples" then how do we know VK Singh not one of them. [Please note that I don't for a moment think his commitment to the country can be questioned and I stand by my last post that INC bungled big time].

Distasteful as the second question is, it needs to be asked because one is casting aspersions against the three other Generals by implying one of them could be INC's Manchurian Candidate who will do all the "anti-national" things which the party wants to do.

I hope you realise where things can lead to if hyperbole replaces informed discussion. There's plenty of information to screw the INC without the need to go into conspiracy theories which would need insider help from the Army.

[Sanku]

OK so you feel that the Army can have a "few bad apples". Then there are two questions:
.

For a forum like this, it is sufficient to mull on the possibility of pliant generals (note Kaul et al were not corrupt or had a bad track record only pliant) and go no further than that.

Questions of INCs motives were raised and have been answered with a few probable scenarios. One should know where to draw a line.

[amit]

One should know where to draw a line.

I see. Let me point to just two random quotes from just this page of the thread:

Yes, they want a chief who will do as they want, it can be used in multiple places -- implementing religious quotas in army, withdrawl from siachien and what not.

This is exactly a Gen Kaul moment with Antony playing Krishna Menon to V. K. Singh refusing to play Thimayaa.

Maybe he wants to tell the Pakis he has the IA under control and there wont be any cold or warm start. So lets get on with the piss with Siachen as a park and open borders in kashmir. He might even give the Pakis a say in running the Valley.

These two quotes which imply that the next General will be complicit with INC's nefarious designs fall within the line. Yet when the names of the three Generals, one of whom is likely to replace V K Singh, is placed then one needs to quickly draw a line and not point fingers? Is the rest left for the imagination? Aren't the Generals already "implicated" with the allegation [Spelling correct in Edit] that one of them has less commitment to India than is desired and so INC wants him for the top post?

[Sanku]

One should know where to draw a line.

I see. Let me point to just two random quotes from just this page of the thread:

Yes, they want a chief who will do as they want, it can be used in multiple places -- implementing religious quotas in army, withdrawl from siachien and what not.

This is exactly a Gen Kaul moment with Antony playing Krishna Menon to V. K. Singh refusing to play Thimayaa.

Maybe he wants to tell the Pakis he has the IA under control and there wont be any cold or warm start. So lets get on with the piss with Siachen as a park and open borders in kashmir. He might even give the Pakis a say in running the Valley.

These two quotes which imply that the next General will be complicit with INC's nefarious designs fall within the line. Yet when the names of the three Generals, one of whom is likely to replace V K Singh, is placed then one needs to quickly draw a line? Is the rest left for the imagination?

You are as usual up to your usual games of drawing two different posts from different posters, at different points, in order to make a point that no one is making and go rah rah about it.

Stop the silly games.

You have a question for me, quote me and talk to me, dont conflate and confuse and put words in others mouth.

---------------------

And oh its only for BRF, and only some on BRF who would consider things like Sachar in Army, giving away Kashmir etc as "anti-national".

I am very aware of any number of sycophants of congress, their apologists and other tenure seekers who can characterize the above as "meaningful decisions take by a suitably elected democratic Indian govt towards the greater peace and prosperity in the sub-continent"

We have seen the "oh its a Chankian decision onlee" folks in action before too.

[rajrang]

Yes. Such conflicts are when the military general doesn't obey orders: Gen MacArthur in Korea, Gen. McChrystal in Afghanistan.

Its never a case where the govt tries to fix the date of birth of a serving officer to determine his length of service.

Again this case is not same as other cases one wants to compare in mature or immature democracies.

Civil supremacy over military is a given in a democracy. Even the Roman Senate was supreme over Julius Caesar. However the supremacy is not used to unfarily treat the service person. Thats why one has the judicial remedy. Which is being exercised now.

Thank you

[Airavat]

IE reports:

A simple cup of tea that Army Chief General V K Singh had with Defence Secretary Shashikant Sharma on Wednesday sparked off a series of speculation that a resolution to the age controversy was in the works. While Singh met Sharma in connection with the visit of Nepal’s Deputy Prime Minister Bijay Gachhadar, speculation spread like wildfire that something was in the works. Singh also held a separate meeting with Gachhadar, who also holds Nepal defence ministry portfolio.

[amit]

You have a question for me, quote me and talk to me, dont conflate and confuse and put words in others mouth.

I hope you realise that the first quote is from a post made by you. So in a way the question was indeed meant for you.

I am very aware of any number of sycophants of congress, their apologists and other tenure seekers who can characterize the above as "meaningful decisions take by a suitably elected democratic Indian govt towards the greater peace and prosperity in the sub-continent"

Sanku bhai if that was meant to rile me, then I'm afraid you're wasting your time. I don't consider myself to be a Congress supporter. So don't waste you're gunpowder.

Meanwhile, try to think and understand the point I raised. If one were to make a general comment that a large organisation like the Army can have a few "Bad Apples" who do not have the best interests of the country in mind and that the INC is trying to use them, then it can pass muster.

But in this case when the names of the candidates who are likely to replace V K Singh have been narrowed down and are in public domain, to imply that the INC is looking to boot out V K Singh in order to put a piliable General in his place then you implicate these three fine officers. God knows maybe you're right, one of them could indeed prove to be a Manchurian Candidate. However, isn't it premature to think so right now without any evidence to back it up? I'll leave you with these thoughts and eagerly wait your next barrage.

[rajrang]

There has to be trust between the Army Chief and the government. At this point the trust has been broken, endangering India's security. The Army Chief must demonstrate 100% of the time the discipline to take orders from the government and act on them without reasoning why. (He can perhaps express his misgivings about a government order through private channels, not publicly.) This is not TSP army with personal agendas - however legitimate. In no democracy is the army or its Chief above the government or can question the government.

Well, the above is exactly like the sanctimonious BS which is being spread far and wide by the powers that be. There are two sides or parties in a relationship. The onus of maintaining the relationship rests on both of them. The burden of maintaining the healty relationship is not the responsibility of the Soldiers only - the GOI needs to demonstrate that it is keeping its side of the bargain. The way you've put the onus only on the Army or the Services, they are damned if they do and damnded if they don't.

As for discipline is concerned - well, you need to stop masking the true issue behind the facade of discipline or civil-military relationships. It is not about that - as far as the crux of the issue is concerned. It is the imbeciles and low-lifes who masquerade as bureaucracy in India who are spreading the canard of civil-military relationship issue(s). The opinion of the GOI on DOB issue is not a directive from GOI to Indian Army - it is its opinion to an indivisual on a particular administrative matter - not on a policy or even operational matter. The said indivizual has every right to approach the court of the land and ask them to address his concerns.

All this hogwash of bad precendence is because the bureaucracy and netas are afraid that Chiefs will not take their shenanighans lying down in future.

Good points

[Badar]

All this hogwash of bad precendence is because the bureaucracy and netas are afraid that Chiefs will not take their shenanighans lying down in future.

Fixing or fighting the civil powers shenanigans must be specifically out of the purview of the armed forces - that is one enemy they must not fight while on active duty. The question is not how much the politicians or bureaucrats are asking for it, but do we want the active service officers trundling down that road. This particular case is of no great import - subsequent ones might not be.

There's plenty of information to screw the INC without the need to go into conspiracy theories which would need insider help from the Army.

Ah! I see. Only so much needed to skewer or support political parties of one's own persuasion and no more? So this case is no longer as much about IA vs Mandarins but its ramifications in the upcoming local elections. The INC now will have interest in suppressing or dismissing this case ASAP, while the opposition will reap benefit from stirring up the dung heap.

Not you amit, but plenty of posters on this thread comes across as if they believe that Sonia Gandhi sits up late at night in her velvet chair stroking a white cat, with a pinky finger to her mouth plotting against the army, country and its institutions while the INC lackeys nodding their head in ready agreement.

[Sanku]

You have a question for me, quote me and talk to me, dont conflate and confuse and put words in others mouth.

I hope you realise that the first quote is from a post made by you. So in a way the question was indeed meant for you.

Why the second quote then? Anyway your claims about your views fly in the face of nearly everything else you say. Almost as if "IF I WAS TO SAY"

"Amit is good person, however has been known to repeatedly lie, confuse and obfuscate. Also he is not above back stabbing. But I think he is a good person never the less."

See the irony? I see the same in your posts.

[Sanku]

Not you amit, but plenty of posters on this thread comes across as if they believe that Sonia Gandhi sits up late at night in her velvet chair stroking a white cat, with a pinky finger to her mouth plotting against the army, country and its institutions while the INC lackeys nodding their head in ready agreement.

I dont think she sits up at night for that. I believe she is seen doing the above during day time and prefers to get her beauty sleep at night like any good ruler of divine right should.

[amit]

Why the second quote then? Anyway your claims about your views fly in the face of nearly everything else you say. Almost as if "IF I WAS TO SAY"

"Amit is good person, however has been known to repeatedly lie, confuse and obfuscate. Also he is not above back stabbing. But I think he is a good person never the less."

See the irony? I see the same in your posts.

So we're back to personal attacks are we? Shall I report your post? Nah, what's the point.

But I do see you've done your version of downhill skiing by completely ignoring the points I raised and replacing them with a cheap personal attack. Par for the course.

[Sanku]

All this hogwash of bad precendence is because the bureaucracy and netas are afraid that Chiefs will not take their shenanighans lying down in future.

Fixing or fighting the civil powers shenanigans must be specifically out of the purview of the armed forces -

That is one opinion. However, IA has already been used to fix civil issues, so clearly unless previous actions were unconstitutional, which we know they were not, we can not make the case of "must".

So this case is no longer as much about IA vs Mandarins but its ramifications in the upcoming local elections.

Actually yes. It was always so. No need to beat about the bush for this one. I firmly believe that this has nothing to do with the civil-mil interactions in this case but only about use of institutions for political power.

[Sanku]

Why the second quote then? Anyway your claims about your views fly in the face of nearly everything else you say. Almost as if "IF I WAS TO SAY"

"Amit is good person, however has been known to repeatedly lie, confuse and obfuscate. Also he is not above back stabbing. But I think he is a good person never the less."

See the irony? I see the same in your posts.

So we're back to personal attacks are we? Shall I report your post? Nah, what's the point.

But I do see you've done your version of downhill skiing by completely ignoring the points I raised and replacing them with a cheap personal attack. Par for the course.

I have absolutely not made a attack on you. I am merely highlighting an example of irony by giving a hypothetical example of how stupid I would sound if I was to make a conflicting statement.

Only saying that there is irony in your posts nothing more.

[Badar]

I dont think she sits up at night for that. I believe she is seen doing the above during day time and prefers to get her beauty sleep at night like any good ruler of divine right should.

Tsk, tsk, these modern day overlords. No more dark dungeons or all leather dominatrix apparel for them like the good old days.

One must ask at the risk of OT and banhammer vengeance, why though does she want to do so to India and its institutions. Surely she wants to leave a thriving powerful country for her children to rule over? Or is she just generally depraved according to you?

[amit]

... by giving a hypothetical example of how stupid I would sound if I was to make a conflicting statement.

Aare Sanku bhai, no need to put that in bold. I think it would be obvious to anyone who reads the last few exchanges we've had.

What you're in effect saying is this:

INC is gunning for VK Singh in order to replace him with a piliable candidate who will do all its nefarious designs but, but I'm not going to say which of the three Generals who have been shortlisted to replace and one of whom will replace him come what may is this piliable candidate because one needs to draw a line.

If the original matter hadn't been so serious then it certainly would have been a moment!

[Badar]

That is one opinion. However, IA has already been used to fix civil issues, so clearly unless previous actions were unconstitutional, which we know they were not, we can not make the case of "must".

There is a difference in fixing civilian issues and fixing civilian power structure issues.

I firmly believe that this has nothing to do with the civil-mil interactions in this case but only about use of institutions for political power.

Would you care to elaborate how and whose political power is being furthered by the Age Saga? Thanks.

[Pranav]

One must ask at the risk of OT and banhammer vengeance, why though does she want to do so to India and its institutions. Surely she wants to leave a thriving powerful country for her children to rule over? Or is she just generally depraved according to you?

Why does Mugabe want to screw Zimbabwe?

Why should a thriving country be a good thing if a more aware population would be less likely to put up with your loot?

In the present case we also have to consider the matter of foreign intelligence antecedents.

[Badar]

Why does Mugabe want to screw Zimbabwe? Why should a thriving country be a good thing if a more aware population would be less likely to put up with your loot? In the present case we also have to consider the matter of foreign intelligence antecedents.

I don't know why (and if) Mugabe wants to screw Zimbabwe? If there is a parallel could you spell it out please?

So the net interest of Sonia Gandhi is to make tons of money for herself - and this distinguishes her from the rest of the Indian politicians how?

So AISE nee SISME controls Sonia Gandhi to further Italian ambitions in India? Perhaps good old VKS was thwarting this according to you?

[Pranav]

I don't know why (and if) Mugabe wants to screw Zimbabwe? If there a parallel could you spell it out please?

Is that so hard? We are talking about why rulers would screw their subjects.

So the net interest of Sonia Gandhi is to make tons of money for herself - and this distinguishes her from the rest of the Indian politicians how?

There are degrees of rapaciousness, and degrees to which a ruler might identify with the native civilization.

So AISE nee SISME controls Sonia Gandhi to further Italian ambitions in India?

Surely you are not unaware of the KGB payments?

[Philip]

Following on to the post which said that in India the IA has been 'enslaved" and the bogus chant of Gandhi advocating "non-violence" every time.Those at the helm of affairs right now,should read this.Apologies if it has been posted before.

Fwd: When General Cariappa met Mahatma Gandhi
When General Cariappa met Gandhi

On the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti, it is apt to recount the encounter
of General(later Field Marshal) Cariappa with Mahatma Gandhi. This
anecdote was narrated by the noted defence analyst K Subramanyam while
delivering the VI Field Marshal KM Cariappa Memorial Lecture in
October 2000 at Delhi.

While undergoing the course at the Imperial Defence College in London,
as a Major General in early 1947, General Cariappa was quoted as
advocating that Jawahar Lal Nehru and Jinnah should meet to work out a
solution without partitioning India and in any event, division of the
Indian Army should be averted. Gandhiji criticised him for a military
man expressing views on politics in his weekly column in The Harijan.
When General Cariappa returned to India, he called on Gandhiji who was
staying in the Bhangi Colony in Delhi. When he reached Gandhiji’s
cottage, the meticulous soldier took off his shoes before entering the
hut. Gandhiji, who knew enough about soldiering, having served in the
battlefield in South Africa during the Boer War, told him that his
shoes were part of his uniform and, therefore, it was not proper to
take them off. The General replied that according to Indian tradition
a person did not wear shoes in the presence of a deity, mahatmas and
saints. After some polite conversation, General Cariappa came to the
point. He told Gandhiji, “I cannot do my duty well by the country if I
concentrate only on telling troops of non-violence all the time,
subordinating their main task of preparing themselves efficiently to
be good soldiers. So I ask you, please, to give me the child’s guide
to knowledge – tell me please, how I can put this over, that is, the
spirit of non-violence to the troops without endangering their sense
of duty to train thmeselves well professionally as soldiers.” Gandhiji
replied,”You have asked me to tell you in tangible and concrete form
how you can put over to the troops the need for non-violence. I am
still groping in the dark for the answer. I will find it and give it
to you some day.”

You will find this story in Pyarelal’s book Mahatma Gandhi: The last
phase. Pyarelal was Gandhiji’s private secretary at the time.

This was the honest answer of the apostle of non-violence to the first
soldier of independent India.

He did not have an answer, on how to defend India using non-violence.

This happened in December 1947. Next month, the Mahatma was
assassinated. Even as Gandhiji was searching for an answer on how to
use non-violence in defence, he approved and indeed strongly supported
the use of the Indian Army to defend Kashmir against Pakistani
invasion.

Brigadier LP Sen obtained Gandhiji’s blessings before he flew down to
Srinagar to assume his command.

It would have required enormous moral courage on the part of General
Cariappa to raise the issue of non-violence in defence with the
Mahatma. It is a pity that this exchange between the Mahatma and the
General has not been publicised widely.

This exchange made it clear that Gandhiji, who successfully practiced
non-violence in the offensive mode vis a vis the British raj, which
was on the defensive, had not resolved the problem of application of
non-violence to defence and therefore, as was demonstrated in Kashmir,
was prepared to support the use of the Indian Army in defence.

Even today, most of the people in the nation are unaware of this
exchange. Had that happened, the widespread belief that Gandhian
values were responsible for the neglect of defence in the earlier
years of our freedom would not be there.

In fact Gandhian values and approach have been used as a convenient
alibi by people - ? ? ? who did not understand Gandhi. The Mahatma as
he himself made clear often, was not a pacifist. He always maintained
that violence was better than cowardice.[Field Marshal KM Cariappa
Memorial Lectures 1995 - 2000, Lancer Publishers & Distributors,
Delhi, 2001]

[Badar]

Surely you are not unaware of the KGB payments?

Ah, the KGB payments. No further questions at the moment your honor.

[Sanku]

That is one opinion. However, IA has already been used to fix civil issues, so clearly unless previous actions were unconstitutional, which we know they were not, we can not make the case of "must".

There is a difference in fixing civilian issues and fixing civilian power structure issues.

You lost me, I am not saying that Army should fix civilian power structure issues, but why is that being even discussed. Where from does a remote thought of the type even get into the matter?

I believe you were replying to rohitvats, I dont think he remotely implied that Army should fix civil power structure, only that Army must do its part in keeping the part of Army-civil interface healthy, with both give and take.

I firmly believe that this has nothing to do with the civil-mil interactions in this case but only about use of institutions for political power.

Would you care to elaborate how and whose political power is being furthered by the Age Saga? Thanks.

I believe I already said that.

[Sanku]

... by giving a hypothetical example of how stupid I would sound if I was to make a conflicting statement.

Aare Sanku bhai, no need to put that in bold. I think it would be obvious to anyone who reads the last few exchanges we've had.

What you're in effect saying is this:

INC is gunning for VK Singh in order to replace him with a piliable candidate who will do all its nefarious designs but, but I'm not going to say which of the three Generals who have been shortlisted to replace and one of whom will replace him come what may is this piliable candidate because one needs to draw a line.

If the original matter hadn't been so serious then it certainly would have been a moment!

I am glad you find it funny. I wish you wouldnt, but then, I am not you.

BTW, the three names which according to you are the only possible choice is not necessarily what the GoI is looking at. You are not aware of the GoI shortlist and it is merely your view that we should discuss these generals.

Which unfortunately we wont.

[rajeshks]

There has to be trust between the Army Chief and the government. At this point the trust has been broken, endangering India's security. The Army Chief must demonstrate 100% of the time the discipline to take orders from the government and act on them without reasoning why. (He can perhaps express his misgivings about a government order through private channels, not publicly.) This is not TSP army with personal agendas - however legitimate. In no democracy is the army or its Chief above the government or can question the government.

There is no problem between IA and Govt for you to be worried about. Other than fools no one will think that Indian Army is not committed to protect India because of this incident.

The problem is some incompetent people occupying certain positions in government. It is a problem of few people alone. Funny thing is when you place a dog in the chair of say 'X' and ask others to salute it, it becomes a problem. Cant blame a self respecting Indian. Donno whether anyone in congress really heard about these words "honour and integrity".. for others it is always as below.. cant blame them for criticising VKS as they havent really seen an Indian with self respect..

[Badar]

I believe you were replying to rohitvats, I dont think he remotely implied that Army should fix civil power structure, only that Army must do its part in keeping the part of Army-civil interface healthy, with both give and take.

If that is all there is to it then there is no difference of opinion here between you, me and rohit.

What I wanted to make absolutely clear is that it is expressly not within the ambit of the Armed Forces to fix the corruption in the Raisina Hill or South Block however blatant and terrible it may be. They can resign (and should) and then fight it all they want.

I believe I already said that.

Forgive me, yes indeed you did. "they want a chief who will do as they want, it can be used in multiple places -- implementing religious quotas in army, withdrawl from siachien and what not". Gets a little hard to keep track in the blur of posts.

So they want a general who would cooperate in implementing the policy the government of the day (irrespective of the General's own opinion of their policy). Can't fault the government for asking that however much you might fault the government for those policies in the first place. Has VKS given the government grief over this? If so this might be the only credible rationale I have heard about why the government might be out to get him.

[chetak]

So why does MMS take this seriously?
Last time he took it like this was the IUCNA deal.

He might even give the Pakis a say in running the Valley.

Especially power generation and distribution because you know who has the first call on Indian resources.

[amit]

You are not aware of the GoI shortlist

Please educate me, I'm always willing to learn. I'm sure the future piliable General's name is in the shortlist.

[Philip]

Let his track record speak for itself.

Who is the person who has consistently tried to belittle India's stand vis-a-vis Pak whether it is on J&K or cross-border terrorism ?
Who has consistently wanted "talks" with Pak despite there being no let up in its terror campaign against India.
Who has done nothing to warn Pak about its swamping the nation with coiunterfeit notes harming our economy?
Who made the huge faux pas over Baluchistan at S-al-S?
Who is trying hard to water down parliament's stand on the N-liability clause?
Who was behind cash for votes?
Who ignored the Chinese threat for decades?
Who has retreated every time China insults us by issuing stapled visas (Ar.P and J&K)without any counter from our MEA?
Who has not protested when China encroaches upon our territory (J&K CM), and dropped an IAF officer from Ar.P. from an official visit to China because of a Chinese visa objection (Ar.P is Chinese)?
Who did nothing to stem the rupee's fall?
Who is clueless about inflation and the economy?
Who wants to hand over the "family silver" ,FDI in retail,etc.,to foreign interests?
Who allowed and presided over the swindle of $100 billion by his own cabinet and party colleagues in scam after scam?

Is the nation safe in such a person's hands?
Is he defending Indian interests or someone elses?
Can you trust such a person when dealing with Pak or China ?
Can you trust hin in defence deals?
Can you trust him in selecting the next Army chief?

What do you call such a person?