I know a IED when I see one.amit wrote:Please educate me, I'm always willing to learn. I'm sure the future piliable General's name is in the shortlist.Sanku wrote:You are not aware of the GoI shortlist
Why, would you be surprised if Maino had been on KGB payroll?Badar wrote:Ah, the KGB payments. No further questions at the moment your honor.Pranav wrote:Surely you are not unaware of the KGB payments?
I some what disagree, if the corruption, monetary or otherwise is within the scope of their powers and operations (such as political pressure to sell defence land say) or whether as in this case of arbitrary, unfair and discriminatory application of powers;Badar wrote: 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.
Yes and no. There are issues at multiple levelsForgive 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.
Sanku,Sanku wrote:I know a IED when I see one.
But its not relevant, lets worry about shortlists a year from now.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_wa ... gh_1639419The government has also realised that Gen Singh has a good case in court since he has a birth certificate from Military hospital in Pune as well as a school leaving certificate that records his age as May 10, 1951.
Badar wrote:The armed forces are not the arbiters of national interest, the elected representatives are.
St Antony along with his dopey advisers are culpable jointly and severally.chaanakya wrote:The options before Govt are limited while case is with SC.
Things would be clear if SC sends the case to AFT which is unlikely since another PIL on the same issue is coming tomorrow.
If Govt asks COAS to go on leave or remove him or if successor is announced or if argument about line of succession is peddled before SC , the Govt case is doomed. There is no rule which sanctifies line of succession.
And if SC gives stay order on MOD directive and COAS would continue beyond May 2012 notwithstanding his assertion in plaint. If case is dragged on without stay then COAS would retire and Govt would have saved the day. But if eventually he wins then the position of the incumbent would be difficult as he would be seen as usurper and AKA would be gone from DM in ignominious exit .
Govt can not curtail the term of COAS also as it would invite the charge of manipulation and raise issues for future COAS since either way line of succession would be broken. And if DOB manipulation is proved then COAS would serve full term and Govt would have embarrassment. Who would resign in the even: AKA, GEV or someone in MOD.
Surely somebody has erred big time in MOD.
6. The man squarely responsible for the confrontation precipitating into this embarrassing crisis is not the Prime Minister, not Pranab Mukherjee, but Defence Minister A.K Antony alone, considering that he was abreast of all developments at every step of the way but still chose dumbfounding incompetence, hubris and denial over alacrity, empathy and a sense of the larger dignity of the establishments under his watch.
The Army Chief in his 68-page petition reveals that “the alleged admission was not a free admission”.
“Rather it was made in a hurry and not with total independence but under apprehension of some proceeding being initiated, as the petitioner (Singh) is a disciplined member of the Forces,” he explained.
Referring to then Military Secretary PR Gangadharan’s letter on January 21, 2008 informing him that his official year of birth will be 1950, Singh said he had to accept the “direction” in a reply on January 31, 2008.
“However, the alleged ‘acceptance’ cannot be treated as an admission on the part of the petitioner (Singh). It is pertinent to state herein that the acceptance in the letter dated 31.01.2008 was given in good faith and in the interest of the organisation,” he said.
In fact, Singh said he had “accepted” his year of birth as 1950 only in “good faith and in the interest of the organisation”, largely influenced by the assurances from the then Army Chief.
Singh said it was after a telephonic conversation with the then Army Chief that he decided to send a signal communication on January 24, 2008 to inform that 1950 was “acceptable as desired by then then chief of army staff and in organisational interest”. He said that his letters to the MS Branch both on January 30 and 31 of 2008 accepting his date of birth as 10.5.1950 was again on the orders of the then Army Chief.
“In the highest traditions of the Indian Army, he had no option but to comply... as also the assurances of his superior officer with the hope that he would bring the issue to a logical and ethical conclusion by accepting facts,” he said. But Singh said in his petition that further letters to the then Army Chief seeking action on the determination of his age were not replied to.
enough of that here. post on topic or stick to CT threads in strat.Pranav wrote:Badar wrote:The armed forces are not the arbiters of national interest, the elected representatives are.
This argument would be valid where there is transparency in the election process.
As chetan, Kaps, kunal etc - people who are in touch with hundreds of such folks have mentioned5. The sense that the army is fully behind their Chief is patently false; A significant number believe the Chief has obsessed with the issue to the point of embarrassing the service.
I have to strongly object. elected representatives cannot be the sole arbiters of national interest, because they are not domain experts. they are expected to take policy decisions but that is guided by the wisdom of the domain experts, from civilian, military and intel bureaucracy.Badar wrote: The armed forces are not the arbiters of national interest, the elected representatives are.
Surya wrote:aroor says
As chetan, Kaps, kunal etc - people who are in touch with hundreds of such folks have mentioned5. The sense that the army is fully behind their Chief is patently false; A significant number believe the Chief has obsessed with the issue to the point of embarrassing the service.
thats not the case
aroor is BSing all the way
and when Aroor talks ofhonor
I feel the urge to take a dip in the Ganges
No they are not. People of India are the sole arbiters of national interest. Which include then men in uniform with various powers vested to them through constitution being part of GoI, a part of executive.Badar wrote:Sanku, I am wholly in agreement with your last post save point three. If asked to disband they must do so forthwith without hesitation or argument. The armed forces are not the arbiters of national interest, the elected representatives are.
I saw this after I posted a reply much on similar lines. Agree 100% with Rahul M here.Rahul M wrote:I have to strongly object. elected representatives cannot be the sole arbiters of national interest, because they are not domain experts. they are expected to take policy decisions but that is guided by the wisdom of the domain experts, from civilian, military and intel bureaucracy.Badar wrote: The armed forces are not the arbiters of national interest, the elected representatives are.
national interest is far too important to be left to the politicians, every stake holder has to have a say.
Amit. I would like to state that often (almost always) as is the case, you have taken words which have not been said, replaced the real words by imaginary words and redrafted what others (at least I am) are saying to meet your idea of debate.amit wrote:Sanku,Sanku wrote:I know a IED when I see one.
But its not relevant, lets worry about shortlists a year from now.
On a serious note, I'm glad you understand that speculating that the future COAS would be piliable puppet in the hands of INC or any other political organisation is such an IED, as you call it. It's one thing to call politicians names and compare them with the likes of Mugabe - it just becomes a question of your credibility. It's a totally different thing to allege that a future COAS would be a Manchurian Candidate - in effect that he would commit treason - without any shred of evidence. For all you know the next COAS may display more balls than the whole of the Cabinet combined.
JMT
From the article-Murugan wrote:all of a sudden all the news pertaining to DOB have died down!
May be because:
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_wa ... gh_1639419The government has also realised that Gen Singh has a good case in court since he has a birth certificate from Military hospital in Pune as well as a school leaving certificate that records his age as May 10, 1951.
All naa-mard bikau media has goe silent.
Who is this grenadier's association?.For the last two months, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee was acting as an interlocutor on behalf of the UPA government with Gen Singh. However, a petition filed by the army veterans, the Grenadiers Association, was coming up which could have vitiated Gen Singh’s options to go to court. The Grenadier’s petition was full of basic mistakes which are expected to be rejected by the apex court. To prevent such a prejudice building up, Gen Singh rushed through his petition on Monday morning.
You may wish to familiarise yourself with COAS selection procedures before peddling such foolish conspiracy theories. And also reconsider your implicit accusation against Lt Gen Bikram Singh, GOC Eastern Command.Sanku wrote:Amit. I would like to state that often (almost always) as is the case, you have taken words which have not been said, replaced the real words by imaginary words and redrafted what others (at least I am) are saying to meet your idea of debate.amit wrote:Sanku,
On a serious note, I'm glad you understand that speculating that the future COAS would be piliable puppet in the hands of INC or any other political organisation is such an IED, as you call it. It's one thing to call politicians names and compare them with the likes of Mugabe - it just becomes a question of your credibility. It's a totally different thing to allege that a future COAS would be a Manchurian Candidate - in effect that he would commit treason - without any shred of evidence. For all you know the next COAS may display more balls than the whole of the Cabinet combined.
JMT
To reiterate what I have said
1) Culpability is INCs
2) Reason is to have a more pliant chief to meet their idea of running the country (to rest of non congress apologists we consider it running the country into a gutter)
3) It is possible for INC to fiddle with succession to find more pliant officer(s) -- all officers of the Armed forces may not be equally difficult to ride rough shod over
The word used was "arbiter", which means someone who exercises judgment and makes decisions.Rahul M wrote:I have to strongly object. elected representatives cannot be the sole arbiters of national interest, because they are not domain experts. they are expected to take policy decisions but that is guided by the wisdom of the domain experts, from civilian, military and intel bureaucracy.Badar wrote: The armed forces are not the arbiters of national interest, the elected representatives are.
national interest is far too important to be left to the politicians, every stake holder has to have a say.
Rahul, Sanki, I agree every stakeholder has to have a say - in the form of advice, opinion and equally vital - dissent when necessary. But the final decision is the prerogative of the executive branch. There is no second guessing or opposing it once it is made. You either implement it unreservedly or you resign and go public with your opposition.Rahul M wrote:I have to strongly object. elected representatives cannot be the sole arbiters of national interest, because they are not domain experts. they are expected to take policy decisions but that is guided by the wisdom of the domain experts, from civilian, military and intel bureaucracy. national interest is far too important to be left to the politicians, every stake holder has to have a say.Badar wrote: The armed forces are not the arbiters of national interest, the elected representatives are.
I dunno, the whole thing is quite petty.more importantly, what national interest is going to be served by insulting a chief and calling him liar ?
Whatever the eventual fate of Gen. Vijay Kumar Singh and his petition seeking legal remedy on the issue of his date of birth, the responsibility for driving the glorious institution of the Indian Army and its Chief into this fight rests on the shoulders of the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister, the Cabinet, the UPA supremo + Caucus, and above all, the Supreme Court.
Informed sources say Mr. Anthony was ‘guided’ by a Caucus around the UPA’s non-official leadership. This is why he shunned the advice of the Law Ministry and opted for the ‘opinion’ of the Attorney General who, along with a Senior Advocate who was inspired to go ballistic against Gen. Singh in a leading weekly magazine, seems to have been briefed by the same sources. This is unbecoming conduct which the Bar Council should scrutinize.
The UPA’s shenanigans in the past four months invite contempt. What was the ‘amicable solution’ that Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee was trying to work out, when all he had to do was to endorse the veracity of Gen. Singh’s claims? And given the virtual barrage of vicious articles in the media, what was Prime Minister Manmohan Singh doing to restore the dignity of the Armed Services and the Army Chief? Other ministers like P. Chidambaram and Salman Khurshid who spoke on the issue, and National Security Advisor Shiv Shanker Menon, will have to explain their role in cooking this vile broth.
Chief Justice S. H. Kapadia, like Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, should have appreciated that a festering sore of this nature was hurting the morale of the Army. Hence, when the Grenadiers Association (Rohtak Chapter) filed a PIL (WP 513/2011) in the first week of December 2011, it should have received high priority. When the apex court heard the petition on 16 Dec. 2011, and Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur recused himself for personal reasons, a new bench should have been assigned forthwith. The Court showed no such urgency until Senior Advocate Bhim Singh urged the Chief Justice to assign the case to a new bench; now the petition of the Army Chief has overtaken matters.
Had the Supreme Court risen to the occasion, a simple scrutiny of records could have settled the issue expeditiously and saved the Nation from a crisis of unforeseen dimensions, with a highly respected institution like the Army embroiled in a mess created by a Political-Bureaucratic Nexus that citizens despise.
Briefly, on 21 July 2011, the Union Ministry of Defence vide order No.23 (1)/2011-D (MS) fixed Gen. V.K. Singh’s date of birth as 10 May 1950.(birth of army chief fixed by GOI)he Prime Minister refused to accept a memorandum from a group of MPs urging him to adopt a view in accordance with settled principles of law and natural justice.
Leave it to the brfites to make their own opinions.Concerned citizens are convinced that there is a sinister plot to undermine Army morale. The present Army Chief has made many enemies with his drive against those involved in Housing, Land and other scams. The attempt to shunt such a man out before the end of his legitimate tenure is part of a conspiracy by corrupt politicians-bureaucrats-contractors to cover their flanks.
You may wish to familiarize yourself with English language before attempting communication on the same.Amitabh wrote:You may wish to familiarise yourself with COAS selection procedures before peddling such foolish conspiracy theories. And also reconsider your implicit accusation against Lt Gen Bikram Singh, GOC Eastern Command.Sanku wrote:
Amit. I would like to state that often (almost always) as is the case, you have taken words which have not been said, replaced the real words by imaginary words and redrafted what others (at least I am) are saying to meet your idea of debate.
To reiterate what I have said
1) Culpability is INCs
2) Reason is to have a more pliant chief to meet their idea of running the country (to rest of non congress apologists we consider it running the country into a gutter)
3) It is possible for INC to fiddle with succession to find more pliant officer(s) -- all officers of the Armed forces may not be equally difficult to ride rough shod over
It still does not have validity. Since clearly the three pillars (and now four with Lokaukta) have jointly and severally held such powers.Pranav wrote: The word used was "arbiter", which means someone who exercises judgment and makes decisions.
An arbiter should certainly get inputs from domain experts, but the buck stops with the arbiter.
So Badar's POV does have some validity, subject to a proper understanding of the word "elected", particulars of which are unmentionable in this thread.
Sanku, your views on the Constitution of India are, how to phrase it, unorthodox.Sanku wrote:People of India are the sole arbiters of national interest. Which include then men in uniform with various powers vested to them through constitution being part of GoI, a part of executive.
No more and no less than elected legislature. Another part of GoI.
This hype about "elected representative being sole arbiters of national interest" is completely false.
And this is not my view -- this is how it is in the constitution. So I am afraid you are plain wrong here.
There is only one pillar for executive actions.Sanku wrote: It still does not have validity. Since clearly the three pillars (and now four with Lokaukta) have jointly and severally held such powers.
Of course representing the will of the people as a whole in the final analysis. I am afraid he is -- just wrong.
As I said, that is incorrect. Often enough courts play a role.Badar wrote: The government IS the sole arbiter of national security. .
But that in only under the direction and watch of the other two.Pranav wrote:There is only one pillar for executive actions.Sanku wrote: It still does not have validity. Since clearly the three pillars (and now four with Lokaukta) have jointly and severally held such powers.
Of course representing the will of the people as a whole in the final analysis. I am afraid he is -- just wrong.
Righto sanku.Sanku wrote:So for country's sake -- please stop.
link-Martial differences
January 17, 2012First Published: 21:49 IST(17/1/2012)
Last Updated: 21:51 IST(17/1/2012)
General VK Singh and General Ashfaq Kayani.If a Martian wanted to find out one fundamental difference between India and Pakistan, all he would need to do is pick up the paper and look at yesterday’s two top stories both involving army chiefs of the two countries. Pakistan first. While the latest turn of events has pitted Pakistan’s civilian government — itself a giveaway term that suggests that there could be any other kind of government in that country — against its judiciary, the real wrangle is between President Asif Ali Zardari and the Pakistani army led by Ashfaq Kayani.
In ‘better’ times, General Kayani would have been able to conduct a coup and get things back in order, if only for a while. This time, however, in a scenario where the army is livid at Mr Zardari for secretly passing on a memo to the American administration seeking protection against an, um, army coup, as well busy facing off hordes of Islamicist extremists, the Pakistani military is in the news for less capable reasons.
In contrast, the news that the Indian army chief is making across the border has little to do with a genuine, institutional stand-off with the government — yes, the only one India ever had was the civilian government. It’s about General VK Singh insisting that he’s a year younger than the government believes he is. He has now gone to court over what is a human resource quarrel about whether he should stay on as Chief of Army Staff for another year or not. Despite what army canteen rum-drinkers insist about the issue signalling a breakdown in the Indian Army-government relations, this isn’t what one may call the stuff of constitutional crises.
So in a snapshot, one can get the relationship that both ‘democracies’ have with their armed forces. If the Pakistani example triggers a nostalgia for the army’s ability to become the (strict) adults necessary when the children are making a mess of things, the Indian example shows that the army has a more specialised role in the country. And that this birth certificate imbroglio is just a sideshow worthy of bureaucrats
That does sound remarkably like saying that the next probable COAS viz. Lt Gen Bikram Singh will be more pliant with respect to the GoI's wishes and less likely to stand up for his institution.Sanku wrote: Amit. I would like to state that often (almost always) as is the case, you have taken words which have not been said, replaced the real words by imaginary words and redrafted what others (at least I am) are saying to meet your idea of debate.
To reiterate what I have said
1) Culpability is INCs
2) Reason is to have a more pliant chief to meet their idea of running the country (to rest of non congress apologists we consider it running the country into a gutter)
3) It is possible for INC to fiddle with succession to find more pliant officer(s) -- all officers of the Armed forces may not be equally difficult to ride rough shod over
No more no less.