Indian Army: News & Discussion

[Rahul M]

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.

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.

The government IS the sole arbiter of national security. That is the way it is, and that is the way it should be. Any other way is an invitation to disaster.

no disagreement on that. just that the declaration of the government's mandate must come with equally necessary riders. if the govt of the day in all its wisdom decides to divide India into 4 independent states (say) and has the parliamentary majority to carry through this decision, should the rest of the country (which includes the military) sit back and watch ?

a soldier has as much right as any citizen of the country, barring explicit exceptions mentioned in the respective service codes. it is his right to request legal intervention if he feels discriminated against. that is his prerogative.
if the govt feels he overstayed his bounds as a soldier, it can dismiss him citing relevant clauses. that is their prerogative.
but to cook the records and kick out a chief before his term by calling him a liar is simply not done.

The government IS the sole arbiter of national security. That is the way it is, and that is the way it should be. Any other way is an invitation to disaster.

I must admit I am rather surprised that you and Sanku would think otherwise and am at a loss of words. Is this opinion also prevalent in the forces as well? There are chilling implication considering that India is nuclear weapons state under standing threat from two other nuclear weapons states.

I am rather surprised that you twisted something into something it is not.

this case does not involve national security directly, not taking into account the morale of the military and corruption that will probably get a freer pass after VKS.
so how is citing the supremacy of the political executive even germane to this discussion ?

in case you are interested my views can be found viewtopic.php?p=1220840#p1220840 and onwards

[Sanku]

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.

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.

Which unless you know something about the general that the rest of us don't, can be interpreted as a slight on his career. Its ironic that you're standing up for one officer by denigrating another.

I do not particularly care what a perfectly straight forward comment sounds to you like. You can bear you own cross of burden for making things sound like they are remotely not.

The names were your addition, so you deal with the muck raking.

But yes, not all officers are the same. It is entirely possible to support one officer by saying he is one of the finest. Nothing remotely ironic about it.

Unless in your book any officer == any other officer. (just like the other == statements)

[Badar]

if the govt of the day in all its wisdom decides to divide India into 4 independent states (say) and has the parliamentary majority to carry through this decision, should the rest of the country (which includes the military) sit back and watch ?

Assuming the parliament with two thirds majority and a majority of state assemblies all vote for a dissolution, then yes the military must sit back and watch. Each soldier can use the ballot box like the rest of us to oppose it, but they cannot use the ammunition box. Ordinary citizens can use the soap box as well, but the soldiers can't.

it is his right to request legal intervention if he feels discriminated against. that is his prerogative.
if the govt feels he overstayed his bounds as a soldier, it can dismiss him citing relevant clauses. that is their prerogative.
but to cook the records and kick out a chief before his term by calling him a liar is simply not done.

I will repeat my first post in this thread. No one is questioning his "right" to appeal to the courts, merely if he is "right" to do so. Surely one can criticize the latter without stifling his constitutional rights. As COAS he has higher duties than his own honor and his own rights.

I am rather surprised that you twisted something into something it is not. this case does not involve national security directly, not taking into account the morale of the military and corruption that will probably get a freer pass after VKS. so how is citing the supremacy of the political executive even germane to this discussion ?

You misunderstand me, there is no twisting of words or situation, merely hinting of the consequences. You cannot selectively apply the principle of civilian supremacy. Violation of the principles of civilian control and supremacy have far reaching consequences beyond this petty DoB fracas - I was highlighting the logical extreme endpoint of the view that the soldiers may contest executive decisions based on their own notions of right or wrong. They can't and they shouldn't. Principles that have been established and upheld for a period of time have been done so for a reason.

PS: I evidently have higher confidence in the army high command than you do, so no, I don't think any of the likely replacements of VKS will roll over and play dead for the government. They will argue vehemently for what is best for India, secondarily for the services during policy making through the regular channels.

[Badar]

I have a question for the people who follow military personalities and appointments etc.

Was there a chilling effect in the behavior of the Naval Chiefs/Service chiefs post Bhagwat? Have the naval or other chiefs started looking over their shoulders for approval from the civilian masters? Or is it business as usual with each chief rubbing raw against the MoD, agreeing/protesting each according to their own nature and inclinations?

If the GoI is making an example of VKS (as some allege), then will it impact the performance of the successors. Something tells me that you can't become a service chief and also be the type who be easily intimidated into kowtowing to the party line.

[Viv S]

I do not particularly care what a perfectly straight forward comment sounds to you like. You can bear you own cross of burden for making things sound like they are remotely not.

So what does - 'reason is to have a more pliant chief' mean? Does it not mean that you believe they will select a more pliant successor?

[Pranav]

You cannot selectively apply the principle of civilian supremacy. Violation of the principles of civilian control and supremacy have far reaching consequences beyond this petty DoB fracas - I was highlighting the logical extreme endpoint of the view that the soldiers may contest executive decisions based on their own notions of right or wrong. They can't and they shouldn't.

Executive conduct that is illegal and malafide should indeed be fought.

They will argue vehemently for what is best for India, secondarily for the services during policy making through the regular channels.

That is what VKS is doing.

[Yayavar]

The issues seems simple enough and easily resolved. It has been deliberately let fester - so either it is gross incompetence or the need to remove the current chief. It does not follow that the next fellow will be more pliant but maybe the current one is not pliant enough and so is being troubled?

[Pranav]

Was there a chilling effect in the behavior of the Naval Chiefs/Service chiefs post Bhagwat?

The chilling effect has been there since the days of Nehru's reprehensible and disgraceful conduct.

[Badar]

They will argue vehemently for what is best for India, secondarily for the services during policy making through the regular channels.

That is what VKS is doing.

I must admit I fail to see how all this is supposed to work out in India's or even the service's advantage.

[Sanku]

if the govt of the day in all its wisdom decides to divide India into 4 independent states (say) and has the parliamentary majority to carry through this decision, should the rest of the country (which includes the military) sit back and watch ?

Assuming the parliament with two thirds majority and a majority of state assemblies all vote for a dissolution, then yes the military must sit back and watch.

Not necessarily true. Even a 2/3 majority can not change the fundamentals of a constitution. You are describing a constitutional crises.

Glib statements about "civilian supremacy" mean nothing at such times of extreme constitutional crises. If there is no constitution being held, people can not be expected to follow a non-existing constitution.

I will repeat my first post in this thread. No one is questioning his "right" to appeal to the courts, merely if he is "right" to do so.

Yet none of your criticisms makes any sense what so ever. Apart from raising bogey men of extreme constitutional crises what exactly is your complaint is totally lost.

Some of your complaints are made on factually incorrect points (such as imagined supremacy of a govt) so they dont hold.

As COAS he has higher duties than his own honor and his own rights.

And how do you know that he is not doing it for overall institutional interest? and that of the country? He is absolutely right in pointing out murder of institutions by govt in power.

You are not a mind reader, and not really privvy to what he thinks.

Almost everybody understand that his personal grouse is essentially a matter of right and wrong way for Govt to behave with its chief.

I
You misunderstand me, there is no twisting of words or situation, merely hinting of the consequences. You cannot selectively apply the principle of civilian supremacy. Violation of the principles of civilian control and supremacy .

First and foremost, this is not remotely a case of violation of principles of civilian control.

So to bring that into picture, appears to me to be completely irrelevant and a distraction from any meaningful issues pertaining to the case.

[chaanakya]

From he link posted by Ramana in Newbie thread about NDA Joining instruction

Candidates have to sign This legal bond
ANNEXURE – V
Supplementary Legal Agreement Bond
(Refer to Para 16 (d) & 22 of Joining Instructions)

;;;
Whereas……….has been selected by the Government for provisional admission to the
National Defence Academy for the purpose of receiving initial training with a view to being
commissioned as an Officer in the Regular Army/Indian Navy/Indian Air Force PROVIDED he is
considered by the Government to be suitable in all respects for being commissioned as aforesaid
and provided there is a vacancy subject to the production to the Government of the documents
mentioned below (hereinafter referred to as the said documents) immediately on arrival at the
Academy or by such later date as may be fixed by the Government in this behalf :-
(a) Original Secondary School or equivalent certificate & Marksheet in support
of age.

Now VKS would have given his DOB and certificate while undergoing training at NDA or at IMA.
Whether Govt would produce this document that VKS wrote 1950 and not 1951 in this mandatory agreement without which he could not serve in Army.

[Pranav]

I must admit I fail to see how all this is supposed to work out in India's or even the service's advantage.

Any regime that indulges in blatantly illegal behavior must be taken to task. That is what VKS is doing and it is in the interest of the service and the nation.

[Sanku]

I do not particularly care what a perfectly straight forward comment sounds to you like. You can bear you own cross of burden for making things sound like they are remotely not.

So what does - 'reason is to have a more pliant chief' mean? Does it not mean that you believe they will select a more pliant successor?

I believe I was perfectly clear the first time around. Not possible to be clearer than that. Sorry.

[Badar]

Yet none of your criticisms makes any sense what so ever. Apart from raising bogey men of extreme constitutional crises what exactly is your complaint is totally lost.

This phenomenon is known as thread drift. Conversation started of with VKS, shifted to civilian control of military and now to consequences of violation of that principle. Yes the last few posts are not germane to the original issue, but indeed valid with respect to the discussion of civilian control.

My complaint? there is none. I am just tut-tooting from the sidelines.

[Kanson]

I do not particularly care what a perfectly straight forward comment sounds to you like. You can bear you own cross of burden for making things sound like they are remotely not.

So what does - 'reason is to have a more pliant chief' mean? Does it not mean that you believe they will select a more pliant successor?

From the history of past 60 years, one can see, ruling Gov always looked for pliable Army officers who can be kept under civilian control in tight leash. So 'Pliant' is not such an outlandish term from Indian perspective. And there are many examples where upright officers took things in their own hands.

Secondly, this Gov actions are not inspiring any confidence to deem as appropriate in any matter.

[Badar]

Any regime that indulges in blatantly illegal behavior must be taken to task. That is what VKS is doing and it is in the interest of the service and the nation.

I could live with that.

But it would have been a hell of a lot credible if he had taken a less personal issue to take the 'regime' to task. Since this implicitly impacts his own tenure his credibility will be automatically questioned.

[nachiket]

I could live with that.

But it would have been a hell of a lot credible if he had taken a less personal issue to take the 'regime' to task. Since this implicitly impacts his own tenure his credibility will be automatically questioned.

So according to you, he should take the insult and injustice meted out to him with nary a whimper? The only credibility in question here is that of the governement. And they didn't have any left in the first place.

[Yayavar]

^^ a non-pliant is removed with the expectation that the next is more pliant. The successor may turn out to be so or not. See the CEC situation before and after Seshan.
This issue seems simple enough to have been resolved quickly. So either incompetence caused this mess or there is a desire to remove the chief early. The guy succeeding maybe a favoured one (unfortunately one is forced to think that) or in the best case the current one is not considered pliant enough and so is sought to be removed early.

[ramana]

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 1#p1228161

Folks I don't want any probing or questioning what the serving people think. I don't mind retired people's opinion.

Please consider this as a warning.

Reminder.

Its not appropriate to discuss serving officers. Politicans are different.


Thanks, ramana

[Badar]

The only credibility in question here is that of the governement.

Government and credibility? Lol!

[Rahul M]

badar ji, I simply did not understand how you drew that extreme logical conclusion.

here's a case of a govt employee who moves court to seek redressal about a perceived injustice. now you may think it is unseemly and against the greater interests of the army.
someone else, me for instance might think it's the opposite, that it's the best way of making a stand against politicization of the forces.

what I completely fail to see is how the exercise of his constitution granted rights can be extended, in any way, to a case of disobedience of civil authority in a nuclear scenario.

it simply does not make sense and is no way relevant to this discussion.

Since this implicitly impacts his own tenure his credibility will be automatically questioned.

he is more than willing to give up the extra 1 year tenure even if he wins the case in court. this has been mentioned in the papers more than once.
for him it's a question of principles, not interest.

[Sanku]

My complaint? there is none. I am just tut-tooting from the sidelines.

That is the first thing you have said that we can whole heartedly agree on.

[Kanson]

Army Chief Crisis: UPA & Judiciary equally to blame

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.

leading weekly magazine referred here is India Today. The magazine carried the same reasoning exhibited (which are utter lies) by Attorney General.

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.

It seems this gov tried to follow the age old trick of public onslaught of smear campaign through media at the same time privately make Gen VKS accept to their demands, similar to the treatment given to Gen Thimayya, so that they can retain the image of civilian upmanship over army.

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.

Always, 2+2 = 4.

[Sanku]

Since this implicitly impacts his own tenure his credibility will be automatically questioned.

he is more than willing to give up the extra 1 year tenure even if he wins the case in court. this has been mentioned in the papers more than once.
for him it's a question of principles, not interest.

Rahul M ji Badar bandhu -- I have no idea why this issue is less or more important if it results in a extra year for him.

Not taking on the govt would have given him 10000000000 years of governorship.

If his intrests for his organization require him to stay on, he should. There is no conflict here -- he is 51 born, and he must get his full tenure. That is right, that is justice, that is rule of law.

Anything else is a banana republic -- where tenures are decided on whims and not on predictable and fair set of rules.

[Badar]

badar ji, I simply did not understand how you drew that extreme logical conclusion.

here's a case of a govt employee who moves court to seek redressal about a perceived injustice. now you may think it is unseemly and against the greater interests of the army. someone else, me for instance might think it's the opposite, that it's the best way of making a stand against politicization of the forces.

what I completely fail to see is how the exercise of his constitution granted rights can be extended, in any way, to a case of disobedience of civil authority in a nuclear scenario. it simply does not make sense and is no way relevant to this discussion.

Thread drift Rahul. One contention was that the GoI wants a "pliant" officer, and my argument was that they are right to do so. From there on discussion went to where and when and how a officer should put his foot down. From thereon naturally to civil-military relations. Thereon to questioning and selecting orders to obey etc, like your hypothetical dissolution. From there Nukes was just a godwin away

It's not particularly applicable to VKS, but I do stand by my opinion. I suspect think you don't particularly disagree with my position either, perhaps in particulars but not in gist.

he is more than willing to give up the extra 1 year tenure even if he wins the case in court. this has been mentioned in the papers more than once. for him it's a question of principles, not interest.

If the court case is indeed ruled in his favor, do the practical exigencies of governance allow anything but his continuance in his current role?

[ramana]

Shiv Aroor in Indiatoday blog

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.

I did say AKA is the real fall guy. Maybe the real CT is to get rid off him via DOBgate.

AKA relied on the advice of favored GOI legal experst and the unofficial coterie. Even S Swamy in his letter was clear that AKA was only following orders.

[Sanku]

If the court case is indeed ruled in his favor, do the practical exigencies of governance allow anything but his continuance in his current role?

Fully agree, if court rules in his favor, the least Govt should do, is not fiddle further. Enough damage has been done already.

And that is how exactly it should have been -- its only a pity that courts needed to get involved for doing what should have been done anyway.

Just like in Tainted Thomas case.

[Badar]

Anything else is a banana republic -- where tenures are decided on whims and not on predictable and fair set of rules.

I agree. The government has full right to appoint and fire any Service Chief at any time for any reason at all. Because this is such a high profile position of high visibility, they came up with an elaborate system of rules and regulations so that appointment and relief of a service chief is a dignified, reliable and drama-free exercise.

oh wait....

[Badar]

Fully agree, if court rules in his favor, the least Govt should do, is not fiddle further. Enough damage has been done already.

And his honor satisfied, should the General then take early retirement?

[Sanku]

GoI wants a "pliant" officer, and my argument was that they are right to do so.

No Sir, GoI is not right in that. A good incumbent is a through professional who speaks his mind and resists. Not a yes-man rubber stamp.

We already have too many, including in some very high institutional chairs.

(BTW the exact same arguments can be made for Chief's boss as well -- the President , do we want a yes man/woman because he/she is a Govt appointee, or do we want a independent person who will do well)

[Sanku]

Anything else is a banana republic -- where tenures are decided on whims and not on predictable and fair set of rules.

I agree. The government has full right to appoint and fire any Service Chief at any time for any reason at all.

Quite so and it has been done in cases where there was bona-fide reasons. That is the honest, clear way.

Because this is such a high profile position of high visibility, they came up with an elaborate system of rules and regulations so that appointment and relief of a service chief is a dignified, reliable and drama-free exercise.

oh wait....

Yes, if only the Govt had followed its own rules.

[Sidhant]

The armed forces are not the arbiters of national interest, the elected representatives are.

The government IS the sole arbiter of national security. That is the way it is, and that is the way it should be. Any other way is an invitation to disaster.

Badar ji, since Government has an even bigger responsibility than the Armed forces and thus our civilian Supremes honorable PM, RM and Defect Secretory should not have put their pretty egos ahead of their duties and could have humbly agreed to their mistake and corrected it even before the matter went to court.

Why should the COAS needs to forfeit his right to contest a wrong doing when the Supreme civilians are not even ready to accept their mistake and correct it. Is the civilian supremacy showing any leader like qualities coz as far as I know a good leader does accepts his mistakes and corrects them.

Why chastise only the Army Chief when people with even bigger responsibilites are not even ready to swallow their egos and accept the mistake.

Below is a famous Quotation from WW Inge which cautions us to not put blind faith in any system and keeping an open eye and mind is always better than being an ostrich and thinking that we should blindly abide what the two third of the parliament decides.

"James the 1st and Louis XIV taught that the King could do no wrong, and their successors lost their heads; Hegel and his disciples taught that the State could do no wrong, and plunged the world into war; Our doctrinaire democrats teach that the majority can do no wrong, and they bid fair to wreck our civilization completely."

So sir if the elected Govt tries to go to the extremes and tries to test the limits of the constitution then citizens of this country do also have the right to test the limits of the same constitution which if you have forgotten is actually by the people and for the people.

[Sanku]

Fully agree, if court rules in his favor, the least Govt should do, is not fiddle further. Enough damage has been done already.

And his honor satisfied, should the General then take early retirement?

I did say that the right thing is for him to serve his full tenure. Otherwise the effort goes waste.

His full tenure must be respected. That is only right -- any thing else is wrong.

If Govt had not messed up Gen V K Singh would have served full tenure -- so if justice is done, the effect of the mess must be reversed.

[ramana]

DNA coverage of the issue:

http://www.dnaindia.com/coverage/gen-vk-singh

[Badar]

I did say that the right thing is for him to serve his full tenure. Otherwise the effort goes waste.

His full tenure must be respected. That is only right -- any thing else is wrong.

If Govt had not messed up Gen V K Singh would have served full tenure -- so if justice is done, the effect of the mess must be reversed.

Oh but I thought his whole stand was for principles and nothing to do with tenure. So evidently his honor satisfied means his effort was not wasted.

Now to silence all the people who are whispering that he did it for personal profit he has to resign for the sake of the service, no?

[eklavya]

Since Gen VKS was born in May 1951, and once the Supreme Court directs the government accordingly, Gen VKS should serve as COAS until 31 March 2013. This entire controversy has arisen because some unscrupulous people want Gen VKS out of the way by May 2012; these unscrupulous people should not have their way. It would be wrong if he leaves his post before March 2013. He owes it to the public, to the army, and to himself to serve his full and rightful tenure as COAS until 31 March 2013.

[ramana]

DNA article with the babus POV:

Age Row a battle for command of military

.....
The UPA government feels the military must bow down to the wishes of the civilian government in every scenario. “The army’s command and control rests on the sacrosanct principle that every soldier must obey orders. If the Army chief takes us to court, then the rank and file of the armed forces can drag their superiors to court for every order,” a senior defence ministry official told DNA.
....
For now, Gen Singh is armed with case law that says that the date registered in the matriculation certificate is a legal document for all practical purposes including service in the armed forces. The petition also refers to the records with Adjutant General’s (AG) branch showing the date of birth as May 10, 1951 whereas the Military Secretary’s (MS) branch records put it as May 10, 1950.

Usually, the AG’s records are considered the final authority on such issues, making Gen Singh’s case a strong one on legal grounds.

Earlier Gen Singh tried to follow established protocol by filing a statutory complaint with the defence ministry, but it was rejected twice. He has questioned the government for changing his date of birth after he had spent 36 years in service.

Gen Singh also sought legal opinion of two former Chief Justices of India, JS Verma and V N Khare. Both had opined that his claim is legally sound.

The majority of the retired armed forces community has also thrown its might behind Gen Singh. “You can’t call the chief of 1.3 million army a liar. This is very unfortunate for the country. Army chief is not an individual, he is an institution,” Maj General GD Bakshi (Retd) told DNA.

“Ideally this issue should have been resolved before making him the army chief. Why didn’t the ministry take the law ministry’s opinion at that point of time? A committee of four former chief justices of India has already given its opinion in his favour. But, the government is ignoring all these facts,” Maj Gen Bakshi added.
Former vice chief of army staff Lt Gen Shantonu Choudhary feels the army chief must have given this action a lot of thought. “He was my Brigadier General Staff when I was a Corp Commander during Operation Parakaram and I have watched him very closely.

I found him to be a man of very high integrity and a man of complete conviction,” he said.

So even if its unjust the UPA demands it be obeyed!!! And an IAS babu articulates a politicial statement. Why doesn't he resign and stand for election instead of making policy statements. Has he forgotten the code of conduct at Lal Bahadur Academy located in Mussorie?
DNA is doing a great disservice in not naming the offical who hides behind anonymity.

[ramana]

Badar, First the aribtray decision of the govt has to be reversed. After that its upto the General. Again he is a serving person and we should not discuss what he may or may not do. Its not germane right now.

[Pranav]

Oh but I thought his whole stand was for principles and nothing to do with tenure. So evidently his honor satisfied means his effort was not wasted.

Now to silence all the people who are whispering that he did it for personal profit he has to resign for the sake of the service, no?

His stand may be for doing what is right. Which could include him serving his full tenure, and continuing to fight corruption in the armed forces, rather than making way for a "line of succession" engineered by persons of doubtful integrity.

[Badar]

Badar, First the aribtray decision of the govt has to be reversed. After that its upto the General. Again he is a serving person and we should not discuss what he may or may not do. Its not germane right now.

I disagree. Nonetheless, your house, your rules.