sunnydee wrote:Please explain to this backward, illeterate mind if you dont mind sir ? or would that be ma'am ?
sunnydee, don't be too harsh on yourself. You are just asking the wrong questions.
A date of birth is not a political opinion or a theory, which one may accept or not accept. A date of birth is a fact. There is just one. When a chap says that his DOB is 10-05-51, it is either true or false.
To test the fact, certain documentary evidence is relied upon, such as the matriculation certificate. Gen VKS' matric certificate states 10-05-1951.
Now, the questions that need to be asked is:
1) Instead of establishing the fact and reconciling the record of the AG branch and the MS branch according to the fact, why were the powers that be ordering VKS to accept a wrong date. If the powers that be were certain of their fact, then there is no question of asking that person to "accept" a certain DOB.
2) Instead of establishing the fact, why was VKS being forced by his predecessors and the Government to "accept" 1950? Cui Bono? Who benefits?
A DOB is not a contractual term that one can "accept". A DOB is a fact. A fact does not change by the mere administrative step of "acceptance" (under duress or otherwise). The overwhelming consensus is that Gen VKS took the morally correct step in preserving his career by "accepting as directed" (under severe duress) the date he was ordered to "accept" by the powers that be.
This fact (his DOB) has consequences for the 1.2 million strong Indian Army. In the interests of the Indian Army this fact has to be estabished once and for all, and all consequences thereof should follow.
It is better that the fact is established late rather than never, and all consequences of that fact also follow.
It is grossly immoral of those who keep pointing to this "acceptance" as a reason to not establish the FACT (once and for all) and let the consequences flow..