Indian Army: News & Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 00:24

sunnydee wrote:
nelson wrote:...
Now we come to an understanding that Army is not a single house as a battalion or regiment is. If SOPs were to be the only mode of transacting business at the levels you are talking about that applies to the superior also. Why is any one including SC shuddering to ask him, the superior, Gen Deepak Kapoor the question? Like

" Gen Kapoor, what you asked of VKS to do in Jan 2008, through your Military Secretary is not as per SOP. Why?"


quoting from excerpts
“And still they (the Union of India) have faith in you. I fail to understand how by us recording your date of birth as May 10, 1951 and with you retiring on May 31, 2012 it will help you,” Justice Lodha observed.

“The idea of this petition is not to stick to office. As counsel I cannot say certain things.” Lalit hinted at other reasons for his agitation.

To this, Justice Lodha shot back: “I will not use the expression dirty linen washed in public. But if it has come to such a stage, you can wash. But we thought that both parties, being dignified....


These words were told, printed and forgotten (in a few days time). I quoted the same para yesterday, to suggest that the SC in its wisdom did not see a final judgement in this case in the larger good of the nation. But there is no guarantee that this is going to be a full stop to such incidents, because the court has tacitly let off the actual wrong doers without even a question.

rajatmisra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 05 Feb 2010 10:16

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rajatmisra » 12 Feb 2012 00:36

There seems to be mixing of issues of date of birth and suitability / line of succession. I have two questions:
1. If the successor is not bks, would there be still so much angst? I mean if there was someone acceptable to forum members as extremely competent
2. If bks were appointed chief and it turned out that his dob was in error, would there be same support to him.
Expecting a sincere answer from senior members

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 00:42

1. Yes, there would still be so much angst.

2. If BS is similarly place as VKS there would be same support to him.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 12 Feb 2012 00:43

To me its not who the successor is but the very idea of a "succession plan" which smacks of monarchy and that senior people get sidelined to keep the "succession plan" in place.
Instead of the best among equals(qualifying Lt generals) the dice gets loaded in favor of a chosen one determined before he becomes a Lt Gen..

Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sanku » 12 Feb 2012 00:46

rajatmisra wrote:There seems to be mixing of issues of date of birth and suitability / line of succession.


Yes there is, it is because of the facts on the ground suggest the same. It is not BRF that has chosen to mix the two. It is quite clearly talked on multiple public media forums as well.

I have two questions:
1. If the successor is not bks, would there be still so much angst? I mean if there was someone acceptable to forum members as extremely competent


I do not think the issue is BKS the person per se. Whatever be the merits and demerits of the officer in question, the issue here is of principles of right way of doing things on multiple points
1) Concept of line of succession.
2) Civil-Mil relations
3) Govt handling of sensitive issues
4) Issues around "individual rights" of Gen V K Singh etc.

2. If bks were appointed chief and it turned out that his dob was in error, would there be same support to him.


It would depend on the matters of the case as they were brought out, and how the above 4 factors played a role or did not. Certainly there is no personal like or dislike for Gen B K Singh as far as many of the forum members like myself now supporting Gen V K Singh, since quite frankly the issue is not him as person.

anjan
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 08 Jan 2010 02:42

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby anjan » 12 Feb 2012 00:48

The PM is personally directing the character assassination of the COAS and the highest court of the land is more in the line of doling out wishy-washy, quasi-philosophical, preserve the system at all costs BS. Banana republic is the right term.

Well we've made our bed, now we'll lie in it.

nelson
BRFite
Posts: 988
Joined: 02 Mar 2008 21:10

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 00:49

It is not a question of who is more competent. All of them would be equally competent in their primary job. But if someone is favoured out of turn and he becomes the chief, he would be expected to suck up to the favour-giver and in turn compromise the interest of the Army and the country.

tejas
BRFite
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 Mar 2008 04:47

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby tejas » 12 Feb 2012 01:25

GOI=Kangress=Gandhi-Maino dynasty IS the enemy.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21172
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Prem » 12 Feb 2012 01:40

tejas wrote:GOI=Kangress=Gandhi-Maino dynasty IS the enemy.

Bhai Sahib, Indians some times get confused and dont know GOI=Gandhis Of India.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4786
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Yayavar » 12 Feb 2012 02:23

It is all well and good for armchair moralists to take their stand. Basically the unfortunate lesson is the bureaucracy always wins.

Tell a person 'accept xyz' else you loose your chance to be Brig. Gen or Lt. General or whatever is his due. If he does not he misses out. If he does it is held against him as a compromise. Either way the 'succession plan' or bureaucratic plan stands. There was one chance that SC would get the root but SC said let it be.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ldev » 12 Feb 2012 02:32

nelson wrote:
ldev wrote:Without having to go through umpteen pages of this thread, is there any document which VKS has submitted that proves that he was "coerced" or "intimidated" or "threatened" to sign those 2 undertakings agreeing to close the DOB controversy in return for those earlier promotions. Or is it just his declaration that he was pressured which his supporters on this forum are taking at face value to support his position?

What child like expectations? Next time the chief asks his corps commander to take a position, the corps commander will reply "sir, please give it in writing, for me to proceed further."

Or you want something like this
http://yfrog.com/oekpqvsj


So there is nothing. Its just his word vs that of his predecessors and you choose to believe him.

I think that a lot of VKS's supporters here are going by ," My enemy's enemy is my friend".

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1869
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby eklavya » 12 Feb 2012 02:55

ldev wrote:So there is nothing. Its just his word vs that of his predecessors and you choose to believe him.


Well, what about this:

http://www.outlookindia.com/printarticle.aspx?279633

In January 2008, V.K. Singh, as a lieutenant general commanding army’s 2 Corps, was to take over as army commander, a crucial appointment that would enable him to become army chief. He was informed by the MS branch that his year of birth will be taken as 1950 and that the AG branch was being asked to make the change in its records. Singh’s reply was that he had not sought a change of his year of birth, as it is 1951 according to the matriculation certificate given by him to the AG branch. He, however, wrote that army HQ could do “anything which is required to be done in the larger interest of the organisation”. Within a span of a few hours, he got a missive from K. Purshottam, the deputy MS, saying his letter was “not in conformity with the response asked”. He was asked to confirm acceptance of his date of birth as 1950 or “action deemed appropriate will be taken”. Singh again replied (see box) that “whatever decision taken in organisational interest is acceptable to me”.


Looks, sounds and smells like coercion.

eklavya
BRFite
Posts: 1869
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:57

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby eklavya » 12 Feb 2012 03:24

And a fairly detailed account here:

http://business-standard.com/india/news ... re/464277/

Its pretty clear he has tried to raise the issue internally within the army, and time and again he has been put under pressure (why? who wanted him retired in may 2012) to "accept" a date that does not conform with his matric certificate. And the perversity continues to this day ....

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2388
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 12 Feb 2012 03:30

Race hots up amid buzz that Army chief may resign
NEW DELHI: Eastern Army commander Lt-General Bikram Singh remains the clear front-runner to become the next chief of the 1.13-million strong force. But amid mounting speculation that Army chief Gen V K Singh will resign before his tenure ends on May 31, two other Army commanders, Lt-Generals Shankar Ghosh (Western) and V K Ahluwalia (Central), are also in the reckoning for the coveted post.
:
:
:

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 12 Feb 2012 03:51

ramana wrote:To me its not who the successor is but the very idea of a "succession plan" which smacks of monarchy and that senior people get sidelined to keep the "succession plan" in place.
Instead of the best among equals(qualifying Lt generals) the dice gets loaded in favor of a chosen one determined before he becomes a Lt Gen..
+1.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 12 Feb 2012 04:29

ldev wrote:Without having to go through umpteen pages of this thread, is there any document which VKS has submitted that proves that he was "coerced" or "intimidated" or "threatened" to sign those 2 undertakings agreeing to close the DOB controversy in return for those earlier promotions. Or is it just his declaration that he was pressured which his supporters on this forum are taking at face value to support his position?

Have the courts and the government not affirmed his integrity? Then why are you questioning Gen. V.K. Singh's integrity by casting aspersions on what he did say. I think you should take the above statement back. His integrity here is above question.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 12 Feb 2012 04:41

For now this is just one rag reporting this. Let us see, how it pans out.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/army-chief-general-vk-singh-may-resign-reports/1/173151.html

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 12 Feb 2012 05:02


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54776
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 12 Feb 2012 05:22

So what is he saying?

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3808
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby suryag » 12 Feb 2012 05:23

JS' voice sounds muffled for whatever reason


negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby negi » 12 Feb 2012 05:56

^ That is not a surprise; there is a reason General raised his DOB issue after he became COAS before that it would have only worked against him; that's the way things roll in 'fauj'. :)

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 12 Feb 2012 07:12

ShauryaT wrote:I suspected someone will come and say this. The cause of justice is served through the prism of legal laws. Past judgments help determine jurisprudence . What comes out in this case is a matter of playing politics with who said what at what time and its impact. The question to the court was, my honor is at stake because by true DOB is being questioned and not being rectified. The answer was, your honor is intact - do not worry. But, you claimed DOB will not be recognized because of X, Y & Z - which have nothing to do with the facts on the DOB issue. Thank you very much.


IMO, you take a view that only you know the case and rest of the world is misguided (bold marked part).

The italics part is the problem anyway. While the chief is honorable, the rules are same for everyone.

You know the simple procedure of changing one's DoB or name in legal life? If in Mumbai, just go to a particular gazette office. Show them the true copies or give them attested copies and in 3 months it will reflect in the state gazette published. Buy, some copies and keep showing it when asked.

The DoB issue is not a current creation. its a dormant issue, which arose due to VKS own (legally since he has signed it) mistake during the filing of forms. it got mired into bureaucracy and not by design. The he did worse by undertakings without "subject to clause in the paper."

As, rest of India, four pillars and you say it, "its unfortunate." However, there is no evidence of politics before the age row kicked up. Even after VKS raised it leading to current crisis, every one tried to defend their positions. Law gives everyone chance to state positions equally, even if he is Ravana himself.

So, when VKS exercised his options, so did the other parties. All was in paper and proof. Your assertion (The cause of justice is served through the prism of legal laws. Past judgments help determine jurisprudence) has been looked into by top legal experts.

The attitude I see is 1) VKS is dead right 2) others do not and should have a say in this "logical" case. 3) If they say, they are anti-vks/justice. 4) Only VKs and his lawyer has applied mind. 5) others have simply played politics. 6) when rest of the people say that "we understand, you are honorable, but, here is what we have arrived via your papers, historical view and legal deliberations from top experts : They are fake. ------> Just sum of my observations and not criticism (every one is entitled to their opinion).

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 12 Feb 2012 07:32

chackojoseph wrote:So, when VKS exercised his options, so did the other parties. All was in paper and proof. Your assertion (The cause of justice is served through the prism of legal laws. Past judgments help determine jurisprudence) has been looked into by top legal experts.

The attitude I see is 1) VKS is dead right 2) others do not and should have a say in this "logical" case. 3) If they say, they are anti-vks/justice. 4) Only VKs and his lawyer has applied mind. 5) others have simply played politics. 6) when rest of the people say that "we understand, you are honorable, but, here is what we have arrived via your papers, historical view and legal deliberations from top experts : They are fake. ------> Just sum of my observations and not criticism (every one is entitled to their opinion).

I respect your differing opinion and hence will not respond to your statements on what you think, I think.

Your arguments about what I know it takes to change some legal documentation is pointless.

The issue has indeed been looked into by legal experts of many hues and shapes, including four past chief justices, which include someone of the status of Justice Verma.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/age- ... 69235.html

http://barmaidtoemperess.wordpress.com/ ... n-age-row/

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4786
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Yayavar » 12 Feb 2012 07:39

chackojoseph: isnit the AG branch the one that is supposed to be the official record-keeper? They had 1951. It has confused me why MS is given more credence.

In 2008 he was asked to give the undertaking or give up Lt. Generalship. Now that is taken as an 'acceptance' and held against him. It is a setup.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ldev » 12 Feb 2012 07:44

ShauryaT wrote:
ldev wrote:Without having to go through umpteen pages of this thread, is there any document which VKS has submitted that proves that he was "coerced" or "intimidated" or "threatened" to sign those 2 undertakings agreeing to close the DOB controversy in return for those earlier promotions. Or is it just his declaration that he was pressured which his supporters on this forum are taking at face value to support his position?

Have the courts and the government not affirmed his integrity? Then why are you questioning Gen. V.K. Singh's integrity by casting aspersions on what he did say. I think you should take the above statement back. His integrity here is above question.

Were you privy to the conversation/communication between VKS and others? Otherwise why the righteous anger?

suryag
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3808
Joined: 11 Jan 2009 00:14

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby suryag » 12 Feb 2012 07:45

Shouldnt the court also haul the ones who coerced Gen.VKS into writing what he wrote? IMO that is patently illegal

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 12 Feb 2012 07:53

ShauryaT wrote:I respect your differing opinion and hence will not respond to your statements on what you think, I think.

Your arguments about what I know it takes to change some legal documentation is pointless.

The issue has indeed been looked into by legal experts of many hues and shapes, including four past chief justices, which include someone of the status of Justice Verma.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/age- ... 69235.html

http://barmaidtoemperess.wordpress.com/ ... n-age-row/


That's the other part of the argument that 4 CJI's backed the case. The matriculation certificate says so etc. Again, even the serving SC judges have put adverse remarks on the government for that. Then other things took over.

suryag,
Shouldnt the court also haul the ones who coerced Gen.VKS into writing what he wrote? IMO that is patently illegal


It's up to VKS to do it. let us see what his counsel says.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 12 Feb 2012 07:56

ldev wrote:Were you privy to the conversation/communication between VKS and others? Otherwise why the righteous anger?
You have no idea what the angry side of me sounds like :mrgreen:

I am not interested in playing your childish spin games. You have casted an aspersion on the chief, when the government and courts have clearly affirmed his integrity. The question is not what I know, but the question is why are you throwing mud on the chief? Shame on you for this. Post a differing view by all means but stop throwing mud on the chief.

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 12 Feb 2012 08:14

viv wrote:chackojoseph: isnit the AG branch the one that is supposed to be the official record-keeper? They had 1951. It has confused me why MS is given more credence.

In 2008 he was asked to give the undertaking or give up Lt. Generalship. Now that is taken as an 'acceptance' and held against him. It is a setup.


viv,

I am not an expert in the matter. However, the 2008 (or any other) incident has not stopped him from becoming chief. That's what SC says. There is no smooth sailing to the top, everyone understands it.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2006
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ldev » 12 Feb 2012 08:16

ShauryaT wrote:
ldev wrote:Were you privy to the conversation/communication between VKS and others? Otherwise why the righteous anger?
You have no idea what the angry side of me sounds like :mrgreen:

I am not interested in playing your childish spin games. You have casted an aspersion on the chief, when the government and courts have clearly affirmed his integrity. The question is not what I know, but the question is why are you throwing mud on the chief? Shame on you for this. Post a differing view by all means but stop throwing mud on the chief.

You want my differing view. OK, here goes. VK Singh has brought disgrace on the position of Chief of Army Staff of the Indian Army by going to the Supreme Court. And the present GOI are wimps. He should have been fired instantly for doing that. And I dont care whether it is the UPA or the NDA government which had faced this situation. There are certain positions in Government where the chain of command is inviolable. COAS is one such position IMO.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3043
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Kanson » 12 Feb 2012 08:42

^ All this listed can happen if everything happened was straight forward. Dismissing the Gen is easy to say. It is just not about the fallout of such actions but it opens the potential for another monumental scam if Gen prefers to open his mouth. Can this Gov already battered and crest fallen in 2G case tackle another such scam? You may like to ask me about the veracity of such claim. But this all started in 2006. Is there any explanation anyone can offer why such thing happened in such a way?

It all in the hands of the Gen. From the info i have, Gen. acted only to clear his name. If he is going to act as nelson pointed out, lets see what happens.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 12 Feb 2012 08:45

Kanson wrote: But this all started in 2006. Is there any explanation anyone can offer why such thing happened in such a way?
To protect a succession plan.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4786
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Yayavar » 12 Feb 2012 08:50

chackojoseph wrote:
viv wrote:chackojoseph: isnit the AG branch the one that is supposed to be the official record-keeper? They had 1951. It has confused me why MS is given more credence.

In 2008 he was asked to give the undertaking or give up Lt. Generalship. Now that is taken as an 'acceptance' and held against him. It is a setup.


viv,

I am not an expert in the matter. However, the 2008 (or any other) incident has not stopped him from becoming chief. That's what SC says. There is no smooth sailing to the top, everyone understands it.



But it is a setup right? It basically ensured that he, and not someone else becomes the chief and that he retires in 2012. Otherwise there is no need to coerce him to accept a wrong birthday. Even the SC says he has been trying to amend it much much before (1985 or so when he came to know of the discrepancy). Otherwise why the insistence on this date? Note, as per all newspapers the AG is the record keeper for the Army and it had 1951, so did NDA, so did IMA. See the inset here with promotions up to 2006 (it is by a retired IAS officer): http://gfilesindia.com/frmArticleDetails.aspx?id=195&Name=Governance-defence

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3043
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Kanson » 12 Feb 2012 08:51

chackojoseph wrote:
viv wrote:chackojoseph: isnit the AG branch the one that is supposed to be the official record-keeper? They had 1951. It has confused me why MS is given more credence.

In 2008 he was asked to give the undertaking or give up Lt. Generalship. Now that is taken as an 'acceptance' and held against him. It is a setup.


viv,

I am not an expert in the matter. However, the 2008 (or any other) incident has not stopped him from becoming chief. That's what SC says. There is no smooth sailing to the top, everyone understands it.


It is easy to clutch at straws to say that oh nothing happened. Do anyone like to answer why such DoB was forced out of Gen VKS in the first place. This is the action which led to other incidents. If anyone want to find justice, lets answer to the root action which snowballed into this situation. Otherwise everybody is obstructing justice.

Further, why not explore, why no enquiry was ordered when Jt. Sec. brought out the matter?

Lt. Gen. Katoch already asked all correct but uncomfortable questions in this.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5246
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 12 Feb 2012 08:59

Kanson wrote:Lt. Gen. Katoch already asked all correct but uncomfortable questions in this.
For the record.

Getting Particular
Today's hearing of Supreme Court in the case of Gen V.K. Singh’s date of birth (DOB) is the first sign of government machinations getting exposed...
LT GEN PRAKASH C. KATOCH (RETD)
Today's hearing of Supreme Court in the case of Gen V.K. Singh’s date of birth (DOB) is the first sign of government machinations getting exposed. The defence minister saying the problem is making of Army Headquarters is so true, but how does he absolve himself and his staff in ministry of defence (MoD) of complicity?

A dispassionate analysis makes the following abundantly clear:

How does the Military Secretary (MS) in 2006 fish out a UPSC application (of which MS branch is not custodian) and illegally change the DOB of Gen V.K. Singh in the Army List without authentication by Adjutant General (AG —official authority for record of service of army officers) and disregard the fact that the UPSC itself accepted the DOB as 10 May 1951?

On whose instigation did the MS take such actions? Was it his Chief—Gen J.J. Singh or someone higher? Who is the fellow who dreamt the ‘Line of Succession’ to be implemented in 2012 and more importantly, what were his motives and compulsions?

Was the Army List giving the illegally changed date of birth of Gen V.K. Singh from 10 May 1951 to 10 May 1950 published with the approval of Gen J.J. Singh?

Beyond 2006 and particularly in 2008, what were the compulsions of the MS to continue ignoring ‘reconciliation of age’ requests by Gen V.K. Singh? What were the instigating factors— Gen J.J. Singh, his successor Gen V.K. Kapoor or someone higher up? Why did Gen Deepak Kapoor ring up Gen V.K. Singh to submit the famous certificate "…. in organizational interest" on the plea that a whole lot of promotion cases are held up with MoD, promising at the same time that he would ensure "reconciliation of age" within 30 days when he as Chief could have resolved the issue within Army HQ in 30 minutes by summoning the MS and AG? What were the compulsions of Gen Deepak Kapoor? Were his actions on his own volition or was he being pressured to do so, and if so by whom and for what purpose?

Both Gen J.J. Singh and Gen Deepak Kapoor were aware as Chiefs that AG is the authority for service record of army officers. Why did these two Chiefs not take the advice of their respective AGs? Was this by design? What were their compulsions and / or pressure from higher level that led them to disregard established service rules and norms?
Mr Bimal Julka, Joint Secretary (G) MoD disagreed with MS Branch regressing DOB of Birth of Gen V.K. Singh from 1951 to 1950 and ordered a joint MS-AG inquiry, on which Army HQ endorsed ‘INQUIRY NOT TO BE HELD’. What were the compulsions of Gen Deepak Kapoor or his MS in making such endorsement? What were their compulsions in ignoring the AG even after such MoD directive?

Why did the new JS(G), MoD agree with the original line of MS affixing DOB of Gen V.K. Singh as 10 May 1950, ignoring observations of Mr Bimal Julka? What were his compulsions? Was he a co-conspirator in the Line of Succession Conspiracy?
Why did MoD swallow the line of MS that a detailed examination has been carried out in the case of DOB of Gen V.K. Singh when MoD had specifically ordered a joint inquiry? Why was an explanation not asked and why wasn’t a report of the ‘detailed examination’ asked for? If the order was for a joint MS-AG inquiry then the report should have been signed by both MS and AG, failing which, why did MoD not ask for views of the AG? Wasn’t this by design? Was the compulsion complicity in the ‘Conspiracy of 2012 Chosen Line of Succession’?
Why did the Attorney General talk of “Change of DOB” when Gen V.K. Singh had only petitioned for ‘reconciliation of age’? Did MoD deliberately send him a ‘doctored’ noting as alleged in an open letter to the Prime Minister by Dr Swamy circulating on the web? Is any more proof required of complicity of MoD officials? What were the compulsions of concerned MoD officials to do so?

Why is the defence minister trying to absolve the complicity of MoD officials in the conspiracy to retire Gen V.K. Singh in May this year? Was he taken for a ride in making a Parliament statement of Gen V.K. Singh’s DOB as 10 May 1950 and thereafter took the option of reinforcing the lie or is there a larger game plan to which he must submit?

It is pathetic to see some veterans trying do down Gen V.K. Singh in TV debates when the facts are abundantly clear. But then so are the motives of these gentlemen. It is surprising to see how some are prepared to take individual friendship with demons / devils to any level—even down the sink hole and also at the same time talk of propriety, morals and ethics. Take the case of an ex Army Commander who surely knows someone called Pran Nath whose own bank account was sealed last year under the 400 crore Citi Bank Fraud and whose grandson is still in jail. Such guys would be well advised to look themselves in the mirror, double lock their cupboards and remain underground before skeletons come tumbling out. Their repeated emphasis that Gen V.K. Singh should resign are obvious tactics to keep the ‘chosen line of succession’ still going. Examination of their compulsion could well come up with some startling revelations—beyond friendships.

An upright soldier like Gen V.K. Singh will certainly resign if his petition is rejected. On the other hand, if he wins the case (which he logically should) there is absolutely no reason for him to resign. The finance minister should stop dangling carrots. There is still time till 10 Feb for the defence minister to accept he was misled and accept the DOB of Gen V.K. Singh as 10 May 1951. If he does not and Gen V.K. Singh wins his case in Supreme Court, is there any reason why the defence minister should not resign?

Readers can decide who the Demons / Devils and Jackals are. If the former go unpunished, it would be a systemic failure in reinforcing this devilish conspiracy and preventing recurrence. The jackals have been howling about the army being affected. Actually, the entire nation is affected, albeit the mafias are for a different reason. The Army is not just one service of the military but more than 85 percent of the military. You just cannot treat an Army Chief like this. Those who continue to support the conspiracy against the Army Chief are no less than enemies of the state.

Lt Gen Prakash C. Katoch, PVSM, UYSM, AVSM, SC is a Special Forces veteran of the Indian army


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20953
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 12 Feb 2012 09:51

Unfortunately for Gen.Singh,his lack of evidence that there was more to his DOB affair-not being corrected within the IA because of a "conspiracy" by his superiors,whoever,has made it impossible for the SC to deliver in his favour.Had he insisted on a written note that it would be done from his superiors,or written to them requesting such a note in his acceptance letter,it would've nailed the issue.If his superiors indeed gave him an oral assurance and were genuine about it as he assumed,why did they not give him one in writing or did he ask for one at all?
All that is there on official records is his "acceptance" and since he became chief,in no way ws his promotion to that post affected.I feel he was poorly advised legally and by his supporters,some of whom perhaps wished to fire their own salvoes shooting from his shoulder!

Sadly,this issue has divided the IA both within and without,with many highly respected generals found to hold opposing or differing views.One Q that many have not realised is that even if Gen.VKS resigns,the GOI can reject his resignation on the grounds that he is trying to prevent his "legitimate" successor,by seniority from being made COAS!

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 12 Feb 2012 09:59

Kanson wrote:It is easy to clutch at straws to say that oh nothing happened. Do anyone like to answer why such DoB was forced out of Gen VKS in the first place. This is the action which led to other incidents. If anyone want to find justice, lets answer to the root action which snowballed into this situation. Otherwise everybody is obstructing justice.

Further, why not explore, why no enquiry was ordered when Jt. Sec. brought out the matter?

Lt. Gen. Katoch already asked all correct but uncomfortable questions in this.


Kanson,

Was this presented as a proof in SC? Are you aware of the contents? Was VKS able to produce irrefutable proof?

Some things in my opinion:

1) The offer to resign if DoB was changed was last ditch and not available throughout. Did he say that when he was the lt gen or before? The offer was a bargain, but, did it have any possibilities of affecting the past files? You need to contemplate upon it. Now that was a straw.
2) There is no proof of political manipulation, if at all, it was Army's internal tussles. No one will prove it for VKS, he has to do it himself. he has to pull the accused to court, prove it and then present the case. its law. The accused can also make a case against VKS right now for defamation, what stops him?
3) SC has not done anything out of the way to harm VKS. it has merely looked into the evolved templates and contemplated upon it. At the same time, looking at his stature, they took almost half a day to convince and "put it on record" that he is honorable man. They could have done a short job for it.
4) he can simply file a gazette for Dob rectification and live with Army records.

No one is supporting what went through and the status today. Even supreme court. however, documents say otherwise.

anjan
BRFite
Posts: 448
Joined: 08 Jan 2010 02:42

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby anjan » 12 Feb 2012 10:02

ldev wrote:You want my differing view. OK, here goes. VK Singh has brought disgrace on the position of Chief of Army Staff of the Indian Army by going to the Supreme Court. And the present GOI are wimps. He should have been fired instantly for doing that. And I dont care whether it is the UPA or the NDA government which had faced this situation. There are certain positions in Government where the chain of command is inviolable. COAS is one such position IMO.
What did he do? Park a tank in front of south block? He went to court. Fire someone for exercising their constitutional right? Wow. Did we become China overnight?

Sachin
Webmaster BR
Posts: 8034
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Undisclosed

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sachin » 12 Feb 2012 10:06

eklavya wrote: The government extracted his 2008/2009 "commitments" under duress, and the court says "please stick to your commitment". To me it seems they are legalising blackmail

Even in a very minor case there is a concept of producing evidence. Has Gen. V.K Singh produced enough evidence to say that he gave the commitments under duress? Even in his official complaint he said he agreed with the change in YoB as part of a "gentleman's agreement". Should the court blindly accept the words of V.K Singh just because he is an Army officer? The trend here is that court should have just accepted Gen V.K Singh's plea and said that the YoB should be 1951 and he should serve till then. This is when the GoI have clearly shown that two promotions of his were based on YoB as 1950 and he fully concurred with it (and took up that promotions).

I dont think that the argument that in Army it is always "first obey, then question" and so that is the case here. Judiciary at least does not work in that manner.

Secondly, I see a lot of complaints about GoI. It is obvious that if GoI (or certain ministers and babus) planned this, it was executed on the ground by the then senior Army officials. So they also should take the blame right?

suryag wrote:Shouldnt the court also haul the ones who coerced Gen.VKS into writing what he wrote? IMO that is patently illegal

+1. Exactly my point. If Gen VKS is hell bent on following the "I was coerced" line, he should have also focussed on bringing the military officers who compelled him to do this. I dont see at happening.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests