Indian Army: News & Discussion

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 03 Sep 2011 23:03

I understand what you are saying, about the general laxity in recording of DOB's in the old days. But The circumstances for the discrepancies appearance are fairly well documented.

The General was not from a rustic background, being an officers son. Even then, military hospitals etc kept excellent records.
So his date of birth should be the cause of no speculation. BMI etc are not criterion for dertermining date of birth.

Frankly, the legal case is strongly in the Chief's favour/

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 03 Sep 2011 23:13

ASPuar wrote:The circumstances for the discrepancies appearance are fairly well documented.

The General was not from a rustic background, being an officers son. Even then, military hospitals etc kept excellent records.
So his date of birth should be the cause of no speculation. BMI etc are not criterion for dertermining date of birth.

:Doh: BMI is important for getting into Army. I am just giving an example why people fudge. Baptism certificate is not a rustic record. Its highly rated. Even when one tries to emigrate and is Christian, the records play very important role.

I am repeating this. I am saying, those days it was widely practiced.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 04 Sep 2011 00:03

chackojoseph wrote:
:Doh: BMI is important for getting into Army. I am just giving an example why people fudge. Baptism certificate is not a rustic record. Its highly rated. Even when one tries to emigrate and is Christian, the records play very important role.

I am repeating this. I am saying, those days it was widely practiced.

IIRC The BMI is only laxed if you are >22yrs. For NDA entry, the difference of 1 yr does'nt make any difference from BMI pov. But all this is besides the point. How is this relevant to this particular case? As ASPuar has already mentioned, the story of how 1951 came into existence is well documented.
So why all these statements from your part?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 04 Sep 2011 09:34

Gaur wrote:IIRC The BMI is only laxed if you are >22yrs. For NDA entry, the difference of 1 yr does'nt make any difference from BMI pov. But all this is besides the point. How is this relevant to this particular case? As ASPuar has already mentioned, the story of how 1951 came into existence is well documented.
So why all these statements from your part?

chackojoseph wrote: Correct sir. I was putting up a general trend what existed then. There has to be some angle why this descripancy came up. Was his BMI not matching his age? Or something else?
........
People fudge for different reasons. I am taking a view that it was a eyebrow raising practice those days and today its being looked down.

chackojoseph wrote::Doh: BMI is important for getting into Army. I am just giving an example why people fudge.

negi · Post by **negi** » 04 Sep 2011 10:00

chackojoseph wrote: :Doh: BMI is important for getting into Army.

It only makes one fall into a category called 'temporarily unfit' ; one is given 3 months time to make necessary changes. Overweight or underweight candidates are given 3 months time to get under the desired BMI range. From whatever I have seen unless one is suffering from hormonal imbalances or some disease 3 months is ample time to address above for anyone with too high a BMI will in any case not be able to even complete the obstacle course at the SSB.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 04 Sep 2011 10:21

negi wrote:It only makes one fall into a category called 'temporarily unfit' ; one is given 3 months time to make necessary changes. Overweight or underweight candidates are given 3 months time to get under the desired BMI range. From whatever I have seen unless one is suffering from hormonal imbalances or some disease 3 months is ample time to address above for anyone with too high a BMI will in any case not be able to even complete the obstacle course at the SSB.

Since a lot of thoughts have been provocated with the BMI Example, I have found an interesting paper on the issue Anthropometric Parameters of Armed Forces Personnel

Just to add, like the BMI example, this too is only an information and has no direct bearing to the General's case.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 04 Sep 2011 10:25

Army chief had accepted date of birth as May 10, 1950: Defence Min

The Army Chief's battle over his age has got serious with the Defence Ministry saying that Gen V K Singh had accepted more than three years ago "in writing unconditionally" that his date of birth is May 10, 1950, which will deny him an extra ten months in service.

The officer had made a written acceptance in January 2008 that he will maintain the date of birth as May 10, 1950.

The Ministry has declared as "null and void and non est" and "unauthorised and illegal" the change in the date of birth to May 10, 1951 in Gen Singh's service records made by a branch of the army in February this year.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 04 Sep 2011 11:02

ChackoJoseph, why are you flaming this thread with nonsense about BMI and church certificates and villages, when that is patently not the issue?

Furthermore, it is WELL KNOWN through media reports that the Army chief accepted the 1950 birthdate under threat of extinguishing of future prospects of his career. So, that undertaking, given under duress, is itself non est.

Now if you dont have anything useful to add on the issue beyond irrelevant stories about village life, then please stop this charade. Perhaps you think you are being very clever, writing rubbish about villages, and then claiming you are speaking in general. Frankly, it is getting rather tiresome.

Whatever the true position on DOB is, it has nothing to do with village life, nor with BMI. We will soon know what the facts are, I suspect.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 04 Sep 2011 11:12

ASPuar wrote:ChackoJoseph, why are you flaming this thread with nonsense about BMI and church certificates and villages, when that is patently not the issue?

Furthermore, it is WELL KNOWN through media reports that the Army chief accepted the 1950 birthdate under threat of extinguishing of future prospects of his career. So, that undertaking, given under duress, is itself non est.

Now if you dont have anything useful to add on the issue beyond irrelevant stories about village life, then please stop this charade. Perhaps you think you are being very clever, writing rubbish about villages, and then claiming you are speaking in general. Frankly, it is getting rather tiresome.

It depends what you have read. All I have pointed out is that fudging was prevalent those days and we could look at this in the view. It was you who came up with a debate. The examples I gave was because of your useless queries. The original point was lost because of your rotten arguments. If you are tired of it, You can imagine how tired I am of your rotten arguments. If I haven't told you so dosen't mean that your arguments are gold plated.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 04 Sep 2011 17:00

^^
Let me get this straight. The discussion was going on about the Gen Singh's DOB. And then you started a comment with "you see...." and started rambling about rural practices and churches. And then you claim that they were all general statements. But the question arises that what was the need for the "innocent general statements"? What is their relevancy to the topic at hand. I can only find 2 explanations:
1> You are trying to propagate an agenda.
2> You made these speculations (sorry, generalized statement) when you were ignorant of the details of the case. So, now you are going about generalized statements as you don't want to admit that your speculation was wrong and unwarranted

Now, I respect you as a journalist with integrity. So, I will chose to disbelieve the 1st case. And if it is the second case then instead of blowing your lid over other members (who are understandably peeved about your general statements/speculations), I hope that you go through the past posts of this thread first. Especially read about about how the previous Chief blackmailed Gen Singh into signing that 1950 DOB.

Anyway, no more posts from me regarding this topic.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 04 Sep 2011 17:17

chacko, those practices have nothing to do with Gen VKS' DOB or this thread. kindly stop.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 04 Sep 2011 17:17

<del>

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 04 Sep 2011 17:33

Rahul M wrote:chacko, those practices have nothing to do with Gen VKS' DOB or this thread. kindly stop.

Ok Rahul M

A Sharma · Post by **A Sharma** » 04 Sep 2011 17:55

Army to soon get indigenous weaponised chopper

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 04 Sep 2011 18:14

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 860686.cms

Army questions defence ministry's decision to reject its chief's DoB plea
PTI | Sep 4, 2011, 05.54PM IST

The tension between the Army and the defence ministry over Gen VK Singh's date of birth is all set to escalate with the Army headquarters questioning the decision of the ministry.

Gen V K Singh's battle over his age intensified on Sunday with the Army headquarters insisting that the date of birth mentioned in his matric certificate cannot be ignored while the defence ministry has rejected his contention.

The Army chief has two sets of date of birth in records. The Military Secretary (MS) branch shows it to be May 10, 1950 whereas the Adjutant General's (AG) branch shows it to be May 10, 1951. The chief's matriculation certificate also shows it to be May 10, 1951.

The ministry has declared as "null and void and non est" and "unauthorised and illegal" the change in the date of birth to May 10, 1951 in Gen Singh's service records made by the AG branch in February this year.

In its first public response on the issue, Army's additional director general (Public Information) said that "the value of a matriculation certificate can't be wished away".

He said the defence ministry has arrived at its decision on the issue on basis of what it was told by the MS Branch which has no jurisdiction on such issues.

"The custodian of records, at the Army headquarters, is the AG's branch and the MS Branch has no jurisdictional authority on the issue as per regulations for the Army and the charter given to each branch," he said.

The ADG (PI) said the "confusion" on the date of birth issue "has occurred because the AG's branch has not been consulted."

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 04 Sep 2011 18:21

I did not raise any queries to anyone, especially not to certain members, and I have made no arguments, only reiterated the facts, which are:

a) The genesis of the controversy is meticulously documented in the media, and are at variance with the statements being insisted upon by certain members who are apparently not informed of the facts of the matter.

b) Even if such so called generalised statements held any worth, they are irrelevant to the circumstances of the army chief, and this situation.

The above news report makes it clear that the matter is definitely not closed.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 05 Sep 2011 00:22

<del>

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 05 Sep 2011 00:26

chetak wrote:<del>

Noted Saar.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 05 Sep 2011 03:12

Unfit Army? Survey finds 30% overweight

NEW DELHI: A study on the health of Indian Army personnel has thrown up worrying results. Four out of five personnel surveyed, including officers, were found suffering from pre-hypertension, about a third were overweight and two-thirds had low levels of good cholesterol (HDL), caused by lack of exercise.

The sample survey was conducted by the defence ministry and Indian Council of Medical Research on 767 'healthy' personnel including 130 officers. Their ages ranged from 18 to 50 years.

The study also found a majority of the personnel had bad eating habits. Most of them added salt or pickle to their food and used ghee/butter regularly.

Alarmingly, the prevalence of pre-hypertension in the group was higher than in the general population. While 40-60% of Indians show these symptoms, it was as high as 80% among the Armymen. Pre-hypertension is a risk factor for heart disease and is characterized by mildly high blood pressure - 120-139mm Hg systolic pressure and a diastolic pressure of 80-89.

Almost 67% were found to have low HDL cholesterol level - a sign of low physical activity. More embarrassingly, 30% had a body-mass ratio of over 23, putting them in the overweight category

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 05 Sep 2011 07:30

Dark October, Black November: Inder Malhotra About 1962 war

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 06 Sep 2011 19:10

Debate on the Gen VK Singh age affair, conducted by Arnab Goswami:

http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-Row-over- ... 383198.cms

http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-Row-over- ... 383199.cms

Maroof Raza makes some interesting points. It seems to be a vendetta against Gen VK Singh by corrupt entrenched interests. Apparently when the age issue came up, at the time VK was a Lt Gen, the govt put a noting on the file that "inquiry not to be conducted". Very suspicious.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 06 Sep 2011 19:21

It is unprecedented in the history of the Indian Army that the serving chief of the Army has filed a statutory complaint on his age issue.

Army Chief General V.K. Singh has produced his matriculation certificate and records of Military Hospital, Pune, where he was born requesting the government to rectify the error in recording his age.

According to the Rajasthan Board matriculation certificate, the date of birth of Vijay Kumar Singh, son of Jagat Singh, is May 10, 1951.

Legally, matriculation certificate is the official document for age proof and this goes in favour of the COAS (Chief of the Army Staff).

Gen Singh has also produced his birth certificate from Military Hospital, Pune Cantonment, where he was born. That too records his date of birth as May 10, 1951.

Service records of his father Lt Col Jagat Singh of 14 Rajput also show V.K. Singh's date of birth as May 10, 1951.

V.K. Singh's date of birth was erroneously written as May 10, 1950 by his English teacher B.S. Bhatnagar, while filling his UPSC form for NDA.

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/age- ... 98.html?cp

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 07 Sep 2011 04:54

Army chief on three-day visit to Mongolia

NEW DELHI: Army chief General V K Singh on Tuesday left for Mongolia on a three-day trip to boost bilateral defence cooperation between the two countries.

The trip of Gen Singh, who will interact with the top civil and military leadership of Mongolia, comes soon after President Prathiba Patil visited the country as part of the policy to bolster ties with countries in India's "strategic neighbourhood".

"Gen Singh's trip underlines India's desire to build trust, further people-to-people contacts and defence cooperation with Mongolia, as it celebrates 100 years of Mongolian liberation and 90 years of formation of the Mongolian armed forces," said an official.

"India and Mongolia already have an established military cooperation, which includes the conduct of joint exercises and training of Mongolian forces in Indian military establishments. A joint working group at the defence ministry level was also established in 2006, the fourth meeting of which was held last May," he added.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 07 Sep 2011 05:43

^^ we have only one reason to be there

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 07 Sep 2011 05:56

An Indian Army aviation unit, comprising six light helicopters and 70 personnel, will leave Wednesday for a United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Congo’s restive Kivu province. The contingent, led by Col. Shantanu Kashyap, will stay in the Congo for one year.

The Indian Army aviation contingent, with its Chetak and Cheetah helicopters, will provide air support to the UN peacekeepers, including border and field surveillance, observation and reconnaissance, medical transport and search and rescue flights.

Army air unit going for Congo UN mission

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 07 Sep 2011 13:50

Defence Secretary Shashikant Sharma today reviewed security situation and other aspects of defence preparedness at the Line of Control (LoC) during his visit to forward areas of Bhimber Gali in Rajouri sector, 16 Corps Headquarters at Nagrota and Romeo Force Headquarters at Manyar Wala.

Daily Excelsior

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 10 Sep 2011 19:24

Have people read IndiaToday's recent article on the COAS age issue? If not, guess what the title of the article..."Lies of the General"!!!
Considering that Sandip Unnithan himself comes from an Armed Foces family, I never understand why he is so anti services.
IIRC, during the days of 6th pay commission when services were protesting the pay disparity, the cover image of the IT was an army uniform where medals were replaced by currency notes and coins!!!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Sep 2011 21:15

Lies of the General : Army chief misrepresented facts on his date of birth: Defence ministry

ManjaM · Post by **ManjaM** » 10 Sep 2011 21:22

http://www.flipkart.com/books/1907219544

Forever Forty: Colonel Vasanth, Ashoka Chakra

Forever Forty is a celebration of life. The life of Col Vasanth, AC ??? a life well lived ??? from growing up in a loving household and making wonderful friends, to marrying the woman he loved, raising beautiful children, and staying true to his calling till the very end. It is also a celebration of love. Love, expressed eloquently in more than four hundred letters he wrote home while posted on cold, rugged, inhospitable mountains, spending almost every New Year, birthday and anniversary away from family, while keeping intact his characteristic sense of humour, and writing so evocatively as to bring everything alive. These letters are juxtaposed with the stories related by his close friends and family, giving one a glimpse into his amazing personality ??? nothing short of inspiring.

Priced at Rs 257.

PS - is there a more suitable thread for this post? "A profiles in bravery" maybe?

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Sep 2011 22:20

Austin wrote:Lies of the General : Army chief misrepresented facts on his date of birth: Defence ministry

Well, the fact that the GOI/Congress is resorting to usual dirty tricks wrt General Singh's DOB case, shows the weak wicket on which it is. And this Sandeep fellow, rather than go about proper investigative journalism, relies on 'insider' information to carry out the hit job. It seems the RTI was a cover up for the information passed on from internal sources.

ParasuramanS · Post by **ParasuramanS** » 11 Sep 2011 06:32

It does seem that General Singh is not without wrong, if indeed he has benefitted from his seniority to obtain important promotions when it suited him. If true, then he deserves punishment.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 11 Sep 2011 08:45

ParasuramanS wrote:It does seem that General Singh is not without wrong, if indeed he has benefitted from his seniority to obtain important promotions when it suited him. If true, then he deserves punishment.

This is just an allegation made by the most corrupt government in the history of independent India, brought in through non-transparent and non-verifiable EVMs. Let us see the actual documents, then we can comment.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 11 Sep 2011 09:11

^^ AFAIK
Age, particularly if someone is on the younger side, has not been a consideration in the SBs except that the officer is required to have the minimum residual service before superannuation, to tenant the appointment he is likely to take over. One can not say that Gen V K Singh got an edge over a competing officer by virtue of his stated DOB(1950) in the previous SBs. On the contrary a younger age(1951) would have helped him, then also.
Let us suppose he stood by his later DOB at that point( of his appointment as Army Commander) and he did not give the 'purported acceptance' to the then chief regarding his DOB, he simply would not have been considered for that SB. His case would have been 'Deferred' to his sole detriment and any sane person would be expected to do otherwise only.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 11 Sep 2011 10:20

General conduct Lt Gen (Redt) SK Sinha

kunalverma · Post by **kunalverma** » 11 Sep 2011 16:01

The fact that the error was noticed and corrected before the COAS joined the NDA speaks for itself. That the correction didn't get reflected in the MS Branch records is just one of those things. How a clerical error can become such a massive issue reflects the fact that everything today can be politicised and made into a 'tamasha'. As suggested by Nelson the two undertakings he supposedly signed accepting 1950 as his DOB would have given him no advantage at all.
So long as the Government keeps insisting on recognizing 1950 as the Chief's DOB, I can't see the Chief backing off as he has clearly been wronged. It would be in the interests of all if Mr Antony was to accept the DOB as 1951 and state catagorically that the Govt of India does not want to tamper with what it percieves to be the line of succession. Having made his point, the Chief will surely step aside for the next man. The longer this issue festers, the worse it is for the Army.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 11 Sep 2011 16:40

Pranav wrote:
It is unprecedented in the history of the Indian Army that the serving chief of the Army has filed a statutory complaint on his age issue.

Army Chief General V.K. Singh has produced his matriculation certificate and records of Military Hospital, Pune, where he was born requesting the government to rectify the error in recording his age.

According to the Rajasthan Board matriculation certificate, the date of birth of Vijay Kumar Singh, son of Jagat Singh, is May 10, 1951.

Legally, matriculation certificate is the official document for age proof and this goes in favour of the COAS (Chief of the Army Staff).

Gen Singh has also produced his birth certificate from Military Hospital, Pune Cantonment, where he was born. That too records his date of birth as May 10, 1951.

Service records of his father Lt Col Jagat Singh of 14 Rajput also show V.K. Singh's date of birth as May 10, 1951.

V.K. Singh's date of birth was erroneously written as May 10, 1950 by his English teacher B.S. Bhatnagar, while filling his UPSC form for NDA.

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/age- ... 98.html?cp

Received by email

Gen Sinha on V K Singh's row

A Last Word on the subject, from someone, who has the stature and standing to speak his mind.

The controversy must be given an instant burial. The dignity of the high office of the Army Chief must not be compromised.

Gen VK Singh is an officer of high repute. I have interacted with him when he was a major general in Kashmir and have great regard for him. Documentary evidence of his date of birth fully supports his claim. Year after year the annual List issued by the military secretary's office for nearly three decades and more and readily available to all officers, unlike the adjutant-general's Branch Record, showed the wrong date.
No attempt to correct the date was made when he was a junior officer.
Had this been done in the early years, the issue could have been easily resolved between the two branches by Army Headquarter.
When it was raised after his attaining very senior rank, it got linked with the succession plan of the top leadership of the Army. Today the issue boils down to whether Gen. Singh as Chief will have a two or three-year tenure.
In 1947, a committee of three senior secretaries in the Government of India -R.N. Banerjee, Vishnu Sahay and H.M. Patel -recommended that as in other ministries, the defence secretary should have a status higher than the three Service Chiefs, who were only departmental heads. In 1947-48, we still had British Service Chiefs. They took up the matter with Lord Louis Mountbatten, saying it was ridiculous to equate Service Chiefs with department heads. Being key players in ensuring national security, in all democracies they have the right of direct access to the Prime Minister or the head of the government.
At the instance of Mountbatten, Jawaharlal Nehru decided that the Chiefs would have a status higher than the defence secretary. This continues to be so even now. In view of the exalted position of a Chief, a public controversy involving him is most unfortunate. For the first time, a Chief has filed a statutory complaint on a personal matter. This is being examined by the defence secretary and his staff to obtain the decision of the minister.
This lowers the dignity of the high office, which must take precedence over personal interest.
We have had many eminent generals who have been Army Chiefs. Gen. Cariappa, the seniormost Indian officer, was expected to become the first Indian Chief in 1949. A hitch arose. He was perceived as being too friendly with officers of the undivided Indian Army serving in Pakistan. In early 1948, he attended the Lahore Horse Show at the invitation of Gen. Iftikar Ahmed. In those days a passport was not required for travel to Pakistan, nor was prior government approval. Gen. Raza, the adjutant general of the Pakistan Army who had served under Cariappa for many years in the Rajput Regiment, came to Delhi in 1947 for a meeting on division of assets. He stayed with Cariappa. Col. Nasar Ali Khan was a havildar clerk in the early Thirties, working under Cariappa, then the adjutant of the Rajput Regimental Centre. He later became an officer and, in 1947, was the military adviser in the Pakistan high commission. He often met Cariappa. Gen. Rajendrasinhji Jadeja,
the next senior officer, had a distinguished war record in North Africa.
As Southern Army Commander, he conducted the Hyderabad operations. He was the brother of the Jam Saheb of Nawanagar. As Chancellor, Chamber of Princes, the latter had worked closely with Sardar Patel to integrate the Princely States with the Indian Union. There were rumours that Rajendrasinhji would be made Chief. He is reported to have met Nehru and told him that he would resign if appointed Chief by superseding Cariappa. That would set a wrong precedent and may lead to politicising the Army.
Rajendrasinhji set a shining example. After Cariappa completed his term, he succeeded him.
Cariappa was the right man at the right time. A strong disciplinarian with a high sense of values, he held the Army together at a critical time when all combat units had undergone a surgical operation in the wake of Partition and units were being commanded by Indian officers with only seven years' service. He had led the Army successfully during the one-year war in Kashmir.
Gen. Thimayya was a charismatic leader, a true soldiers' general.
During the Second World War, he was the only Indian to command a brigade in battle. His combat record in command of a division in Kashmir was outstanding, particularly during the Battle of Zoji-la. As chairman of the Neutral Nation Commission in Korea, he had won international acclaim and added lustre to the office of the Army Chief. He fell out with defence minister V.K. Krishna Menon on a matter of principle and tendered his resignation. That shook the country. Nehru appealed to his patriotism and assured him he would resolve his problem with Krishna Menon. Gen.
Thimayya withdrew his resignation. The next day Nehru castigated him in Parliament for immaturity. Despite that, he continued to serve as a lame duck Army Chief for the rest of his tenure. This did immense harm to his reputation, and to the Army. The bureaucratic stranglehold over the Army increased and the Army got increasingly marginalised in decision-making. This contributed to the humiliating debacle of 1962.
J.N. Chaudhri and Sam Manekshaw were brilliant generals who successfully led the Army in the 1965 and 1971 wars respectively.
They had established personal equations with the then Prime Ministers, working directly with them during the wars. In my own case, after commanding the Western Army, I was posted to Delhi as vice chief and officially told to understudy the Chief as I would be taking over from him shortly on his retirement. I was suddenly told one day that the government had decided to supersede me and appoint Gen. Vaidya as the Chief. I resigned. There was a furore in Parliament and in the press.
Venkatraman, the then defence minister, told the press, “Both Gen. Sinha and Gen. Vaidya are good generals but the government has chosen to appoint Gen. Vaidya as Chief.“ He sent the defence PRO, Brig. Ram Mohan Rao, currently editor-in-chief of ANI, to me, desiring that I speak to the media. I told the press that “I do not question the decision of the government.
I accept it. I have decided to fade away from the Army. Gen. Vaidya is a good friend of mine and an able general. I am confident that the Army will flourish under his leadership.“ I never thought of exercising the option of submitting a statutory complaint or going to court.
I have recounted the above vignettes in the earnest hope that the present unseemly controversy be given an instant burial. The dignity of the high office of the Chief must not be compromised.

The author, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as governor of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 11 Sep 2011 17:36

Tsk tsk... the sort of hit job reporting that Unnithan is indulging in is absolutely shameful. Shouldnt the chief sue him?

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 11 Sep 2011 17:49

The Letters controversy is explained in this contribution

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/2010/ ... s-Age.html

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 11 Sep 2011 21:38

The article written by Lt. General Sinha, very eloquently brings out the ethos of the Services - they are like the Bhismpitahma of Mahabharta - sworn to protect the country and always keeping their own welfare in the background. However, we have seen how this commitment from the Services has been used to put them down, time and again - and at times with very serious concequences.

General VK Singh needs to walk a tight rope between maintaining the dignity of COAS office as well as ensuring that MOD/GOI does not visit any wrong on him, and by exxtension, the IA.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 11 Sep 2011 22:05

Rohit Vats, Gen Sinha has a point, and has used his example.

But, the difference is, that in VK Singhs case, the Army chief is being accused of Lying by the government. And he can never let such a slur on the office go unanswered.