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.
anirban_aim
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 25 Jul 2009 21:28

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby anirban_aim » 30 Jan 2012 22:22

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... epage=true

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/army- ... led-171277

Ahead of court hearing, Ministry toughens stand against Army Chief

Babu gira khadde mein.... us se nikalne ki bajaye babu ne kya kiya??? Khadde ko aur gehra kiya... Shabaash... just like a babu.

Chalo kono baat nahi babua.... eee to s**la hona hi tha!!! babulog apna galti kabhi nahin manbe karin... Kowno darne ki baat nahi isma.. only bewakoof log send letters to AG branch without date. Ab ka batayein..... hain???

Ab agar jernail sahib plays his cards right (like getting lawyers like Ram J & KTS Tulsi) & producing reams of data and calling awesome high profile witnesses, then Anthony jon hai na.... oo s**la will be martyred soon hain, ab whether he will get a saint hood later in a Governorship etc later, oo hum ka nahin maloom.

Jernail saab aap abhi sab chodo just focus on collecting boxes and drums of documentary evidence.

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby aditp » 30 Jan 2012 22:36

Army Chief age row: Adjutant general branch showing disobedience, says defence ministry

The babus will fall to undeterminable depths, and the holier than thou St Antony will steadfastedly refuse to use common sense and intelligence.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 30 Jan 2012 22:44

Is it normal for MoD babus to send letters to directly to various branches of the forces? Aren't they routed thru various forces hqs like Army, Air Force or Navy Hqs?

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Surya » 30 Jan 2012 22:45

wow the AG is now mutinous - says the third rate babus and loyal IT notes down word for word

Maybe SU will follow up with more headlines



viv - Saikat is now with DNA
Last edited by Surya on 30 Jan 2012 22:47, edited 1 time in total.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Lalmohan » 30 Jan 2012 22:46

its probably now become an ego issue between minister and hq

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby aditp » 30 Jan 2012 22:50

ramana wrote:Is it normal for MoD babus to send letters to directly to various branches of the forces? Aren't they routed thru various forces hqs like Army, Air Force or Navy Hqs?


The AG is a principle staff officer to the Army Chief. However, the babus could always argue that the Chief has a conflict of interest in this case.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3049
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Kanson » 30 Jan 2012 22:57

The letter further opens the defence ministry to the charge that a group of vested interests are forcing a change on Gen Singh. If the army chief is forced to retire this year, Lt Gen Bikram Singh will become his successor. Currently Lt Gen Bikram Singh has been mentioned in an FIR for an alleged ‘fake encounter’ in Jammu & Kashmir and his role during a UN peacekeeping mission in Congo has raised several eyebrows. However, the defence ministry is determined to ensure he takes over as army chief.


Am I seeing a pattern here?

Is it not a case similar to the appointment of DK as Chief. Despite available evidence of wrong doing, DM/RM made him as Army Chief. Now the next chief is made ready whatever might be the allegation. Is not these actions gives credence to the 'succession line'.

And you tell me whether such elaborate plan can happen becoz of some greedy official in Army or babus in MoD? If it is due to some errant officials, why is this party in power/ and its political representative known as RM is supporting all these things!

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3049
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Kanson » 30 Jan 2012 23:04

chetak wrote:Why Gen VK Singh’s D.O.B is not just a ‘personal’ matter

January 27, 2012

BY RSN SINGH


Some ministers expressed their helplessness in deference to the fiat of a caucus of extra-constitutional authorities. It is the same story: all conspiracies and scams in recent times smack of a major influence of this extra-constitutional caucus.


There are insinuations that politics, political funding, the arms lobby, business mafia and international players are impinging on the course of the crisis. It is quite evident from the bizarre, unprecedented term called ‘succession plan’ that has been given currency by the current dispensation. Will someone please stand up to sort out this mess so that our army can serve our polity better?

(RSN Singh is a former military intelligence officer who later served in the Research & Analysis Wing. The author of two books: Asian Strategic and Military Perspective and Military Factor in Pakistan, he is also a columnist for Canary Trap. This post was first published on Firstpost on January 27, 2012)


May be becoz RSN Singh is from intelligence background, he can go beyond what others have not talked about so far. BTW, Who are these extra-constitutional caucus? Well, you know who these are; it doesn't need any explanation.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sanku » 30 Jan 2012 23:15

Mods, BRF needs a Ack-thoo icon.

Desperately.

member_22636
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 3
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby member_22636 » 30 Jan 2012 23:25

I think it is Gen. V.K Singh's right to go to the court. He is also a citizen of India and has equal rights if not more rights!

If some people think that he has broken the chain of command in approaching the supreme court, I feel sad for them. I think we can understand when he says that it s a matter of Honour for him, yes it surely is. Guardians of India atleast need to have the honour if not then our nation Should hangs its head in shame!!

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5398
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby SBajwa » 30 Jan 2012 23:43

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120130/cth1.htm#9

Image
Lt-Gen Dayal dead
Tribune News Service

Panchkula, January 29
Lt-Gen Ranjit Singh Dayal (retd), a former Lieutenant-Governor of Pondicherry and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, breathed his last at the Command Hospital here this evening. A highly decorated officer, General Dayal had been suffering from prostrate cancer, detected a few years ago.

He was admitted to the hospital a few days back for terminal care after his condition deteriorated.

Born at Kurukshetra on November 15, 1928, General Dayal was selected to the Indian Military Academy in 1946. He was commissioned in the Army. He joined the Punjab Regiment (Para) and was assigned to the 1st Battalion, which took part in the 1948 Indo-Pak war.

He was decorated with the Maha Vir Chakra for capturing the strategically important Haji Pir Pass in the 1965 Indo-Pak war.

He was survived by his wife and daughter. His cremation would take place with full military honours at the Sector-25 crematorium in Chandigarh at 2 pm tomorrow.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5398
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby SBajwa » 30 Jan 2012 23:45

Ministry takes on Army Chief on age controversy
Orders AG to correct DoB in records
Ajay Banerjee
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, January 29
With less than five days to go for the Supreme Court to hear a petition filed by Army Chief General VK Singh seeking reconciliation of his date of birth, it has now emerged that the Ministry of Defence, last week, directed the Adjutant-General branch, the record-keeper of the Army, to maintain the General’s date of birth (DoB) as May 10, 1950. It says the DoB of May 10, 1951, recorded by the AG branch and claimed by the Army Chief, was “not correct”.

The latest order is a follow-up to the rejection of the statutory complaint filed by General VK Singh on the matter. The statutory complaint was rejected by Defence Minister AK Antony on December 30, 2011. The General filed his petition in the Supreme Court on January 18 and it is listed for hearing on February 3.

Sources said the MoD in its latest order of January 23, 2012, has asked the AG to “strictly” comply with its order dated July 21, 2011, and also sought a compliance report, at the earliest. The letter, accessed by The Tribune, says, “Now that the statutory complaint stands disposed and the redressal sought by General VK Singh has not been granted…. Gen VK Singh’s officially recognised date of birth will continue to remain May 10, 1950, and that there are no grounds for interfering with the impugned order dated July 21, 2011.”

On July 21, 2011, the MoD had decided the issue and fixed May 10, 1950, as the Army Chief’s DoB. This order had said that an earlier order dated February 25, 2011, (in which the ADG MP of the AG branch had directed to amend the date of birth of Gen VK Singh, to read as May 10, 1951, instead of May 10, 1950, as recorded) was declared to be null and void and non est.

“In other words, May 10, 1951, maintained as the date of birth of Gen VK Singh by the AG Branch is not correct,” The MoD’s latest order says and goes on to add that its July 21, 2011, order was “not legally infirm and any apprehension expressed in this behalf has no basis”.

In his statutory complaint dated August 26, 2011, General VK Singh had requested the MoD (in para 94 of his complaint) to “reconsider and withdraw” its order dated July 21, 2011, and “decide whether the AG Branch, the official record-keeper of the date of birth, is correctly maintaining his date of birth as May 10, 1951”.

The MoD, in its explanation for acting now, says, since the DoB issue was part of the statutory complaint hence it was decided to wait for its disposal.

The MoD has also clarified the contention that no inquiry had been conducted by the Army headquarters nor had the AG’s branch been co-opted or kept informed about the same. It cites a January 30, 2008, letter by the then Military Secretary (Lt Gen Avadesh Prakash) which said with the approval of the then Chief (Gen Deepak Kapoor), “a detailed examination in consultation with the AG’s branch with regard to verification of date of birth in respect of Lt Gen VK Singh, has been carried out...the date of birth in respect to the officer continues to be maintained as May 10, 1950”.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 31 Jan 2012 00:18

Lt Gen RS Dayal, RIP.

We salute the hero of Haji Pir pass capture in 1965 war.

Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Katare » 31 Jan 2012 01:29

I doubt babus are doumb enough to write a letter when matter is sub judice. They are experts in protecting their own collective behinds. I think media might be talking about the old letter that was sent before matter went to court of 16th of Jan. AK did say he wants to solve it in the court, not via departmental actions.

If they did try to intimidate officers, I'll love to see their a$$es getting fried and hanged to dry by SC on Feb 3rd.

About time, DM/PM get serious and ensure a proper integration of armed forces into the MoD so these issues are not between two organizations but an internal matter of one integrated entity. We saw an unprecedented threat by all three chiefs to not raise the "bill of salary" (or some thing similar) earlier until the pay commission issues were resolved, they were quickly addressed by the govt. Now we have this tamasha, a good recipie for forcing an apolitical and diciplined force into a politically active force.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 31 Jan 2012 03:08

Lt Gen SK Sinha on

The makingof Generals

The making of generals
January 26, 2012

For the last few months, an unfortunate controversy has been raging over the date of birth of the Army Chief. This should have been resolved long ago. Gen. V.K. Singh is a competent general and known for his integrity. This case is now in the Supreme Court and, being sub judice, it should be left to that apex body to decide.

Gen. Singh has recently clarified that by getting his wrong date of birth corrected, he is not trying to stay longer in his office. It is ridiculous to compare Gen. Kayani going to the Supreme Court in Pakistan with Gen. Singh doing so in India. The issues involved are entirely different.

There were some misleading statements in a recent article in this newspaper as well as unwarranted remarks about the selection process for Army Chiefs in India and on past Army Chiefs.

The seniority principle for the Army Chief was evolved after the Curzon-Kitchener dispute in the early 20th century. Field Marshal Lord Kitchener, the commander-in-chief (C-in-C) and senior member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council, felt it was inappropriate for Maj. Gen. Sir Edmund Elles, Army member of the Council, to express his professional views at council meetings. The practice of the C-in-C’s proposals being sent to the Viceroy through him and his commenting on them was undesirable.

The Viceroy should have advice from one source, which will have the responsibility to implement his decision. Curzon was of the view that since civil is supreme, he should have views from two different sources so that he could choose between them, otherwise he would be reduced to a rubber stamp. The British government decided in favour of Kitchener and the post of Army member was abolished. Curzon resigned. It was now realised that the Chief would become too powerful.

{ I always maintained Shri JLN was fighting Curzon's battles!}

Therefore it was decided that on all important policy issues, while forwarding his recommendations, the Chief would also forward the views of the Army commanders. To ensure the independence of Army commanders, it was decided that no annual reports will be written on them and the seniority principle for selection of Army Chief will be strictly adhered to.

This practice continued after Independence. In fact, it has become more desirable when we have a “committed bureaucracy”. It can help ensure the Army remains apolitical. The article’s apprehension that merit is ignored on this account is misconceived. There are six levels of selection from lieutenant-colonels to Army commander.

At each level merit is given due consideration. On an average, 30 per cent get selected at each level and 70 per cent do not make the grade. Thus the merit of Army commanders need not be questioned. This practice is like the senior judge in the Supreme Court being appointed Chief Justice of India.

The surprising statement in the recent article that “the Army Chiefs have stuck to a stunted vision... for mistaking the minor foe (Pakistan)” and ignoring China, is factually incorrect.

The fault lies with the political leadership. When Cariappa spoke to Nehru about China, he was told not to worry about China and concentrate on Pakistan. Nehru also ignored the advice of Sardar Patel, written on November 17, 1950, in this matter. Nehru and Krishna Menon formulated our strategic policy on China, leading to the debacle of 1962.

Today, despite the growing adverse asymmetry in military capability between India and China, the Army’s proposals for narrowing this gap have been questioned by the finance ministry enquiring whether the threat from China will continue beyond 2014.

The author of the article has insinuated that Field Marshal Cariappa, the first Indian Army Chief, was selected on the basis of seniority and not merit. Lt. Gen. Rajendrasinhji, junior to him, had won a gallantry award in North Africa and he should have been chosen instead. This set a bad precedent.

Cariappa and Thimayya were the only Indians who commanded a brigade in operations before Independence, the former in NWFP and the latter in Burma. Cariappa successfully conducted the one-year war against Pakistan in Kashmir. Rajendrasinhji commanded the Southern Army which brought about the integration of Hyderabad into the Indian Union.

When Lt. Gen. Rajendrasinhji heard that he was to supersede Cariappa, he told Nehru he would resign if appointed Chief. Superseding Cariappa would have set a wrong precedent, eventually politicising the Army. Cariappa as Army Chief held the Army together at a critical time, when everything was in a flux. His contribution was handsomely recognised by his promotion to field marshal 30 years after his retirement.

In 1968, Manekshaw was appointed Chief on the basis of seniority even when his junior, Lt. Gen. Harbaksh Singh, had a better war record. Manekshaw was wounded in battle as a young officer in Burma and had earned a gallantry award. After that he had not commanded troops in operations.

Harbaksh had seen action in Malaya as a junior officer, commanded a battalion and a brigade in war in Kashmir earning a gallantry award, commanded a corps in Sikkim during the Chinese aggression and a field army of three corps in Punjab and Kashmir during the 1965 war. Manekshaw justified his selection by winning a resounding and unprecedented victory in Bangladesh in 1971.


In 1983, I was superseded for Chief’s appointment and was perhaps the only such case in our Army. I was the senior Army commander and was posted to Delhi as Vice-Chief a few months before the then Chief was to retire. I was officially told that I would soon be taking over as Chief.

Suddenly Indira Gandhi decided to supersede me and appointed my junior, Lt. Gen. Vaidya, the Chief. I put in my papers immediately. Vaidya had a good war record, having won two high gallantry awards, but had suffered two heart attacks. His medical category made him ineligible for promotion.

In a rare case, his medical category was upgraded. Ram Singh Rajda, MP, stated in Parliament: “Lt. Gen. Sinha was superseded because his family was close to JP and Lt. Gen. Vaidya was promoted because he had allegedly given statements against the Communists” during the Tripura Assembly elections. Six former Central ministers, including former Prime Minister Chowdhary Charan Singh, former defence minister Jagjivan Ram and former I&B minister L.K. Advani, expressed their grave concern in a joint press statement. The matter was raised in Parliament.

The government maintained it would not be desirable, in the national interest, to debate this sensitive issue in Parliament. The Opposition rightly did not press the matter. In view of the raging controversy, Venkatraman, the then defence minister, desired that I clarify the matter to the press.

I stated, “I do not question the decision of the government, I accept it. I have decided to fade away from the Army. Lt. Gen. Vaidya is a friend of mine and a competent general. The Army will do well under his able leadership.”

I felt it was not right to allow the image of the Army to be sullied on account of any controversy over my supersession. I have recounted these details because the current controversy is tarnishing the image of the Army. It has divided both serving and retired Army officers. The sooner this unfortunate controversy is resolved, the better for the Army and the nation.




I agree its dividing the army officer cadre but the Army name is not tarnished. What is tarnished is the reputation of the politicio-bureaucratic nexus.


Coincidentally its in the similar duo of JLN-Krishna Menon is being repeated in MMS-AKA 50 years later.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 31 Jan 2012 03:20

We know know why the letter to AG branch from MoD was undated. So they can claim the AG Branch is dragging its feet in implementing their orders no matter when they are issued.
In plain and simple language the MOD is interfering with the chain of command in the Army.
What they are telling the AG Branch which is branch of the Indian Army to implement a gimmick detrimental to their Chief which is a clear case of interferring with chain of command.

But clerks dont understand such issues.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4787
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Yayavar » 31 Jan 2012 05:00

^^Why is it dividing the officer cadre?

Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Prem Kumar » 31 Jan 2012 05:43

ramana wrote:Among newspapers with an all India presence, the Hindu is taking a stance in support of the right conduct. Everyother paper is hedging and worse supporting the wrong.


Ramana: I wouldnt go so far just yet. The Sid Varadharajan apple doesnt fall far from the N Ram tree. Lets see if the frequency of Xinhua vomit re-publications changes

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 31 Jan 2012 06:56

Ok. But we need to recognize the swallow when it flies.

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby abhishek_sharma » 31 Jan 2012 07:02

Image

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby aditp » 31 Jan 2012 07:30

:shock: Seems he is about to s**p :rotfl:

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby aditp » 31 Jan 2012 07:31


kunalverma
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 07 Sep 2011 22:01

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby kunalverma » 31 Jan 2012 07:34

Lt Gen RS Dayal's passing away in Chandigarh on the 29th coincided with the Beating of the Retreat in Delhi. Known for his spirited attack and capture of Haji Pir in 1965, the returning of this feature to Pakistan left most of the men who fought that war completely dumbfounded. Haji Pir incidently separates the Poonch Sector from Uri.
General Dayal was a paratrooper who went on to become the Colonel of the Rajput Regiment, handing over that baton to my father in 1988. In 1961, as a young Captain he had driven to Tezu to bring my mom fresh vegetables while my dad was deployed at Walong as a part of 2 Rajput. I was then four or five months old, and this gesture of Ranjit Dayal was always remembered with great affection. An etremely warm and caring person, he will always be remembered as one of the great personalities in the Indian Army who left his stamp on this country's history. My deepest condolences to his family and also to the Para and Rajput fraternity.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54822
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ramana » 31 Jan 2012 07:46

Wow. Your family knew him!

Truly the six degrees of separation does work.

rajrang
BRFite
Posts: 415
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 08:08

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rajrang » 31 Jan 2012 09:14

ramana wrote:Lt Gen SK Sinha on

The makingof Generals

The making of generals
January 26, 2012

For the last few months, an unfortunate controversy has been raging over the date of birth of the Army Chief. This should have been resolved long ago. Gen. V.K. Singh is a competent general and known for his integrity. This case is now in the Supreme Court and, being sub judice, it should be left to that apex body to decide.

Gen. Singh has recently clarified that by getting his wrong date of birth corrected, he is not trying to stay longer in his office. It is ridiculous to compare Gen. Kayani going to the Supreme Court in Pakistan with Gen. Singh doing so in India. The issues involved are entirely different.

There were some misleading statements in a recent article in this newspaper as well as unwarranted remarks about the selection process for Army Chiefs in India and on past Army Chiefs.

The seniority principle for the Army Chief was evolved after the Curzon-Kitchener dispute in the early 20th century. Field Marshal Lord Kitchener, the commander-in-chief (C-in-C) and senior member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council, felt it was inappropriate for Maj. Gen. Sir Edmund Elles, Army member of the Council, to express his professional views at council meetings. The practice of the C-in-C’s proposals being sent to the Viceroy through him and his commenting on them was undesirable.

The Viceroy should have advice from one source, which will have the responsibility to implement his decision. Curzon was of the view that since civil is supreme, he should have views from two different sources so that he could choose between them, otherwise he would be reduced to a rubber stamp. The British government decided in favour of Kitchener and the post of Army member was abolished. Curzon resigned. It was now realised that the Chief would become too powerful.

{ I always maintained Shri JLN was fighting Curzon's battles!}

Therefore it was decided that on all important policy issues, while forwarding his recommendations, the Chief would also forward the views of the Army commanders. To ensure the independence of Army commanders, it was decided that no annual reports will be written on them and the seniority principle for selection of Army Chief will be strictly adhered to.

This practice continued after Independence. In fact, it has become more desirable when we have a “committed bureaucracy”. It can help ensure the Army remains apolitical. The article’s apprehension that merit is ignored on this account is misconceived. There are six levels of selection from lieutenant-colonels to Army commander.

At each level merit is given due consideration. On an average, 30 per cent get selected at each level and 70 per cent do not make the grade. Thus the merit of Army commanders need not be questioned. This practice is like the senior judge in the Supreme Court being appointed Chief Justice of India.

The surprising statement in the recent article that “the Army Chiefs have stuck to a stunted vision... for mistaking the minor foe (Pakistan)” and ignoring China, is factually incorrect.

The fault lies with the political leadership. When Cariappa spoke to Nehru about China, he was told not to worry about China and concentrate on Pakistan. Nehru also ignored the advice of Sardar Patel, written on November 17, 1950, in this matter. Nehru and Krishna Menon formulated our strategic policy on China, leading to the debacle of 1962.

Today, despite the growing adverse asymmetry in military capability between India and China, the Army’s proposals for narrowing this gap have been questioned by the finance ministry enquiring whether the threat from China will continue beyond 2014.

The author of the article has insinuated that Field Marshal Cariappa, the first Indian Army Chief, was selected on the basis of seniority and not merit. Lt. Gen. Rajendrasinhji, junior to him, had won a gallantry award in North Africa and he should have been chosen instead. This set a bad precedent.

Cariappa and Thimayya were the only Indians who commanded a brigade in operations before Independence, the former in NWFP and the latter in Burma. Cariappa successfully conducted the one-year war against Pakistan in Kashmir. Rajendrasinhji commanded the Southern Army which brought about the integration of Hyderabad into the Indian Union.

When Lt. Gen. Rajendrasinhji heard that he was to supersede Cariappa, he told Nehru he would resign if appointed Chief. Superseding Cariappa would have set a wrong precedent, eventually politicising the Army. Cariappa as Army Chief held the Army together at a critical time, when everything was in a flux. His contribution was handsomely recognised by his promotion to field marshal 30 years after his retirement.

In 1968, Manekshaw was appointed Chief on the basis of seniority even when his junior, Lt. Gen. Harbaksh Singh, had a better war record. Manekshaw was wounded in battle as a young officer in Burma and had earned a gallantry award. After that he had not commanded troops in operations.

Harbaksh had seen action in Malaya as a junior officer, commanded a battalion and a brigade in war in Kashmir earning a gallantry award, commanded a corps in Sikkim during the Chinese aggression and a field army of three corps in Punjab and Kashmir during the 1965 war. Manekshaw justified his selection by winning a resounding and unprecedented victory in Bangladesh in 1971.


In 1983, I was superseded for Chief’s appointment and was perhaps the only such case in our Army. I was the senior Army commander and was posted to Delhi as Vice-Chief a few months before the then Chief was to retire. I was officially told that I would soon be taking over as Chief.

Suddenly Indira Gandhi decided to supersede me and appointed my junior, Lt. Gen. Vaidya, the Chief. I put in my papers immediately. Vaidya had a good war record, having won two high gallantry awards, but had suffered two heart attacks. His medical category made him ineligible for promotion.

In a rare case, his medical category was upgraded. Ram Singh Rajda, MP, stated in Parliament: “Lt. Gen. Sinha was superseded because his family was close to JP and Lt. Gen. Vaidya was promoted because he had allegedly given statements against the Communists” during the Tripura Assembly elections. Six former Central ministers, including former Prime Minister Chowdhary Charan Singh, former defence minister Jagjivan Ram and former I&B minister L.K. Advani, expressed their grave concern in a joint press statement. The matter was raised in Parliament.

The government maintained it would not be desirable, in the national interest, to debate this sensitive issue in Parliament. The Opposition rightly did not press the matter. In view of the raging controversy, Venkatraman, the then defence minister, desired that I clarify the matter to the press.

I stated, “I do not question the decision of the government, I accept it. I have decided to fade away from the Army. Lt. Gen. Vaidya is a friend of mine and a competent general. The Army will do well under his able leadership.”

I felt it was not right to allow the image of the Army to be sullied on account of any controversy over my supersession. I have recounted these details because the current controversy is tarnishing the image of the Army. It has divided both serving and retired Army officers. The sooner this unfortunate controversy is resolved, the better for the Army and the nation.




I agree its dividing the army officer cadre but the Army name is not tarnished. What is tarnished is the reputation of the politicio-bureaucratic nexus.


Coincidentally its in the similar duo of JLN-Krishna Menon is being repeated in MMS-AKA 50 years later.



Lt Gen Sinha could have filed a case in the Supreme Court, but chose not to do so in order to not tarnish the image of the army. A great man!

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby aditp » 31 Jan 2012 09:52

Lt Gen Sinha was superceded, in contravention of "traditional method". Gen Singh is being illegaly forced out of office. There is a big difference.

Agreed Lt Gen Sinha is indeed a great man. He rendered sane advice to IG that she ignored and the rest is history.

Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2400
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Yogi_G » 31 Jan 2012 10:07

Yogi_G wrote:
ramana wrote:Looks like Hindu is returning to its traditional role of Nationalist paper. Good riddance to NRam days.


Ramana ji, your thoughts behind why you feel so?


Ramana ji, not sure if you saw that tweet of Subramaniam Swamy where he says that the new owner of Hindu is a naxalite with strong radical left leanings.

edit: sorry just realized it's OT.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 31 Jan 2012 12:25

Golden words from AKA
"Army is to blame for the chief’s age row. It is not due to government"

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby merlin » 31 Jan 2012 12:29

Katare wrote:If they did try to intimidate officers, I'll love to see their a$$es getting fried and hanged to dry by SC on Feb 3rd.


Hmm. A lot of confidence placed on the SC. Somehow I don't have that confidence.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 31 Jan 2012 12:48

merlin wrote:
Katare wrote:If they did try to intimidate officers, I'll love to see their a$$es getting fried and hanged to dry by SC on Feb 3rd.


Hmm. A lot of confidence placed on the SC. Somehow I don't have that confidence.


Me too.

rajrang
BRFite
Posts: 415
Joined: 24 Jul 2006 08:08

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rajrang » 31 Jan 2012 13:04

aditp wrote:Agreed Lt Gen Sinha is indeed a great man. He rendered sane advice to IG that she ignored and the rest is history.


What was the sane advice that IG ignored - was it something to do with Operation Bluestar?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21055
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Philip » 31 Jan 2012 13:39

I was waiting for those words from the GOI,articulated by the "Saint"! But it is a half-truth in fact.The GOI/MOD could've discreetly sorted out the matter earlier and not allowng it to reach this farcial stage.

It is now adopting an attitude similar to that of Pontius Pilate when Chrst was brought to him for trial by the Pharisees."I find nothing wrong in this man,but if you want to ,we'll crucify him for you!"

aditp
BRFite
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 Jul 2008 07:25
Location: Autoland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby aditp » 31 Jan 2012 13:48

rajrang wrote:
aditp wrote:Agreed Lt Gen Sinha is indeed a great man. He rendered sane advice to IG that she ignored and the rest is history.


What was the sane advice that IG ignored - was it something to do with Operation Bluestar?


He strongly advised against it.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 31 Jan 2012 13:52

^ @Philip
IMO, the statement 'It is not due to government' is utterly false.
something was dug up by the first Chief, JJ and then followed up to 'T' by his successor DK. i believe, they would not have done this for a consideration of one or many of the following
-satisfying their ego or
-fixing VKS or
-making BS the Chief.
the only plausible consideration is to please their political masters (PM). if AKA or his ministry is feigning ignorance/ innocence, it is laughable to say the least.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sanku » 31 Jan 2012 14:36

nelson wrote:if AKA or his ministry is feigning ignorance/ innocence, it is laughable to say the least.


They are looking for a escape route. If SC (say) takes their cases thoroughly (which is expected, even in a worst case scenario since the case is water tight) -- they need some way in which they can work with Gen V K Singh as chief for another year, without becoming a laughing stock every day these guys need to turn up in office.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 31 Jan 2012 15:10

Philip wrote:I was waiting for those words from the GOI,articulated by the "Saint"! But it is a half-truth in fact.The GOI/MOD could've discreetly sorted out the matter earlier and not allowng it to reach this farcial stage.

It is now adopting an attitude similar to that of Pontius Pilate when Chrst was brought to him for trial by the Pharisees."I find nothing wrong in this man,but if you want to ,we'll crucify him for you!"


Tiranga party doesn't like other popular figures other than the dynasty. Be it Anna Hazare or VKS.

However, as I said before, this will drag on till he has to step down. Secondly, VKS will be better off joining something like transparency International or some other such institutions as he has a reputation.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sanku » 31 Jan 2012 15:24

There was an excellent discussion on TimesNow last night, which unfortunately is not up on their web page yet.

The participants, including retired Army officers clearly spelt out that

1) even when they were serving, they had no obligation to follow an order if they were convinced it went against the rule book. They would in such cases always "negotiate" with the Govt on how they differed and how it should be actually done. (Yes this meant taking the risk of petty vindictiveness and hounding and career loss but they would show spine anyway and throw the rule book at anyone who is forcing them to do shady stuff )

2) The message directly to AG, can not bypass the chief, as long as he is the chief, and as it exists a undated letter not following the chain of command signed by some bureaucrat is highly irregular (some officers were incensed enough about it) -- and was going to get the "up yours" treatment from IA, couched in legalise of course.

The "overwhelming dark lord powers" of the political factions in control of GoI are being overestimated IMVHO. They are in for a shock (if the ones already havent showed the real extent of their powers) -- let us see how the shock pans out.

VikB
BRFite
Posts: 340
Joined: 29 Jun 2009 10:02
Location: Mumbai/Delhi
Contact:

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby VikB » 31 Jan 2012 15:52

Was watching in awe the march past by the paras. A friend, who is ex major from IA told an interesting fact. Indian army only uses salami shastra, baju shastra (as is done by all other marching contingents at Republic day parade - in terms of holding the weapon) but never the kandha shastra. This was disallowed after the 1962 war as it was accepted that we lost to the Chinese and hence to remind the IA, kandha shastra was take out. As a proof, he showed the fotos of first (or the early) year parade where the contingents are holding their rifles by the butt resting the barrel on the shoulder. I too remembered seeing the movies showing Azad Hind fauz marching in similar way.
Is this true?

ps- he also added that Parachute regiment is the only one allowed kandha shastra.

kancha
BRFite
Posts: 935
Joined: 20 Apr 2005 19:13

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby kancha » 31 Jan 2012 16:09

No Vik,
That is because the forces no longer use the .303. That had no grip to hold it by the side of the body.
Look at the Delhi Police contingent. They still use these for the parade and carry it on their shoulders because there's just no way they can carry it by their side.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 31 Jan 2012 16:14

^^^@Sanku
Here is an example of what you say is the "overwhelming dark lord powers" of the political factions.
Please read the last para.
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/supre ... herstories

The bench for whatever reasons, even after finding merit in the case, does not want to ruffle the powers that be.

sorry, if this is OT.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests