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.
chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 11 Feb 2012 21:37

Justice H L Gokhale, said in the court: "The government gave you an opportunity. It is not fair to criticize the defence ministry. The matter was treated as closed. The government made you chief of the army. They could have easily said 'We don't need such a person'."


Justice R M Lodha said: "We want to ensure as chief of the army, you continue to serve the country as you did for 38 years. This verdict should not come in your way. Wise men are those who move with the wind."


Be wise and Compromise or agonise.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sanku » 11 Feb 2012 21:42

Justice H L Gokhale wrote:The government gave you an opportunity. It is not fair to criticize the defence ministry. The matter was treated as closed. The government made you chief of the army. They could have easily said 'We don't need such a person'."


They make it sound like the CoAS is a bheek to be thrown like a bone to dog.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 11 Feb 2012 21:56

ShauryaT wrote:But the petition was not about the duration of his post at all. It was about "recognition" of DOB. It was about his honor that was at stake due to the discrepancies in his DoB - a question that had arisen even leading up to his appointment as COAS. GoI is well within its right, to not extend tenure. Executive powers over the military are supreme and beyond question. VKS was not petitioning for a "right" to stay one extra year. In fact, he had made it known, it is not about tenure at all.

As for what is going on in TSP et al and the general view in the pillars of power "to not let the military prevail", the SC judges unfortunately fell for these "winds" instead of letting truth and justice prevail. What they showed is justice is not blind but bends to the winds.


The bold-ed part. That's why the case is not acceptable to SC. They have time and again said that it will not consider the case if any grave injustice has not be done. The tenure part has been used as an example.

The truth prevail thingy, I have already expressed that
This government has brought common people and military to the edge. Both anti-corruption movement and VKS going to court is a black mark on the government. Hopefully, the judiciary and media will bring this ruling party (not the legislation and exec) to its knees for the better of India.


ShauryaT wrote:One issue troubles me. How does someone say, I have faith in your integrity but I will not accept your contention to r....ve in your integrity" completely superfluous?


Its the other way of telling that Govt f#ked up and brought the things to boil and unfortunately we have to do this because of larger interest. Just read the past observations of SC on Armed forces to understand what they are attempting in this case. Four pillars have closed ranks here in order to keep the status quo and giving an face saving for exec/legis. On contrary to the things you are slamming SC for, they have higghest regards for the armed forces and the institution.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 11 Feb 2012 21:59

The courts stance that the petition was for "recognition" of DOB and not its determination fails a basic logic test. How do you recognize something without determining its bonafides? Bizarre logic to my simple mind.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 11 Feb 2012 22:06

Grave injustice has been done, only that it is not visible. It is not visible to the court because they turned their head away and chose not see it. It is not visible to the govt because they have bureaucratic cataract. It is not visible to the people because the media would not be fair. But to deny that grave injustice has not been done would be utterly false, my lord.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 11 Feb 2012 22:07

The bold-ed part. That's why the case is not acceptable to SC. They have time and again said that it will not consider the case if any grave injustice has not be done. The tenure part has been used as an example.[/qoute] Then the court missed the entire point. The point was about honor. Injustice was done to the honor of an officer. The question was about restoring that honor - not a tenure!
On contrary to the things you are slamming SC for, they have higghest regards for the armed forces and the institution.
I am slamming SC for not rising up as the last bastion for justice and not being able to deliver on this specific issue. The question was simple, it required a simple validation and an answer. It is irrelevant what SC thinks of the forces. I believe every Indian has high regard for its forces and that regard is not the point. The point is the SC did not do its job - just like the Army did not and just like the MoD did not not and the PMO did not not did the law ministry. It just plain sucks!

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 11 Feb 2012 22:14

ShauryaT wrote:The courts stance that the petition was for "recognition" of DOB and not its determination fails a basic logic test. How do you recognize something without determining its bonafides? Bizarre logic to my simple mind.


I will attempt this again to make you understand:

If there is no injustice in career growth or other related benefits, then there is no case, as per SC. In past HC has taken a view that you have taken for another case and SC quashed it.

For VKS, its honour, for others, its something else.

SC has certain requirements for the DOB issue, even if its change or reaffirmation or correction or something else.

If you shed the blinkers, then you can see the SC's POV and mind you, it is not specific to VKS. Its a template for all such cases for SC.

SC, infact has gone a step further and said that "no one questions your integrity." If it had left it unsaid, probably it would have been bad. But, they have taken pains to make him understand that he is a respectable man and the law template is same for everyone.

Now, if you dis agree, you have all reasons to be and you can challenge SC on this. My part is that I am only trying to make an explanation and what I understand.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 24066
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 11 Feb 2012 22:17

ShauryaT wrote:The courts stance that the petition was for "recognition" of DOB and not its determination fails a basic logic test. How do you recognize something without determining its bonafides? Bizarre logic to my simple mind.



Such is always the bizarre logic of people who are ambitious and want to climb the greasy ladder of high office.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby merlin » 11 Feb 2012 22:20

shiv wrote:Actually the Indian Supreme Court does not matter to anyone, except Indians. So anyone who is not answerable to the Supreme court of India by virtue of his nationality or residence has nothing to worry. All time pass onlee...


But for people who reside here - be afraid, be very afraid.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sanku » 11 Feb 2012 22:23

chackojoseph wrote:then you can see the SC's POV .


I actually can, and I see their approach, they are trying to preserve the status quo. In that it is hard to fault them if you want them to preserve things like the "system".

However we expect the SC to do more than just that. We expect them to deliver justice -- beyond the simple legal framework.

I guess we were expecting too much judicial activism, perhaps courts are indeed limited in what they can do. The solution does not come from the courts. :(

sunnydee

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sunnydee » 11 Feb 2012 22:29

merlin wrote:
shiv wrote:Actually the Indian Supreme Court does not matter to anyone, except Indians. So anyone who is not answerable to the Supreme court of India by virtue of his nationality or residence has nothing to worry. All time pass onlee...


But for people who reside here - be afraid, be very afraid.


As a citizen of India residing in India i have utmost respect for the supreme court and knows that it would protect me when others fail me (and i am not even a jingo/nationalist). If Gen VKS did not have respect for the SC do you think he would have even wanted to take that route...???

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 11 Feb 2012 22:30

Sanku wrote:However we expect the SC to do more than just that. We expect them to deliver justice -- beyond the simple legal framework.(


The simple frame work has arrived from multiple cases that have been fought since independence.

As I see, you all are taking this emotionally and make bad reporters :lol:

sunnydee

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sunnydee » 11 Feb 2012 22:30

Sanku wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:then you can see the SC's POV .


I actually can, and I see their approach, they are trying to preserve the status quo. In that it is hard to fault them if you want them to preserve things like the "system".

However we expect the SC to do more than just that. We expect them to deliver justice -- beyond the simple legal framework.

I guess we were expecting too much judicial activism, perhaps courts are indeed limited in what they can do. The solution does not come from the courts. :(


Judicial activism - sounds very american ?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 11 Feb 2012 22:31

chackojoseph wrote:Now, if you dis agree, you have all reasons to be and you can challenge SC on this. My part is that I am only trying to make an explanation and what I understand.

Thanks and I do understand, what you are saying. I do think, it is side stepping of the issue by the courts. The issue being one of honor!

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 11 Feb 2012 22:33

sunnydee wrote:
Sanku wrote:I guess we were expecting too much judicial activism, perhaps courts are indeed limited in what they can do. The solution does not come from the courts. :(


Judicial activism - sounds very american ?


As I see, he has mis understood the term judicial activism. But, I don't want to nit pick, since I understand what he is trying to say.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 11 Feb 2012 22:36

ShauryaT wrote:
chackojoseph wrote:Now, if you dis agree, you have all reasons to be and you can challenge SC on this. My part is that I am only trying to make an explanation and what I understand.

Thanks and I do understand, what you are saying. I do think, it is side stepping of the issue by the courts. The issue being one of honor!


:lol: Clearly shows that you haven't understood.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 11 Feb 2012 22:37

sunnydee wrote:If Gen VKS did not have respect for the SC do you think he would have even wanted to take that route...???


Well he seems satisified with the decision as his lawyers said it was an amicable settlement.

For those who are not and we have quite a few here , they can always try the Sharia Court or something similar.

Just imagine Sharia Court ruling DOB as 1951 and putting a Fatwa on St Anthony and Sanku jee exclaiming Sharia court didn't chicken out and status quo has changed :lol: MashaAllah 8)

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sanku » 11 Feb 2012 22:39

sunnydee wrote:Judicial activism - sounds very american ?


I would not know, but judicial activism and judicial overreach are words in hot discussion in these days in Indian media, for quite some years (4-6)

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 11 Feb 2012 22:40

chackojoseph wrote:The simple frame work has arrived from multiple cases that have been fought since independence.

As I see, you all are taking this emotionally and make bad reporters :lol:
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.

sunnydee

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sunnydee » 11 Feb 2012 22:44

Judicial activism as per wikipedia means "Judicial activism describes judicial ruling suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law"..As far as i know the only court to practice this is the US supreme court (court in a major country)....thats why i think the selection of justice to US Supreme court is so political and in a way their court has become politicised...(admins if you feel the last sentence was OT you are welcome to delete it...)

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4791
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Yayavar » 11 Feb 2012 22:49

nelson wrote:If the judges of SC think they are god and therefore infallible in front of mortals then they are sadly mistaken. This is not the first instance. They have been proven wrong before.

OTOH
http://www.firstpost.com/india/real-les ... 10191.html


as I noted before ..

the message is - either crash an burn early if you stand for what is right; and if you compromise (howsoever carefully) then it will be held against you. The General was not doomed by "acceptance of 1950 in organizational. interest" but doomed the moment he was *asked to accept". If he did not accept he would be denied what was due to him. On the other hand, the "acceptance", even if under duress, takes away his right to redress. Either way the bureaucrats were going to "win"

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ShauryaT » 11 Feb 2012 22:50

sunnydee wrote:Judicial activism as per wikipedia means "Judicial activism describes judicial ruling suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law"..As far as i know the only court to practice this is the US supreme court (court in a major country)....thats why i think the selection of justice to US Supreme court is so political and in a way their court has become politicised...(admins if you feel the last sentence was OT you are welcome to delete it...)
OK, now this deserves :rotfl:

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4791
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Yayavar » 11 Feb 2012 22:53

Austin wrote:The General is a Honest and Upright person and something even GOI and SC has said in equal words.

Not sure what had happened to him in the fag end of this tenure , probably he thought since the Gov is in so much scam , let me make most of it as by birth certificate which is considered as the most appropriate piece of record he can make his claim look genuine and can get that extra one year.

Probably he thought the 3 promotion he got accepting DOB as 1950 will get nullified if he claims he had done under pressure or greater good of the Army and something he thought the SC will accept it.

Then to make his claim sound upright and passionate he made use of words like Honour and Dignity to support his claim and get more media sympathy which he used to the hilt.

Fortunately the SC saw his game plan and upheld 1950 as his DOB for Service Record and Retirement.

Its really unfortunate that such a Honest and Upright person would end up being such an Opportunist in the end.

A Sad end to the other wise Good General but Govt and SC has been Gracious enough to still keep faith in him and SC holding up his Honour and Dignity.

Never Mind Shit happens in Democracy and one of the reason why our Supreme Courts are most respected institution in this country.


Austin..the court did acknowledge that he has been attempting to correct it since 1985 when he came to know of it. See Indian express report.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sanku » 11 Feb 2012 23:01

Austin wrote:
sunnydee wrote:If Gen VKS did not have respect for the SC do you think he would have even wanted to take that route...???


Well he seems satisified with the decision as his lawyers said it was an amicable settlement.


Actually Austin, you forget, there is not a decision. We are dis-satified with SC not choosing to decide. (Unless you are in "no action is action" camp)

For those who are not and we have quite a few here , they can always try the Sharia Court or something similar.


Dear Austin, this is not Saudi Arabia, those who are not happy with court decision, do have a choice other than Sharia. There are
1) Chance for the Chief to refile the statutory complaint, the one on which the order has been withdrawn.
2) Resign and change the terms of reference.
3) Reapproach the court with a different case.

Just imagine Sharia Court ruling DOB as 1951 and putting a Fatwa on St Anthony and Sanku jee exclaiming Sharia court didn't chicken out and status quo has changed :lol: MashaAllah 8)


I wish you imagination turned to better alternatives, why think about barbaric practices, hain-ji.
:P

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rajrang » 11 Feb 2012 23:04

Badar wrote:Austin, against that must be held the way he pursued his case - publicly, administratively and legally - he showed lack of judgment. His moral authority has seen significantly dented.



While I do feel sorry for the mess that Gen Singh finds himself in, I think we all must address one uncomfortable question - how can you call someone "honest" when he has gone back on a committment (given in writing on three occasions). According to the dictionary that is not the meaning of honest. Our standards for calling someone honest must be based on "demonstrated track record" Again, I do not want to get into an argument whether politicians, babus, journalists, supreme court etc. are honest or not. Many some of them are not but that is not my specific point.

He is a soldier, he cannot say he was pressured. That is not a choice.

Plus the lack of judgment raises a security concern - what if he displays judgment difficulties when confronting TSP of China. Good judgment is a pre-requisite to being the head of a army.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 11 Feb 2012 23:18

^You see it as a commitment, I see it as obedience. Now consider this

An officer or a soldier walks up to his Commanding Officer and says "sir, what you are saying is incorrect and is unacceptable to me".

The CO replies "beta, you understand the entire function of the unit is held up because of this question. you accept it for now. i will get it rectified latter"

In the best ethos and traditions of the Indian Army the officer can do nothing but nothing else than obey his CO. It is not a commitment on the part of the officer/ jawan it is obedience and loyalty.

Rather, the commitment and onus is on the head of the CO. Loyalty is a two way street. Now, no one seems to be interested to question the right person about the commitment.

sunnydee

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sunnydee » 11 Feb 2012 23:32

nelson wrote:An officer or a soldier walks up to his Commanding Officer and says "sir, what you are saying is incorrect and is unacceptable to me".

The CO replies "beta, you understand the entire function of the unit is held up because of this question. you accept it for now. i will get it rectified latter"

In the best ethos and traditions of the Indian Army the officer can do nothing but nothing else than obey his CO. It is not a commitment on the part of the officer/ jawan it is obedience and loyalty.


With due respect i would disagree with the analogy as If its an inhouse issue the way a CO handles a case would be completely different from say how the brigade commander would approach an issue with his CO's. Thus after relinquishing command all former co's are aware that there is a huge difference between battalion/regimental cutlure and the larger army culture.This primarily means that post unit level everything is handled as per sop and not the jugaad etc which might be done at the unit level...

In relation to the issue abt Gen VKS this is what would have happened the first time - what is the reason for agreeing to the dob for records purpose as 1950 in 2008 ?
Last edited by sunnydee on 11 Feb 2012 23:36, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 11 Feb 2012 23:33

If the Army, (not Indian any army for that matter) does not carry this relationship of trust and loyalty between the superior and the subordinate to the battlefield it is a goner.

Now, what this case displays is the utter lack of loyalty on the part of the superior officer. And that to at the highest level for everyone to see. I am confident that this does not bode well for the Army or the country in any stretch of imagination.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 11 Feb 2012 23:41

sunnydee wrote:
nelson wrote:An officer or a soldier walks up to his Commanding Officer and says "sir, what you are saying is incorrect and is unacceptable to me".

The CO replies "beta, you understand the entire function of the unit is held up because of this question. you accept it for now. i will get it rectified latter"

In the best ethos and traditions of the Indian Army the officer can do nothing but nothing else than obey his CO. It is not a commitment on the part of the officer/ jawan it is obedience and loyalty.


With due respect i would disagree with the analogy as If its an inhouse issue the way a CO handles a case would be completely different from say how the brigade commander would approach an issue with his CO's. Thus after relinquishing command all former co's are aware that there is a huge difference between battalion/regimental cutlure and the larger army culture.

In relation to the issue abt Gen VKS this is what would have happened the first time - what is the reason for agreeing to the dob for records purpose as 1950 in 2008 ?


We have been through the discussion of why or what is the reason. Refresh your memory or scroll back a few pages.

Hitherto yes, this difference was there between the battalion/ regimental culture and the larger army culture. That difference will vanish now with this episode, whence a CO who is a superior will no longer be able to extract the same from his subordinate officers and men.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2007
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby ldev » 11 Feb 2012 23:47

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?

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 11 Feb 2012 23:48

sunnydee wrote:....With due respect i would disagree with the analogy as If its an inhouse issue the way a CO handles a case would be completely different from say how the brigade commander would approach an issue with his CO's. Thus after relinquishing command all former co's are aware that there is a huge difference between battalion/regimental cutlure and the larger army culture.This primarily means that post unit level everything is handled as per sop and not the jugaad etc which might be done at the unit level...
....


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?"

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sanku » 11 Feb 2012 23:53

ldev wrote: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.


Yes.

sunnydee

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sunnydee » 11 Feb 2012 23:54

nelson wrote:If the Army, (not Indian any army for that matter) does not carry this relationship of trust and loyalty between the superior and the subordinate to the battlefield it is a goner.

Now, what this case displays is the utter lack of loyalty on the part of the superior officer. And that to at the highest level for everyone to see. I am confident that this does not bode well for the Army or the country in any stretch of imagination.


I have not seen anyone having given an explicit all clear to any of the previous chief's....The issue at hand was Gen VKS and his arguments....Infact i believe that he should have looked at ways of stopping the politics of the promotion system which cause problems...that would have been in organisational interest...unfortunately its too late as he is a lame duck chief...

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 11 Feb 2012 23:54

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

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 11 Feb 2012 23:57

sunnydee wrote:
nelson wrote:If the Army, (not Indian any army for that matter) does not carry this relationship of trust and loyalty between the superior and the subordinate to the battlefield it is a goner.

Now, what this case displays is the utter lack of loyalty on the part of the superior officer. And that to at the highest level for everyone to see. I am confident that this does not bode well for the Army or the country in any stretch of imagination.


I have not seen anyone having given an explicit all clear to any of the previous chief's....The issue at hand was Gen VKS and his arguments....Infact i believe that he should have looked at ways of stopping the politics of the promotion system which cause problems...that would have been in organisational interest...unfortunately its too late as he is a lame duck chief...


Sir leave about the all clear. No one has even raised a question, four years hence also.
And we expect VKS to have become an armchair General like you and me, by asking these questions?

sunnydee

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sunnydee » 12 Feb 2012 00:02

nelson wrote:
We have been through the discussion of why or what is the reason. Refresh your memory or scroll back a few pages.



Yes and the reason given was that it would have stopped him from becoming a chief ( and then he would not have been able to clear the mess which had been made)...However those who were oppossed to that argument have stated that he would have been in a stronger legal footing if he had complained in 2006 itself because once you put your signature on something that sticks and is difficult to remove....Thus its been made to look that what the vks was hell bent on becoming the chief and made multiple compromises which came to bite back later...

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Sanku » 12 Feb 2012 00:05

No doubt if one has to go down fighting, it is better to go down fighting as a Army Chief rather than footnote. That way, even in loss a great service to nation would be done.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 00:07

Exactly, and I said something more also. I would expect such a rational thinking person to lead my country's Army better than his two nincompoop predecessors.

This mindset of making the victim stand trial is typical of this age and times. Is it not?

sunnydee

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sunnydee » 12 Feb 2012 00:10

nelson wrote:
sunnydee wrote:....With due respect i would disagree with the analogy as If its an inhouse issue the way a CO handles a case would be completely different from say how the brigade commander would approach an issue with his CO's. Thus after relinquishing command all former co's are aware that there is a huge difference between battalion/regimental cutlure and the larger army culture.This primarily means that post unit level everything is handled as per sop and not the jugaad etc which might be done at the unit level...
....


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....

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 00:16

sunnydee wrote:
nelson wrote:
We have been through the discussion of why or what is the reason. Refresh your memory or scroll back a few pages.



Yes and the reason given was that it would have stopped him from becoming a chief ( and then he would not have been able to clear the mess which had been made)...However those who were oppossed to that argument have stated that he would have been in a stronger legal footing if he had complained in 2006 itself because once you put your signature on something that sticks and is difficult to remove....Thus its been made to look that what the vks was hell bent on becoming the chief and made multiple compromises which came to bite back later...


I admire that VKS had the emotional stability and still has it in him, to take all this from the people wearing same uniform as him. He displayed enormous tolerance for ambiguity, when going through the blackmails by his own Chiefs. He was decisive in going to the court against the govt decision. But unfortunately he is in India.
These qualities are not expected in an Indian Army Chief while dealing with the politicians and bureaucrats.

If he could not do what he actually did in 2008, he would never be able to lead the Army in to a war.
Last edited by nelson on 12 Feb 2012 01:55, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests