Indian Army: News & Discussion

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 20:55

shiv wrote:
nelson wrote:His promotion to the rank of Lt Gen in 2006 was done before the alleged acceptance were extracted. As Kunal Verma has posted in this forum, the date of declassification of results for that Selection Board precedes the first ever correspondence initiated by the then Military Secretary on the age issue. You can hear Kunal Verma out in 10 minutes time on NDTV as informed by Kapil.


...
Did the general fight against his promotions because of an error in the date of birth? The fact that he took those promotions based on the 1950 date implies his complicity. He is after all not claiming that he did not know his real date of birth.


Now you are and the SC, are very correct in asking this question. But only if preceded by a question to the respondent (the govt) 'what was need to ask him for an acceptance in 2006 than before?' However the hon'ble SC chose not to wash dirty linen in public and implored the petitioner also to not do that. This is not expected of Court of Law.

sunnydee

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sunnydee » 12 Feb 2012 20:59

Just watched the discussion....painful....couple of people were making a fool of themselves on the panel...bottom line the army was shown to be a manipulative organisation which cannot keep admin records....i think its easier to change things when you are not washing dirty linen in public..secondly i am assuming we dont have libel laws in India because if it was otherwise i could see a lot of lawyers looking at some $ in suing some of the speakers..i am assuming if the speakers had evidence they would have gone to court with their theories...

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 12 Feb 2012 21:01

That General demanded that DOB in two branches be reconciled in 2002 itself is a proof that two DOBs were recorded for reasons not comprehended by many. That Govt gave promotions till Lt Gen Rank with 1951 as DOB reflected in his records besides so many citations. Now , If I were in his shoes, I would have no reason to believe that my DOB would be anything but 1951 as per AG record.

That Govt took 1950, based on UPSC form and some IMA forms at face value without any documentary evidence is really curious. That is not at all a SOP. UPSC merely verifies correct DOB and it is recorded in the Dossier of the selected candidate based on the documents. UPSC , at no point of time , attempts to correct the entries in the form. However all documents as rent with dossier with verified proofs and recordings. Now that Dossier is not made available to the candidate. But it is understood that his father did produce letter from Unit's Commanding Officer to the effect that his DOB was 1951.

Now if I have no reason to believe that my correct DOB is not recorded and I got all my promotions with 1951 then there is a valid assumption that correct DOB is accepted.

However SC has not gone into merits of the case and there ends the matter. Mystery remains and it would be a black mark on UPA-II and not on the General who has nothing to prove to anybody about himself. Probably the matter is best left as it is now and hopefully , this does not get repeated. But that is too much to expect.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 21:04

sunnydee wrote:
chaanakya wrote:
There is a letter from MS Branch that all his promotions up to Lt Gen rank is based on YOB 1951. Unless that letter is false , I wonder what made Govt to rake up this issue in 2006 without conducting any inquiry as called for by MOD.


It was the chief who brought up the isssue and not the GOI/Babus..


In 2006 the then Chief brought up the issue. Why? Not because he did not like the face of VKS. Then why promote him at all.
The Chief raked up a controversy to fructify the desire of his political boss, MMS , to favour a particular person in becoming COAS at a later date. He expected something in return and got it in the form of Governorship of Arunachal Pradesh.

In 2008 again the then Chief brought up the issue. Why? Not because he too did not like the face of VKS. The Chief stoked the age controversy to fructify the desire of his political boss, MMS , to favour a particular person in becoming COAS at a later date. He expected something in return and almost got it in the form of Vice Chairmanship of NDMA. But unfortunately for him the Adarsh scam made the govt remove his name from the shortlisted panel.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Feb 2012 21:04

nelson wrote:All the documents CRs and Record of Service of VKS carry the DoB as 1951, because the officer himself enters it and signs it as correct and his Commanding Officer or the superior officer initiating the Report countersigns it as 'verified'.
<snip>
MoD for Brig and above. Now this Master Data Sheets of VKS contains the DoB of 1951 for all the ranks. This is explained in the form of a letter from the previous Military Secretary quoted above in Surya's post.



But from Lt Gen onwards (2002 onwards) it was 1950. Is that correct? Gen Singh would have signed that as correct. You said earlier that "His promotion to the rank of Lt Gen in 2006 was done before the alleged acceptance were extracted" But if he signed the letter for promotion to Lt Gen with the DoB as 1950 in error his case was doomed wasn't it?

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 12 Feb 2012 21:05

sunnydee wrote:
chaanakya wrote:
There is a letter from MS Branch that all his promotions up to Lt Gen rank is based on YOB 1951. Unless that letter is false , I wonder what made Govt to rake up this issue in 2006 without conducting any inquiry as called for by MOD.


It was the chief who brought up the isssue and not the GOI/Babus..


He asked in 2002. But then it was in 2006 that MOD raked up this issue when the question of posting as GOC or GOC in C came up before MOD and they noticed it is recorded as 1950 and Certificate shows 1951. JS asked for Inquiry and to reconcile and report.
I think you need to read the thread fully to get the idea.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 21:06

sunnydee wrote:Just watched the discussion....painful....couple of people were making a fool of themselves on the panel...bottom line the army was shown to be a manipulative organisation which cannot keep admin records....i think its easier to change things when you are not washing dirty linen in public..secondly i am assuming we dont have libel laws in India because if it was otherwise i could see a lot of lawyers looking at some $ in suing some of the speakers..i am assuming if the speakers had evidence they would have gone to court with their theories...


I challenge any one to file a Libel suit on me on this issue. I have said enough on this forum. No one will dare to do it(Libel suit) because that will be their end.

So the panelists are emboldened too.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Feb 2012 21:07

chaanakya wrote:That General demanded that DOB in two branches be reconciled in 2002 itself is a proof that two DOBs were recorded for reasons not comprehended by many. That Govt gave promotions till Lt Gen Rank with 1951 as DOB reflected in his records besides so many citations. Now , If I were in his shoes, I would have no reason to believe that my DOB would be anything but 1951 as per AG record.


But he would have picked up the error instantly while signing up for promotion to Lt gen in 2006. Was this signed under duress?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Feb 2012 21:08

nelson wrote:I challenge any one to file a Libel suit on me on this issue. .


:rotfl: Nelsonji - my deepest apologies. I mean no insult. But i think you are talking like a person familiar with law courts and processes in America. Not India. Please correct me if I am wrong and I will apologise in public.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 12 Feb 2012 21:09

shiv wrote:
nelson wrote:All the documents CRs and Record of Service of VKS carry the DoB as 1951, because the officer himself enters it and signs it as correct and his Commanding Officer or the superior officer initiating the Report countersigns it as 'verified'.
<snip>
MoD for Brig and above. Now this Master Data Sheets of VKS contains the DoB of 1951 for all the ranks. This is explained in the form of a letter from the previous Military Secretary quoted above in Surya's post.



But from Lt Gen onwards (2002 onwards) it was 1950. Is that correct? Gen Singh would have signed that as correct. You said earlier that "His promotion to the rank of Lt Gen in 2006 was done before the alleged acceptance were extracted" But if he signed the letter for promotion to Lt Gen with the DoB as 1950 in error his case was doomed wasn't it?


Shiv Garu, again , it is on record that upto Let Gen it was 1951 that was reflected as his YOB . His case was doomed when he was asked to accept 1950 , for reasons best known to his predecessors . The right course would have been to conduct inquiry and ask general to produce evidence in support of any one of the DOB that existed in Army records.

As viv noted in one post, either way you are doomed. Head you loose , tails I win.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Feb 2012 21:11

If there are facts in the case that would have doomed the General in an Indian law court, the court did the right thing by not insulting him.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Feb 2012 21:13

chaanakya wrote:As viv noted in one post, either way you are doomed. Head you loose , tails I win.



That is certainly one way of looking at it. But this man rose to become Chief of Army staff. What did he lose? Surely, someone else lost a claim to that post. What did he lose? Dignity?

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 21:15

shiv wrote:
nelson wrote:I challenge any one to file a Libel suit on me on this issue. .


:rotfl: Nelsonji - my deepest apologies. I mean no insult. But i think you are talking like a person familiar with law courts and processes in America. Not India. Please correct me if I am wrong and I will apologise in public.


that was in response to someone suggesting a libel suit. i am very much in india and as much a law abiding citizen as you are.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Feb 2012 21:16

nelson wrote:that was in response to someone suggesting a libel suit. i am very much in india and as much a law abiding citizen as you are.


I am sorry. The other person who threatened a libel suit must be very familiar with America then.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Surya » 12 Feb 2012 21:18

Shiv

As I mentioned earlier

the biggest loser was Ravi Arora and by extension the Indian Army and india - we lost a brilliant officer

VKS its question of honour etc in Aroras case the poor man was shunted to make sure the succession plan that had been decided remained intact

Consider this: Maj Gen Ravi Arora (retd), who topped the 1972 batch (the same batch as Lt Gen Bikram Singh) with a gold medal and was doing well, was in February 2005 rejected by the promotion board for promotion from brigadier to major general. Though the normal period for making representations against a promotion board decision is 90 days, a hurried board meeting was held as early as April that year to consider those who had made representations against the previous board decision. Even so, Arora’s representation was kept pending. He lodged a statutory complaint in May that year, and the defence ministry in 2006 gave him full redressal. But he was again rejected by the next promotion board, held in July 2006, along with four officers of the 1972 batch who were being considered.

Curiously, in November 2006, yet another promotion board meeting was held, and even though Arora had not made a representation, he was approved for promotion to major general. But in the process, his seniority was counted down by a year and he was now considered to be with the 1973 batch. As an officer dealing with the matter at that time told Outlook, “Clearly, Arora was approved because, by now, he was not a threat to Bikram Singh, who had been brought into the line of succession.”

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 12 Feb 2012 21:20

shiv wrote:
chaanakya wrote:That General demanded that DOB in two branches be reconciled in 2002 itself is a proof that two DOBs were recorded for reasons not comprehended by many. That Govt gave promotions till Lt Gen Rank with 1951 as DOB reflected in his records besides so many citations. Now , If I were in his shoes, I would have no reason to believe that my DOB would be anything but 1951 as per AG record.


But he would have picked up the error instantly while signing up for promotion to Lt gen in 2006. Was this signed under duress?

Addressed to Defense Secretary.
Image

sunnydee

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sunnydee » 12 Feb 2012 21:24

nelson wrote:I challenge any one to file a Libel suit on me on this issue. .


:rotfl: Nelsonji - my deepest apologies. I mean no insult. But i think you are talking like a person familiar with law courts and processes in America. Not India. Please correct me if I am wrong and I will apologise in public.[/quote]

that was in response to someone suggesting a libel suit. i am very much in india and as much a law abiding citizen as you are.[/quote]

I never suggested a libel suit. Please read my post again...

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 21:26

sunnydee wrote:..secondly i am assuming we dont have libel laws in India because if it was otherwise i could see a lot of lawyers looking at some $ in suing some of the speakers..i am assuming if the speakers had evidence they would have gone to court with their theories...


Then, what is this?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Feb 2012 21:27

Surya wrote:Shiv

As I mentioned earlier

the biggest loser was Ravi Arora and by extension the Indian Army and india - we lost a brilliant officer

VKS its question of honour etc in Aroras case the poor man was shunted to make sure the succession plan that had been decided remained intact



Fair enough but where does that gel in with VK Singh's fight for honor? He may have lost honor by going so far if he had compounded an Army error by accepting his 1950 date of birth.

The other thing is that Bikram Singh is slated to possibly be the next COAS. Are you suggesting that the next COAS of the Indian army was decided years ago by sidelining Ravi Arora. That matter seems unconnected with VK Singh's fight but that is a serious allegation to make. Gives us something to discuss on this thread for the next 2 years.

Would it not be a loss to India and the Indian army if we started alleging things about a possible COAS even before his appointment?

sunnydee

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sunnydee » 12 Feb 2012 21:27

Also as an afterthought just realised why the former babu and the politician were laughing and were not their usual aggressive self...

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 21:32

shiv wrote:
Surya wrote:Shiv

As I mentioned earlier

the biggest loser was Ravi Arora and by extension the Indian Army and india - we lost a brilliant officer

VKS its question of honour etc in Aroras case the poor man was shunted to make sure the succession plan that had been decided remained intact

...
The other thing is that Bikram Singh is slated to possibly be the next COAS. Are you suggesting that the next COAS of the Indian army was decided years ago by sidelining Ravi Arora. That matter seems unconnected with VK Singh's fight but that is a serious allegation to make. Gives us something to discuss on this thread for the next 2 years.
...


Yes, that is why we are discussing this for the past six months. So one and a half years left.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 12 Feb 2012 21:32

shiv wrote:
chaanakya wrote:As viv noted in one post, either way you are doomed. Head you loose , tails I win.



That is certainly one way of looking at it. But this man rose to become Chief of Army staff. What did he lose? Surely, someone else lost a claim to that post. What did he lose? Dignity?


Its is not only what the Good General Lost, it is the sinister idea of a succession plan drawn up years before thereby dooming the career of equally meritorious officers who all should get equal opportunity to aspire and compete for the public post. It is not Jagirdaari on few.
Govt should exercise its rights transparently and not in a crooked manner. If they want BS , so be it, but let it be on record that BS was more competent to hold the post and not as usurper. By this controversy his own ability to lead would be in doubt. Just a hypothetical situation, if a non congress govt comes in power in 2014 and says it has no confidence in BS then Army as a institution would suffer as politicians would get a field day playing havoc with it.

As for Courts, I have very personal experiences and heard from the Judge mouth in open court telling me that We would give you best judgement that is you want but how it is implemented is important. The Govt pleader told me that worst compromise is better than the best judgement . Of course I stood my ground and took all consequences in my stride and made Govt face contempt and eat crow. I only hoped the General would have refused.
I also think legal team was little inexperienced.

sunnydee

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sunnydee » 12 Feb 2012 21:32

nelson wrote:
sunnydee wrote:..secondly i am assuming we dont have libel laws in India because if it was otherwise i could see a lot of lawyers looking at some $ in suing some of the speakers..i am assuming if the speakers had evidence they would have gone to court with their theories...


Then, what is this?


Ok this is what this means - If we had libel laws ( or whatever the phrase is in the west) we would have a law industry ,like in the west, trying to make money out of suing people for making allegations without attached proof...luckily the speakers who made those allegations were speaking in India where i assume(again) where we dont have such an industry/laws etc. I apologise in case i did not phrase my comments properly..

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 21:36

chaanakya wrote:
shiv wrote:That is certainly one way of looking at it. But this man rose to become Chief of Army staff. What did he lose? Surely, someone else lost a claim to that post. What did he lose? Dignity?


Its is not only what the Good General Lost, it is the sinister idea of a succession plan drawn up years before thereby dooming the career of equally meritorious officers who all should get equal opportunity to aspire and compete for the public post. It is not Jagirdaari on few.
Govt should exercise its rights transparently and not in a crooked manner. If they want BS , so be it, but let it be on record that BS was more competent to hold the post and not as usurper. By this controversy his own ability to lead would be in doubt. Just a hypothetical situation, if a non congress govt comes in power in 2014 and says it has no confidence in BS then Army as a institution would suffer as politicians would get a field day playing havoc with it.

....
I only hoped the General would have refused.
I also think legal team was little inexperienced.


+1 to that

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Surya » 12 Feb 2012 21:36

The other thing is that Bikram Singh is slated to possibly be the next COAS. Are you suggesting that the next COAS of the Indian army was decided years ago by sidelining Ravi Arora. That matter seems unconnected with VK Singh's fight but that is a serious allegation to make. Gives us something to discuss on this thread for the next 2 years



Yes thats what many are saying. especially PC Katoch (read his articles - the man is a straight shooter - )

I think you missed some of this in this thread.

Basically the VKS thing is a sideshow to the main issue - which is that a succession plan was decided in 2006 and in order to make that happen people who could come up in between were railroaded or shunted.

Arora was Bikram singhs batch mate. Topped that batch and was outstanding enough to head Red Forces.

Yes if Bikram Singh becomes Chief because this will always be lurking in the background. Every decision of his will be analyzed etc. (except by Unnithan ....)
Last edited by Surya on 12 Feb 2012 21:39, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Feb 2012 21:37

chaanakya wrote:Addressed to Defense Secretary.
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/8839/v ... etter1.jpg


This means that the timeline in India Today is wrong at least about the Lt gen part

He was promoted to Lieutenant General's rank in 2006. He said he was forced to give an undertaking accepting 1950 as the year of birth.

In 2008, he was again promoted as Army Commander. His supporters said undertaking maintaining 1950 as year of birth was extracted under coercion.

In October 2010, an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act was filed by an IAS officer seeking army chief's age.


Nelson wrote earlier: "His promotion to the rank of Lt Gen in 2006 was done before the alleged acceptance were extracted."

Does this mean that Gen VK Singh ws promoted to Lt Gen in 2005-6 on the basis of the 1951 date (as in the image above) but he was later forced to accept that he had used a 1950 date? But that is not correct is it? How can he later "accept" something that dos not exist on the records? That would be a self goal.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23565
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 12 Feb 2012 21:37

chaanakya wrote:
shiv wrote:{quote="chaanakya"}
As viv noted in one post, either way you are doomed. Head you loose , tails I win.



That is certainly one way of looking at it. But this man rose to become Chief of Army staff. What did he lose? Surely, someone else lost a claim to that post. What did he lose? Dignity?



Its is not only what the Good General Lost, it is the sinister idea of a succession plan drawn up years before thereby dooming the career of equally meritorious officers who all should get equal opportunity to aspire and compete for the public post. It is not Jagirdaari on few.
Govt should exercise its rights transparently and not in a crooked manner. If they want BS , so be it, but let it be on record that BS was more competent to hold the post and not as usurper. By this controversy his own ability to lead would be in doubt. Just a hypothetical situation, if a non congress govt comes in power in 2014 and says it has no confidence in BS then Army as a institution would suffer as politicians would get a field day playing havoc with it.

As for Courts, I have very personal experiences and heard from the Judge mouth in open court telling me that We would give you best judgement that is you want but how it is implemented is important. The Govt pleader told me that worst compromise is better than the best judgement . Of course I stood my ground and took all consequences in my stride and made Govt face contempt and eat crow. I only hoped the General would have refused.
I also think legal team was little inexperienced.


Looking at VKS's case, Isn't it surprising how terrorists always land up with legal eagles like jethmalani and honorable men with something a lot less?? :evil:
Last edited by chetak on 12 Feb 2012 21:40, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Feb 2012 21:39

Surya wrote:
The other thing is that Bikram Singh is slated to possibly be the next COAS. Are you suggesting that the next COAS of the Indian army was decided years ago by sidelining Ravi Arora. That matter seems unconnected with VK Singh's fight but that is a serious allegation to make. Gives us something to discuss on this thread for the next 2 years



Yes thats what many are saying. especially PC Katoch (read his articles - the man is a straight shooter - )

I think you missed some of this in this thread.

Basically the VKS thing is a sideshow to the main issue - which is that a succession plan was decided in 2006 and in order to make that happen people who could come up in between were railroaded or shunted.

Arora was Bikram singhs batch mate. Topped that batch and was outstanding enough to head Red Forces.

Yes if Bikram Singh becomes Chief because this will always be lurking in the background. Every decision of his will be analyzed etc.


Then why this great angst about VK Singh on here? i would have thought that the Bikram Singh allegation that you have made is more serious and reflects on the Indian army. Why is everyone cursing Antony and the Supreme court when the Army appears rotten at the top? Or are the goalposts being shifted in this discussion?

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 12 Feb 2012 21:42

Surya wrote:Shiv

As I mentioned earlier

the biggest loser was Ravi Arora and by extension the Indian Army and india - we lost a brilliant officer

VKS its question of honour etc in Aroras case the poor man was shunted to make sure the succession plan that had been decided remained intact

Consider this: Maj Gen Ravi Arora (retd), who topped the 1972 batch (the same batch as Lt Gen Bikram Singh) with a gold medal and was doing well, was in February 2005 rejected by the promotion board for promotion from brigadier to major general. Though the normal period for making representations against a promotion board decision is 90 days, a hurried board meeting was held as early as April that year to consider those who had made representations against the previous board decision. Even so, Arora’s representation was kept pending. He lodged a statutory complaint in May that year, and the defence ministry in 2006 gave him full redressal. But he was again rejected by the next promotion board, held in July 2006, along with four officers of the 1972 batch who were being considered.

Curiously, in November 2006, yet another promotion board meeting was held, and even though Arora had not made a representation, he was approved for promotion to major general. But in the process, his seniority was counted down by a year and he was now considered to be with the 1973 batch. As an officer dealing with the matter at that time told Outlook, “Clearly, Arora was approved because, by now, he was not a threat to Bikram Singh, who had been brought into the line of succession.”

As I said things run deep, real deep.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Feb 2012 21:43

chaanakya wrote:
shiv wrote:

That is certainly one way of looking at it. But this man rose to become Chief of Army staff. What did he lose? Surely, someone else lost a claim to that post. What did he lose? Dignity?


Its is not only what the Good General Lost, it is the sinister idea of a succession plan drawn up years before thereby dooming the career of equally meritorious officers who all should get equal opportunity to aspire and compete for the public post. It is not Jagirdaari on few.

Govt should exercise its rights transparently and not in a crooked manner. If they want BS , so be it, but let it be on record that BS was more competent to hold the post and not as usurper.


Is Gen VK Singh part of this conspiracy to promote Gen Bikram Singh or not? If he is how is he part of the conspiracy? If he is not part of it is he a victim? If so how has he been victimized? Or are we just shifting on to some other topic unconnected with VK Singh now that it is almost over?

sunnydee

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sunnydee » 12 Feb 2012 21:44

Ok my guess is this is the fallout of having discussed to such a detail in the public domain - A future chief, say BS or SRG, wants to streamline the promotion system to make it more robust inhouse will not have the autonomy to do it without the MOD breathing down his neck all the time as the MOD/GOI will say that the Army's record on this issue has been of incompetence. This will mean that from then onwards a precedent will be set that the COAS does not enjoy as much autonomy as he used to do in the past as the MOD/GOI will always say we cant trust you do the right thing as you have shown yourself in poor light....so the end result more interference i guess

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Feb 2012 21:45

chaanakya wrote:As I said things run deep, real deep.

Chanakyaji, things may run deep but I find the explanations very superficial.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Surya » 12 Feb 2012 21:46

shiv

you should really not go by India today - there are lot of other summaries and detailed timelines posted on this thread



angst just gets reflected diff ways

If India Today and Unnithan portray the General as a warlord then the angst is reflect one way.

but you will see the succession plan mentioned at intervals especially by Rohit, nelson etc

Arora's tragedy is not known to many except for nelson, rohit etc who have contacts in the forces. The outside will just know that he took VRS and moved on after being denied a promotion. Till this fracas brought up some information.

The cursing is for many - the poliltician\s, bureaucracy (MOD), MS branch (hated by many in the army) as well as the shameless Generals who allow them to be corrupted for petty rewards later.
Last edited by Surya on 12 Feb 2012 21:48, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 21:47

shiv wrote:
chaanakya wrote:Addressed to Defense Secretary.
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/8839/v ... etter1.jpg


This means that the timeline in India Today is wrong at least about the Lt gen part

He was promoted to Lieutenant General's rank in 2006. He said he was forced to give an undertaking accepting 1950 as the year of birth.

In 2008, he was again promoted as Army Commander. His supporters said undertaking maintaining 1950 as year of birth was extracted under coercion.

In October 2010, an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act was filed by an IAS officer seeking army chief's age.


Nelson wrote earlier: "His promotion to the rank of Lt Gen in 2006 was done before the alleged acceptance were extracted."

Does this mean that Gen VK Singh ws promoted to Lt Gen in 2005-6 on the basis of the 1951 date (as in the image above) but he was later forced to accept that he had used a 1950 date? But that is not correct is it? How can he later "accept" something that dos not exist on the records? That would be a self goal.


Cutoff CR Jun 2005
|
Selection Board Sep 2005
|
Declassification of result Apr 2006
|
| ---Then Military Secretary's first letter to VKS on Age May 2006
|
Taking over appointment after Oct 2006

He becomes Lt Gen at the time of assuming appointment as Corps Commander. The 'self goal' by VKS is what is considered as Foul by the then Chief, here. He was ordered to do so, he agreed. Any other profession he would have shown his middle finger.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 12 Feb 2012 21:50

shiv wrote:
This means that the timeline in India Today is wrong at least about the Lt gen part

He was promoted to Lieutenant General's rank in 2006. He said he was forced to give an undertaking accepting 1950 as the year of birth.

In 2008, he was again promoted as Army Commander. His supporters said undertaking maintaining 1950 as year of birth was extracted under coercion.

In October 2010, an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act was filed by an IAS officer seeking army chief's age.


Nelson wrote earlier: "His promotion to the rank of Lt Gen in 2006 was done before the alleged acceptance were extracted."

Does this mean that Gen VK Singh ws promoted to Lt Gen in 2005-6 on the basis of the 1951 date (as in the image above) but he was later forced to accept that he had used a 1950 date? But that is not correct is it? How can he later "accept" something that dos not exist on the records? That would be a self goal.


The promotion to the Rank of Lt Gen is one thing. Posting as GOC and GOC in C is another issue but that is also approved by ACC following the same procedure. The alleged acceptance was extracted for GOC posting . Both postings are must for elevation as General ,COAS which would be the next promotion rank. Not all Lt Gen are posted as GOC and GOC in C so they don't become eligible for consideration for promotion as COAS.

That is the catch here. you can be promoted as Lt Gen yet not made Army Commander ( in same rank) to be eligible for COAS. In Govt parlance, specific postings are not a right of the Govt servant. So he could not have complained.
Last edited by chaanakya on 12 Feb 2012 21:51, edited 1 time in total.

sunnydee

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sunnydee » 12 Feb 2012 21:50

nelson wrote:The 'self goal' by VKS is what is considered as Foul by the then Chief, here. He was ordered to do so, he agreed. Any other profession he would have shown his middle finger.


And thats an argument a lot of his critics within the army are making - he should have shown the middle finger in 2006 by not taking that order and taking the AHQ to court if he felt he is aggreived

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 21:50

shiv wrote:...
Then why this great angst about VK Singh on here? i would have thought that the Bikram Singh allegation that you have made is more serious and reflects on the Indian army. Why is everyone cursing Antony and the Supreme court when the Army appears rotten at the top? Or are the goalposts being shifted in this discussion?


The army is rotten at the top because it suits the politicians and bureaucrats that way. They want pliant Generals and they ensure that they get it. When someone steps out of line they make an Arora out of him. If still the person reaches the top they make a VKS out of him.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 21:54

sunnydee wrote:
nelson wrote:The 'self goal' by VKS is what is considered as Foul by the then Chief, here. He was ordered to do so, he agreed. Any other profession he would have shown his middle finger.


And thats an argument a lot of his critics within the army are making - he should have shown the middle finger in 2006 by not taking that order and taking the AHQ to court if he felt he is aggreived


You, from within the army? How do you know?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Feb 2012 21:54

Surya wrote:shiv

you should really not go by India today - there are lot of other summaries and detailed timelines posted on this thread



angst just gets reflected diff ways

If India Today and Unnithan portray the General as a warlord then the angst is reflect one way.

but you will see the succession plan mentioned at intervals especially by Rohit, nelson etc

The cursing is for many - the poliltician\s, bureaucracy (MOD), MS branch (hated by many in the army) as well as the shameless Generals who allow them to be corrupted for petty rewards later.


Surya - there is nothing for anyone to go by. Everyone has his own view. Nothing that i have seen makes me want to curse everyone, generals, army, government and Supreme court. That is why I am wondering exactly what has made three pillars of India collapse all of a sudden.

Or is it that people just don't trust any of the pillars of india to work, and the fourth estate, the media are not to be trusted anyway. That would be a simple, and to me a more elegant explanation than deep conspiracies, incompetent defence minister and ministry, biased supreme court, corrupt and erring army, scheming general waiting to be promoted, and in the middle of all this one upright COAS fighting for a change of date of birth. And everyone is lamenting this non issue.

This could be a soap opera you know.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Feb 2012 21:57

nelson wrote:
shiv wrote:
Nelson wrote earlier: "His promotion to the rank of Lt Gen in 2006 was done before the alleged acceptance were extracted."

Does this mean that Gen VK Singh ws promoted to Lt Gen in 2005-6 on the basis of the 1951 date (as in the image above) but he was later forced to accept that he had used a 1950 date? But that is not correct is it? How can he later "accept" something that dos not exist on the records? That would be a self goal.


Cutoff CR Jun 2005
|
Selection Board Sep 2005
|
Declassification of result Apr 2006
|
| ---Then Military Secretary's first letter to VKS on Age May 2006
|
Taking over appointment after Oct 2006

He becomes Lt Gen at the time of assuming appointment as Corps Commander. The 'self goal' by VKS is what is considered as Foul by the then Chief, here. He was ordered to do so, he agreed. Any other profession he would have shown his middle finger.


Ordered to do what? Accept his DoB as 1951? After all that is what the record says (image posted by Chanakya) and that is what the General accepts. Where was the coercion here?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests