nelson wrote:
On the contrary to what you infer, I feel the days of civilian interference in matters purely military are numbered. If I am wrong it is the national security that is at peril. We will get to see, with what happens to Naresh Chandra committee report.
India continues to shift ground forces closer to the Pakistan border to improve its response time in the event of mobilization. Because Pakistan forces are located at most 72-hours from their war areas, whereas many Indian divisions are located up to 10-days from the border, after the 2001-2002 crisis India decided to shorten its mobilization times. The rationale was that since Pakistan was fully mobilized ahead of India, India could not take action against Pakistani terror camps in Kashmir.
· Once an idea becomes conventional wisdom it’s very hard to lay it to the rest. The reason India did not take action had everything to do with political issue, not military ones. Particularly in Jammu and Kashmir both sides are always positioned right on the border, and there is no chance of either side catching the other by surprise. Pakistan’s strike forces in any case mobilize within 12- to 48-hours, so India is never going to catch Pakistan by surprise (or vice versa) in that regard.
· Nonetheless, conventional wisdom rules and India talks vaguely of zero-warning attacks – the putative Cold Start doctrine. That there is no such thing as a zero-warning ground attack seems not to overly concern Indian planners. Even then, India’s move to build new cantonments closer to the border has been very, very slow. Just a very few brigades are now stationed closer to the borders than they were earlier, though India has been practicing getting formations located further from the front to the front faster than before.
· While in general it’s probably a good thing for India to move formations closer to the Pakistan border, India is never going to attack Pakistan out of the blue. India is very conscious of international law – much too conscious, according to Editor but no one listened to him back in the day and the chances anyone will listen now are even more remote. There has to be a provocation. If Pakistan is going to stage a provocation, it will now make sure its forces are as close to an alert as possible without actually moving to their war stations before it does something provocative. So it will shorten its reaction time beyond even the already short time it enjoys
· Moreover, as we have discussion several times, India has spent the better part of a decade talking about a faster reaction time without actually doing much about it, thus giving Pakistan plenty of opportunity to counter. Pakistan has raised armored and mechanized reserves for each of its India-front corps. These are to counter India’s Cold Start while keeping their strike forces intact. So here you have a situation in which Pakistan has taken Indian verbiage very seriously, while the Indians have failed to take themselves seriously!
· The truth of the matter is that India is a firm believer in live-and-let live. In four actual wars with Pakistan it has taken the initiative only once (1971), and that too because of Pakistan’s foolishness in ethnically cleansing East Pakistan of Hindus subsequent to the revolt in that province. It is only when millions of Hindu refugees came stumbling across the border with the little they could carry, and told their tales of mass killings and extraordinary brutalities, that the Union of India was finally moved to act. And India has never once counter-attacked Pakistan for the 25-year insurgency and terror that Pakistan unleashed against Indian Punjab and Indian Kashmir, or against the city of Mumbai. Americans get very het up about the World Trade Center where 3000 innocent people were killed. Well, in Indian Punjab in the 1980s there were months that 1000 civilians a month were being killed and India did precisely nothing, just as it did precisely nothing when Mumbai was attacked in 1993 and 2008.
· So, honestly, people need to relax about this Cold Start thing, and here we particularly address ourselves to Washington, which is perpetually on edge that India might attack its pet dog, Pakistan. That the pet hates the US and bites America at every opportunity it gets doesn’t seem to bother the Americans any, but that’s another story. Indian strategists, both civil and military, have already decided they will capitulate to American pressure in the event India decides to act against Pakistan. It is an article of faith America will stop India. Not a terribly positive outlook, but then that’s the way we Indians are. We’ll sit there will long faces and talk about the negatives of a taking the initiative against Pakistan, and continue long after the last dog has put his ears down and died of old age.
· And since the Americans are going to stop us – how is never explained, particularly if India is solely exercising its right of self-defense – why even bother starting? Cold Start is a more appropriate name than people realize. When you’re frozen solid, you aren’t going to start anything. And Indians are frozen solid – petrified would be a better word – of anything that could lead to a war with Pakistan or with China.
Austin wrote:Pranav wrote:The Attorney General has already confessed that there is a succession scam going on.
I hope you understand its government prerogative to appoint who so ever it wishes as the chief , so if there is such plan which is fully backed by government , then i see no problem with it.
There might be some immediate plans on who the government wishes to see as chief be it Bikram or Gosh or some one else , he might be getting groomed for the top job.
What i dont see feasible is the claim there is some long term succession plan , call it "Chief Fixing" involving next 2-3 chief for the IA ....its too difficult to run such script
nelson wrote:I wish it were that easy.vic wrote:Having reasonable experience of practice in Supreme Court (15 years) I can say that decision was going to come against him on the facts pleaded. VK Singh had poor legal advisors. He should have immediately passed a directive to ask his junior officer correct/reconcile his date of birth after taking over as Chief and then let the GoI move court.
The actual point is that, under the Military Secretary is the person who is Deputy Military Secretary(X), who is responsible for managing all officers in appointments from Maj Gen and above. This is a perennial civilian appointment of Director rank IAS (equivalent to Brig). Even though he is cursorily under MS and therefore under COAS, MS(X) reports directly to Joint Secretary (G/S) in MoD, and takes orders from him. So the existing civil military set up in IHQ of MoD will not allow what you are suggesting. In simple words MS(X) will not obey COAS to comply with the directive you are suggesting.
.
aditp wrote:nelson wrote:
On the contrary to what you infer, I feel the days of civilian interference in matters purely military are numbered. If I am wrong it is the national security that is at peril. We will get to see, with what happens to Naresh Chandra committee report.
Naresh Chandra committee report is a CII comissioned report on corporate governance. In what way can it possibly influence Civil - Military relations?
sunnydee wrote:But my question is would it not have been easier for him to bring changes to the system ,which i am am assuming is what you are saying he desires, by working with the system than fighting the system because when he fought the system
publicly he has managed to give ammunation to the army's civilian detractors that the army has become dysfunctional..
We can all discuss the conspiracy theories till the sun does not set but no proof has been provided and one of the only definite things which the public knows
- u can get a sample of their views from the ndtv prog-.
chaanakya wrote:Well you have given it apt name "Chief Fixing Scam" though unwittingly.One can not even fathom How far it is legal and unethical and injurious to the institutional health, when Individuals involved in CFS continue to hound out officers, who would be or could be a threat to such fixing. It is worst than the Cricket match fixing for it affects the entire nation. Do we want another 1962 with likes of BMK at the helms.
Sanku wrote:sunnydee wrote:But my question is would it not have been easier for him to bring changes to the system ,which i am am assuming is what you are saying he desires, by working with the system than fighting the system because when he fought the system
You just dont get that the "system" is euphemism for the rank mis-governance by the prinicpals do you.It was a mess created by the top brass.For a change its not the babus and politicos at the centre of the storm
How do you fix some one who is innately corrupt? Appeal to their "better" side
publicly he has managed to give ammunation to the army's civilian detractors that the army has become dysfunctional..
The civilians detracts are not going to use this ammo, they are rank cowards, the dont use ammos, they use knife, in the back. This is a irrelevant issue.
I would suggest dont dismiss everything as irrelevant. Do you know all the babus and politicos at the mod ?We can all discuss the conspiracy theories till the sun does not set but no proof has been provided and one of the only definite things which the public knows
Just speak for yourself, the "public" knows what is happening here. Dont worry for them.
Similar to you suggesting that Gen Katoch,Gen Bakhsi and Col Shukla and other VKS supporters are a barometer to what retd and serving officers think ?- u can get a sample of their views from the ndtv prog-.
No you cant, undieTV is not really a barometer of anything, let alone public opinion. You should watch more channels than that bunch of dalals of powers that be.
How do you know which channels i watch or dont watch or which papers i read or dont read or which websites i surf or dont surf ?
Is it mere coincidence that this JAG who served as JAG from 2001 to 2008 serving under Gen Paddy, Gen Vij, Gen JJ Gen DK to the issue at hand? I don't think so. Becoz the rot happened runs that much deep.nelson wrote:The then JAG (2006 & 2008) Maj Gen retd Nilendra Kumar is a common thread between what happened in 2006 and 2008. He is the closest, to any person having direct role in the conspiracy, to have appeared in media. Lt Gen retd Katoch was not off the mark when he said that.General Katoch blasted the ex JAG yesterday on Barkhas programme on this issue. JAG was saying its MS branch... u can see the malafide all around? PC Katoch said well mr JAG the less said the better about u.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed ... 33586.aspx
[
I don't understand how these kind of people end up in top post.manjgu wrote:a) who is custodian of DOB the AG's branch or MS branch?
General Katoch blasted the ex JAG yesterday on Barkhas programme on this issue. JAG was saying its MS branch... u can see the malafide all around? PC Katoch said well mr JAG the less said the better about u.
nelson wrote:A transcript of what Gen Shankar Roychowdhury had to say to Karan Thapar's questions.
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/army-itself- ... 245-3.html
Yes, things have gone far far ahead, but definitely worth a complete read.
Karan Thapar: Alright, let's come to some of the key fact that make up this case. It's fairly clear that all the documents bar two including his birth certificate and school leaving certificate and the Supreme Court has indicated that the school leaving certificate is the critical one - all suggest that he was born in 1951; it's only the UPSC form for entering the NDA which was filled in when he was 14 by a tutor which suggests that he born in 1950 and an IMA dossier that based upon it. In fact even the adjutant general's branch in Army which is the official record keeper shows his date of birth is 1951. So would you accept practically all the evidence is in the General's favour?
Karan Thapar: Now I have it from unimpeachable sources, sadly I am not at liberty to revel who they are, that on three different occasions in separate meeting with Defence Secretary, the Defence Minister and finally the Finance Minister, the Army Chief was asked how this matter should be resolved and he said the way to do so was for the government to issue a statement saying that on the basis of the certificates he is shown, they accept the 1951 is his date of birth and then adding significantly in the same statement that he was appointed Army Chief in the believe that his date of birth was1950. Therefore his retirement was fixed for May 2012 and now that retirement date will be maintained regardless of the amendment in his date of birth. Sadly, the government didn't accept this resolution suggested to them. Do you think the government was wrong in refusing to accept the resolution?
Kanson wrote:
We have quite a number of experts here from different walk of life including large no. of legal experts. May I put this question to them. Why this Gov didn't consider this proposal as acceptable? Is there any genuine reasons? Of course we can all look from conspiracy angle but considering this Gov gone for mediation, on what basis this proposal was not considered as tenable. Thanks.
Austin wrote:chaanakya wrote:Well you have given it apt name "Chief Fixing Scam" though unwittingly.One can not even fathom How far it is legal and unethical and injurious to the institutional health, when Individuals involved in CFS continue to hound out officers, who would be or could be a threat to such fixing. It is worst than the Cricket match fixing for it affects the entire nation. Do we want another 1962 with likes of BMK at the helms.
Oh well you figured out i gave that name unwittingly , how smart of you
I cannot see how some one can fix the next 2-3 chief in advance since there are too many things that can go wrong in the script , More ever the question of fixing does not arise becuase its the prerogative of the government of the day to decide who becomes the chief of the armed forces which is duly cleared by Cabinet Committee on Appointments.
Its cannot be the case that few top army officers fix among them self who would be the senior officer or guaranteed next chief during certain period for the next 7-8 years and its binding on the government of the day to accept it , at best what they can do is to make sure some bright chap gets promotion and is posted at right place in their carreer and at the end of their career they retire in some senior position in the army.
Sadly the military too is not without blame.
Several military chiefs in recent years and senior officers too have actively contributed to this negative relationship by seeking political and bureaucratic patronage for career enhancement while in service and for lucrative sinecures after retirement.
The issue of Gen Singh's age has been another avoidable divide.
chaanakya wrote:Indeed, you have used this word for the first time,Seems just slipped through like su .You can't see. 'cause blinkers.
sunnydee wrote:the only definite things which the public knows - u can get a sample of their views from the ndtv prog
sunnydee wrote:The issue originated out of the army. So if there are no values at AHQ the army better look hard at itself
Similar to you suggesting that Gen Katoch,Gen Bakhsi and Col Shukla and other VKS supporters are a barometer to what retd and serving officers think ?
How do you know which channels i watch or dont watch or which papers i read or dont read or which websites i surf or dont surf ?
Sanku wrote:No tu-tu main-main here Ramana Sir, only correcting some points by sunnydee
No the issue originated when JJ Singh got a junior Babu (thats right Babu) to arm twist VKS in 2006 and since the babu does not report to Gen JJ Singh but to the political establishment there is no doubt who was asking JJ Singh to do what he did.
Also it was not the IA which summarily and in a manner completely against principles of natural justice decide to summarily reject Gen VKS statutory complaint.
viv wrote: In absence of anything reasonable there is speculation that it was deliberately done to favour someone. There were reports that the AG referenced a line of succession.
Whatever the merits of this succession plan, it is predicated on a basic fact of military life, namely that, all other things being equal, the reigning service chief decides the fate of three star-rank officers by assigning or, for whatever reasons of his own, denying them prize posts. The defence minister and his ministry, in this situation, act as mere rubber stamps. To cite an example from some two decades back, the finest armoured commander the Indian Army has produced, the no-nonsense Lieutenant General Hanut Singh, was never made army commander, in the main, because his seniors and colleagues who had had enough of his outspokenness, branded him ‘Chaplain General’ for his religious rituals carried out privately on his time, and sidetracked his career. Hanut ended up as commandant, Armoured Corps Centre and School, Ahmednagar. The defence minister at the time, K C Pant, recalls that the Army hierarchy was dead set against Hanut being given theatre command, which opposition, he says, he could not ignore
The government decides on the criterion to stress — merit or seniority — when filling high level posts. The norm is for the person to be first chosen and for the selection criterion to be trotted out later. Thus, Shyam Saran was elevated as foreign secretary, for instance, on the basis of merit, but his successor, Nirupama Rao, was favoured on the basis of seniority. To decide whom to appoint and why, is entirely the government’s outlook and prerogative. It is the uncertainty attending on the government’s decision that led Punjab politicians to canvas strongly with the government for Lieutenant General J J Singh’s promotion as COAS in 2005. It is, however, a dangerous precedent for the government to accede to an apparently motivated selection by a former COAS.
arnab wrote:Bharat Karnad's take on the 'succession plan':
http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/op-ed/A- ... 61914.htmlWhatever the merits of this succession plan, it is predicated on a basic fact of military life, namely that, all other things being equal, the reigning service chief decides the fate of three star-rank officers by assigning or, for whatever reasons of his own, denying them prize posts. The defence minister and his ministry, in this situation, act as mere rubber stamps. To cite an example from some two decades back, the finest armoured commander the Indian Army has produced, the no-nonsense Lieutenant General Hanut Singh, was never made army commander, in the main, because his seniors and colleagues who had had enough of his outspokenness, branded him ‘Chaplain General’ for his religious rituals carried out privately on his time, and sidetracked his career. Hanut ended up as commandant, Armoured Corps Centre and School, Ahmednagar. The defence minister at the time, K C Pant, recalls that the Army hierarchy was dead set against Hanut being given theatre command, which opposition, he says, he could not ignore
****
Just to make it absolutely clear, Karnad is faulting the govt for not using its prerogative to select the next chief, rather than leaving it to the former COAS. So what do you think BRF's reaction would have been if the govt had interfered with the advice of professional chiefs?
The government decides on the criterion to stress — merit or seniority — when filling high level posts. The norm is for the person to be first chosen and for the selection criterion to be trotted out later. Thus, Shyam Saran was elevated as foreign secretary, for instance, on the basis of merit, but his successor, Nirupama Rao, was favoured on the basis of seniority. To decide whom to appoint and why, is entirely the government’s outlook and prerogative. It is the uncertainty attending on the government’s decision that led Punjab politicians to canvas strongly with the government for Lieutenant General J J Singh’s promotion as COAS in 2005. It is, however, a dangerous precedent for the government to accede to an apparently motivated selection by a former COAS.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court verdict on the Army Chief’s date of birth ends an avoidable and unfortunate controversy that raged for nearly a year. The apex court has provided sugar-coated bitter pills for all stakeholders to swallow, with or without water. Depending on how one views it, the verdict is a “win-win” or “lose-lose” situation for all.
Gen. V.K. Singh is a man of integrity and honour. No one has questioned this, although he felt his honour and dignity were at stake. There is irrefutable evidence to support his claim about his age. Yet he became a victim of circumstances, some of his own making and some of others’. He failed to get the mistake in this regard rectified in time.
The staff at Army Headquarters should be faulted for maintaining different dates of his birth kept in two branches. Surprisingly, the Army worked on a succession plan for Army Chief, which is none of its business. No annual reports are written on Army commanders nor is an outgoing Chief required to recommend the name of his successor. This has been so since the Curzon-Kitchener dispute of 1905. The age controversy should have been resolved by the defence minister, A.K. Antony, discussing it with Gen. Singh. He should have done what the Supreme Court later did. The bureaucrats in the ministry of defence displayed arrogance of power, violating norms. A junior-level bureaucrat ordered the AG (adjutant-general), a staff officer of the Chief, to change the latter’s date of birth! This happened twice, and even when the case was sub judice. No wonder the apex court directed the ministry to withdraw its letter. The government at the apex level remained a mute spectator.
We have had a galaxy of distinguished Army Chiefs. Posterity remembers them for their contributions. Cariappa, for piloting the Army’s transformation from a colonial to a national Army during a period of great turmoil, and of vivisection of the Army due to Partition with young Indian officers lacking experience getting suddenly promoted to high ranks on the departure of senior British officers. Rajendra Sinhji, for his exemplary moral character in declining the appointment of Chief superseding Cariappa, as he felt that may lead to politicising the Army. Chaudhri and Manekshaw, for their contributions in the 1965 and 1971 wars. Raina, for keeping the Army apolitical during the Emergency. Unfortunately, despite all his good work, Gen. V.K. Singh will be remembered primarily for his DoB controversy.
Gen. Singh filled his application for joining the NDA in which inadvertently his year of birth was shown as 1950. He was commissioned in 1971. For reasons beyond his control, he got his matriculation certificate only a few years later, and then, presumably on that basis, got his date of birth corrected by the Organisation Directorate of AG branch. It appears that Organisation Directorate did not inform the MS (military secretary) branch. Changing the DoB on the basis of authentic documents for a captain is an issue of little consequence, except for the individual concerned. The AG branch erred in not informing the MS branch. Although year after year the Army List had been showing 1950 as his year of birth, it was only some 30 years later that Gen. Singh approached the MS branch to change the year. The latter turned down his request because, as per Defence Service Regulations, no change in DoB can be made after three years of service. Promotions are made in the Army on the basis of seniority and merit, and not age. With every promotion, the retirement age gets extended by two years. Gen. Singh being asked to give a written undertaking in 2006 and 2008 accepting 1950 as his year of birth, before promotion to major general and lieutenant general, was obviously mala fide. It is strange that he agreed to do so. On taking over as Chief, he took it up with the government. Instead of resolving the issue by talks with the defence minister and later accepting his correct date of birth but restricting his tenure as Chief till May 2012, the government gave him a cause to put up a statutory complaint and later seek justice in the Supreme Court. The apex court did what the defence minister should have done. The unprecedented showdown between a serving Chief and the government would have been avoided.
In the wake of this controversy, much dirty linen has been washed in public, tarnishing the Army’s image. There have also been other undesirable developments, like 20 Rajput MPs pleading with the Prime Minister for a Rajput Chief; a Grenadiers ex-servicemen’s association filed a PIL for a Rajput Regiment officer. This was rightly rejected by the Supreme Court. Personal and unbecoming allegations started floating around against the front-runner to succeed Gen. Singh. Maj. Gen. Handa filed a case before the Armed Forces Tribunal at Chandigarh against Gen. Singh for giving him an adverse report because, as deputy military secretary, he had not agreed to change his date of birth when he had applied for it in 2006. Handa maintains that this led to his being denied promotion to lieutenant general.
There have been two opinions about a serving Chief taking a public stand against the government. Lt. Gen. Bhagat, a Victoria Cross holder and a brilliant officer, was done down by giving an extension to the then Chief, Gen. Bewoor, leading to his retiring before the latter. It was not a case of supersession but of blatant manipulation. I happened to be perhaps the only senior Army commander superseded in over a century. This was on account of my views on dealing with Bhindranwale, accepting which could have avoided Operation Blue Star, and my father’s close personal and non-political relations with Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan. Neither Bhagat nor I questioned the government’s decision or went to court. The other view is that the Chief, like any citizen, has the right to seek justice in court. This does not take into account the very high status he enjoys and its inevitable impact on the Army. A sharp division among both serving and retired Army officers surfaced during this controversy. Much of this has been due to the pent-up feelings of Army officers against the civilian bureaucracy, which has established a stranglehold in the MoD in the guise of supremacy of the civil over the military. Since 1947 they have persistently denied the military personnel their legitimate due, repeatedly lowering the protocol status of military officers vis-a-vis civil servants and increasingly marginalising them in the process of decision-making. In view of dangerous signs in the wake of this controversy, it is high time that the government took corrective measures. There is little chance of the Naresh Chandra Committee, headed by a former defence secretary, doing so. While retired Navy and Air Force Chiefs have been made members of the committee, a retired Army Chief seems to have been deliberately kept out.
The author, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as governor of Assam and J&K
viv wrote:Isn't that a different issue? It is still based on some professional/other assessment and then choosing one. Note also, it is the 'next senior' that has been selected for a long time as per the reports (except lt Gen Sinha). Here it is not directly selecting the next one but more of 'fixing' a birthdate.. Is it to get the current one to retire early to pave way for another? Given that the next senior is picked gives it credence and hence you see so many reports referencing it.
arnab wrote: So where is this junior babu twist in the tale coming from?
amit wrote:As BK says its the GoI prerogative and it should remain so as long as India is a democracy, even if that means a less competent man gets the top post. It's useful to remember that it's but a small step away from having a situation where by an Army Chief gives himself extensions or decides how long he would remain - just look at Pakistan.
amit wrote:However, what I'd certainly like to point out is that folks are giving the UPA govt and the Babus in the MoD more credit than they deserve when they imply that as far back as six years ago they hatched a "conspiracy" with the intention of getting someone they like and want to become the Army head in the middle of 2012.
amit wrote:Heck if the govt was so efficient then wouldn't they have found a more elegant method of getting rid of V K Singh and installing whoever they want to appoint? As BK says its the GoI prerogative and it should remain so as long as India is a democracy, even if that means a less competent man gets the top post. It's useful to remember that it's but a small step away from having a situation where by an Army Chief gives himself extensions or decides how long he would remain - just look at Pakistan. Most people (that is govts around the world) will tell you they are officially a "democracy" like us and yet... Besides Pakistan is not an isolated instance. There are a lot of other countries who are supposed democracies and yet the Army at present or in the near past have been law unto themselves. I'd certainly not want to see the same situation developing in India.
JMT
The government decides on the criterion to stress — merit or seniority — when filling high level posts. The norm is for the person to be first chosen and for the selection criterion to be trotted out later. Thus, Shyam Saran was elevated as foreign secretary, for instance, on the basis of merit, but his successor, Nirupama Rao, was favoured on the basis of seniority. To decide whom to appoint and why, is entirely the government’s outlook and prerogative.
amit wrote:
It's useful to remember that General VK Singh raised the date issue only in 2002. And in 2006, he says he was "forced" to give an undertaking accepting the 1950 date when he was promoted to Lieutenant General. I don't want to go into the ethical issue of accepting 1950 in order to get the promotion, even if it was under duress and then not accepting it when it pertained to his retirement.
As BK says its the GoI prerogative and it should remain so as long as India is a democracy, even if that means a less competent man gets the top post. It's useful to remember that it's but a small step away from having a situation where by an Army Chief gives himself extensions or decides how long he would remain - just look at Pakistan. Most people (that is govts around the world) will tell you they are officially a "democracy" like us and yet... Besides Pakistan is not an isolated instance. There are a lot of other countries who are supposed democracies and yet the Army at present or in the near past have been law unto themselves. I'd certainly not want to see the same situation developing in India.
JMT
viv wrote:You and many are keen on this point but ignore the un-ethical push to make him accept this DoB. btw, as per the report in Indian express Justice Lodha noted that he raised it in 1985. Do also note that all promotions until Lt. General ( the highest rank other than COAS) were under 1951. So please read the reports.
amit wrote: I don't want to go into the ethical issue of accepting 1950 in order to get the promotion, even if it was under duress and then not accepting it when it pertained to his retirement.
so as long as India is a democracy, even if that means a less competent man gets the top post. It's useful to remember that it's but a small step away from having a situation where by an Army Chief gives himself extensions or decides how long he would remain - just look at Pakistan
arnab wrote:Just to make it absolutely clear, Karnad is faulting the govt for not using its prerogative to select the next chief, rather than leaving it to the former COAS. So what do you think BRF's reaction would have been if the govt had interfered with the advice of professional chiefs?
amit wrote:viv wrote:You and many are keen on this point but ignore the un-ethical push to make him accept this DoB. btw, as per the report in Indian express Justice Lodha noted that he raised it in 1985. Do also note that all promotions until Lt. General ( the highest rank other than COAS) were under 1951. So please read the reports.
Sigh! Viv, please at least read the parts of my post you quote.amit wrote: I don't want to go into the ethical issue of accepting 1950 in order to get the promotion, even if it was under duress and then not accepting it when it pertained to his retirement.
Surya wrote:so as long as India is a democracy, even if that means a less competent man gets the top post. It's useful to remember that it's but a small step away from having a situation where by an Army Chief gives himself extensions or decides how long he would remain - just look at Pakistan
Oh sure - yes yes we all agreee
and while we on that note lets remember this
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORC ... Namka.html
As the brutal rock shatters the placid glass
into a thousand irreparable fragment
A bitter grief is hurled at normalcy and peace.
Never will they be quite complete again
The crack of pain and death will always show
The weeping of wives bereft, of the anguished old
Will echo down the years of history
The wasted unspent lives, the loss of years
Too many to be counted
Too precious to be valued
A generation unborn, man's immortality...
there is the bitterness
So violent that the heart revolts and weeps
unceasing, arid, unshed tears
The sense of shame, of betrayal unforgivable
Never to be redeemed
Of sacrifice avoidable, insensate
that is the guilt we share
The valley is silent shrouded in death's immobility final and absolute.
But the soundless cry from the mountains beats upon our ears
Pitiless and Undeniable
We died, unsecured, helpless
We were your soldiers, men of bravery and pride
Yet we died like animals, trapped in a cage with no escape
Massacred at will, denied the dignity of battle
With the cold burning flame of anger and resolution
With the courage both of the living and the dead.
Avenge our un-played lives
Redeem the unredeemable sacrifice
In freedom and integrity
Let this be your inheritance
and our unwritten epitaph.
Oh you tortured souls - too bad you died like dogs - but you see our govt wants to make sure you understand they have the right to select whosoever they want - incompetent or otherwise
Surya wrote:Kunal
the pictures delay is not kaps fault.
Will chase it with jagman
it is indeed ironic about the 2nd Rajput connection
thanks
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests