Indian Army: News & Discussion

[chetak]

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

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

The MOD and saint anthony are purposely playing this up to discredit the IA.

May be they do not want the Army to be so vocal about siachin and other issues and so are hell bent on bringing in a pliant general.

The IA is institutionally against concesions to pak as they well remember the 93,000 POW fiasco with bhutto and loss of other hard won territory on political whims

Just look at how MMS ran roughshod over the state governments over the bangladesh issue.

Banner of revolt

Coomi Kapoor

Posted: Sun Sep 11 2011,

Mamata Banerjee stole the thunder from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Bangladesh by nixing at the eleventh hour the Teesta water sharing agreement and dropping out of the PM’s delegation. Banerjee’s objection to the Teesta deal was not over the release of 50 per cent of the water to Bangladesh. It was due to the clause which put a 25 per cent cap on discharge, which would have been harmful to North Bengal’s interests in the dry season. In fact, the draft treaty was submitted to Trinamool Congress’s Dinesh Trivedi just two hours before the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs met. Trivedi refused to be intimidated into accepting the draft in its existing form despite Pranab Mukherjee’s stern reprimand. In contrast, the Congress government in Assam went along blindly with the Centre’s treaty and now finds it difficult to explain to the people of the state why such large tracts of land were handed over to its neighbour

[ASPuar]

Unfit Army? Survey finds 30% overweight

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

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

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

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

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

Turns out the above article is a FRAUD.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... -personnel

'Army fighting fit, not out of shape'

TNN Sep 9, 2011, 04.21am IST

NEW DELHI: None of the participants in a survey that seemed to indicate a worrying lack of fitness in military personnel were from the Army, says a statement issued by Army Headquarters. The statement was issued in response to a TOI report, 'Unfit Army? Survey finds 30% overweight' published on September 5.

"It may be noted that adequate focus is laid on the upkeep of physical fitness standards in the Army. Physical fitness schedules are existing and are strictly practised by all ranks in letter and spirit," said the statement.


Sources within the defence ministry clarified that while the survey, conducted by the ministry and the National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, may have covered defence personnel, it did not include any soldiers from the Army itself. The survey report, titled 'Prevalence of hypertension in young military adults and its association with overweight and dyslipidaemia' was published in the latest issue of the Indian Journal of Medical Research. Its lead author, Dr Sougat Ray, did not respond to repeated e-mails sent by TOI seeking details of the 767 participants — 130 officers and 637 from other ranks.

Who were the 'defence personnel' who were surveyed? Even though honourable institute director has declined to answer emails and phone, I am sure a well placed RTI query will settle his hash.

[rohitvats]

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

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

ASPaur Sahib, I concurr. That is why I said, in case of VKS, the intentions of MOD are malafide and VKS needs to maintain the sanctity of COAS office as well as ensure that the slur on his image is washed away. I'm with him if he goes the whole hog (if the situation demands) and files a case in AFT

[eklavya]

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

Unnithan is a nobody, and his article is rubbish. Gen. VKS should focus his energy and firepower on the main battlefield and not on some donkey f*rting somewhere in the flanks.

[ASPuar]

^^
Lol

[chackojoseph]

Help me understand. Why MoD intentions are malafied?

[ASPuar]

They are malafide, because the General's DOB is is claimed to be 1951. The MoD has claimed 1950. There is a divergent viewpoint in two sets of official records. The natural process would be to verify the facts, on their merits.

However, instead of verifying, MOD is closing the case, on grounds of convenience. Convenience is not an excuse to commit an illegality. Nothing should be wrong with ascertaining what the truth is. Why not investigate? Rather, it was stated that investigation will not be carried out. Why? Whatever the truth is, why not just let it come out?

Why let thousands of amateur commentators and newspaper and media outlets speculate?

Frankly, most of our media has degenerated to yellow journalism in the last ten years, and the reporting on the matter is as rancid as TOI's "Unfit Army" story. Take a case in point, viz. Sandip Unnithans story.

[chackojoseph]

Rather, it was stated that investigation will not be carried out. Why? Whatever the truth is, why not just let it come out?

Any idea what's stopping them with coming out with the truth? Why are most folks not understanding Gen "plain logic" in Delhi?

[Nikhil T]

They are malafide, because the General's DOB is is claimed to be 1951. The MoD has claimed 1950. There is a divergent viewpoint in two sets of official records. The natural process would be to verify the facts, on their merits.

However, instead of verifying, MOD is closing the case, on grounds of convenience. Convenience is not an excuse to commit an illegality. Nothing should be wrong with ascertaining what the truth is. Why not investigate? Rather, it was stated that investigation will not be carried out. Why? Whatever the truth is, why not just let it come out?

Well, the Defence Ministry did get an opinion from the Law Ministry and the Attorney General, so the investigation was carried out. Whether it was sufficiently looked into is not clear from information in the public domain.

Why let thousands of amateur commentators and newspaper and media outlets speculate?

Frankly, most of our media has degenerated to yellow journalism in the last ten years, and the reporting on the matter is as rancid as TOI's "Unfit Army" story. Take a case in point, viz. Sandip Unnithans story.

While I agree with your view that the MoD is acting arrogantly, the Army cannot escape from the blame as well. After all the Military Secretary's branch precipitated this crisis. Lt Gen Bikram Singh and Lt Gen Lamba are the key beneficiaries of MoD's stand. Its very sad that there is increasing politics within the Generals and the Army is not projecting an image of a cohesive leadership.

[ASPuar]

Chacko, Nikhil:

The law ministry's opinion agreed with General VK Singh's stand. It was only when the Attorney General demurred (and he is a political appointee, and will follow the political line), that the opinion changed.

Even the AG's opinion was not that General VK Singh's contention is wrong, it was simply that regardless of what the truth of the matter is, it will be difficult to deal with all the headache that will come from accepting the 1951 DATE.

So, the argument was not "General VKS is wrong", but "Never mind if he is right, we wont accept it".

[Pranav]

Well, the Defence Ministry did get an opinion from the Law Ministry and the Attorney General, so the investigation was carried out. Whether it was sufficiently looked into is not clear from information in the public domain.

You are incorrect in saying that an investigation was carried out. They asked for an opinion with an explicit instruction "DO NOT INVESTIGATE" written on the file. Why?

[chackojoseph]

IIRc Gen said "if they want to take me out , let them say so," and then "It was only when the Attorney General demurred (and he is a political appointee, and will follow the political line), that the opinion changed."

Why are they trying to take him off? What has he done in past four years that has caused headache for folks in corruption cases? or is it something else?

[Pranav]

Why are they trying to take him off? What has he done in past four years that has caused headache for folks in corruption cases? or is it something else?

As per Maroof Raza in the debate on Times Now, linked to earlier, it is due to Gen VKS's crackdown on corruption in the Army. Particularly the Sukna case. But there could be other reasons also.

[ASPuar]

Why are they trying to take him off? What has he done in past four years that has caused headache for folks in corruption cases? or is it something else?

Chackoji, why dont you find out and tell us? Im sure it would make for an interesting story for you also!

[merlin]

Chacko, Nikhil:

The law ministry's opinion agreed with General VK Singh's stand. It was only when the Attorney General demurred (and he is a political appointee, and will follow the political line), that the opinion changed.

Even the AG's opinion was not that General VK Singh's contention is wrong, it was simply that regardless of what the truth of the matter is, it will be difficult to deal with all the headache that will come from accepting the 1951 DATE.

So, the argument was not "General VKS is wrong", but "Never mind if he is right, we wont accept it".

Could it be linked to who will be chief if DOB is 1951 v/s who will be chief if DOB is 1950?

[rohitvats]

^^^That, my dear Watson, is exactly the issue.

It has been rumoured that Deepak Kapoor had planned for succession of next 4 or 5 cheifs...if VKS gets tenure till 2013, the same gets disrupted.

[chaanakya]

From What I understand, the General's contention is legally, administratively and morally correct.

He was born in Military Hospital Pune, hence Birth Date recorded by them can not be doubted.
Matriculation certificate records his date of birth as such.

Within one year of joining NDA he has produced his birth certificate and matriculation certificate.
He has represented time and again.

AG's(Adjutant General) Branch is custodian of such records and it has gone by Matriculation certificate.



It is a fact that there could be some mistakes while filling up of UPSC application forms.

Once that is pointed out , it should have been corrected.

General has no reason to believe otherwise once AG's branch has recorded correct date of birth.

MS Branch has recorded DOB as found in UPSC application form and failed to correct it despite reminders from AG's Branch.
It is known fact that his predecessor was not an upright officer and had grudge against VKS.The then COAS was claiming disability pension due to supposed deafness due to artillary or tank firing etc. There are some posts indicating that.
MS was the officer protected by the then COAS and courtmarshalled and discharged from service ignominiously. he had every reason not to do the correction.


As per procedure, one has to apply for correction within five years of service. If General has produced correct records within one year, he becomes entitled for correction in DOB.

Another condition is that by virtue of correction, he should not become ineligible to receive Matriculation certificate or to receive commission in Army.

I am sure DOD and Law Ministry would have recorded as such.

The AG's( you know what) opinion is nothing but a pile of shit. He was asked to resign over his controversial role in 3G.
You can not coerce a Govt servant to give undertaking contrary to records in order to promote him.

The whole episode is unsavory and puts the Minister in BAD light. General's position should have been accepted as such with grace by the Govt. Otherwise , it would set bad precedent that illegality is perpetuated in the army in the name of seniority and discipline while rank and file is asked to keep quite even though wrong is committed.It would only embolden erring officers to browbeat juniors without fear of reprisal.

Such a moral high ground is not bestowed when many worthies are battling accusations after accusations.

[Pratyush]

^^^

I have tried to follow the DOB row. But I have an unrelated question. It seems that over the past few years the IA and its chiefs have been forced to endure humiliation after humiliation. I am curious, did the IA faced similar circumstances during the run up to 1962 as well.

[chackojoseph]

Chackoji, why dont you find out and tell us? Im sure it would make for an interesting story for you also!

Sirji, I am bit away from controversey reporting. However, when I tried to hint on what I know, you all shouted me down. AFIK, there is no witch hunt except what the "normal" levels that already exist within the organisation. There is no denial of that the events mentioned happened. However, as you are from services, you know that the files of retirement start passing 2 years or so before. Just that this made news. I know of multiple cases at the lower levels (courtesy of me being kin of a personnel from one of the sister institution) where same age issue cropped up and they were given discharge earlier. Some calculated that if they remain in service for such a time and they will not get promotions and the salary hike won't be worth it, had pre mature retirements. Its pure calculations from both the sides. At the same time, for the soldier, its benefit calculation and on the babudom side its overzealousness and playing safe. Just that this one happens to be one in few cases on the top and is high profiled. Gen Singh (by the way for whom I have high regards for his tenure where he got some core values installed back) retirement plan by MoD was according to the accepted year 1950. For them his one more year or less is a matter of paperwork. they have acted on this. The contrarian view by the political appointee (as you say) is an opinion. There are always two views. Gen Singh has all options open to move court and work on the document in which his date is 1950.

The corruption case etc is not a bar for him to remain there. Few months back, I was there to bid adieu to another person who was supposed to have dug out a building scam (a lot of you might have gussed). I asked him if he felt victimised. He said "as long as you have your papers straight there should be no problem. There are the regular pressures which is usually there." he retired on his retirement day and told the press "I am sure they are glad to see me go." If corruption case etc were the case, then they can find other ways for ejection or curtailing his ways.

I see it is more bureacratic problem. Gen Singh has to get his papers corrected for the babudom to get satisfied. With AKA in helm I don't see how he will stand by victimisation. I firmly believe that the mistake in filling up the form is not just a mistake (what advantage it would have given him, I don't know. One more thing, when I was filling the paper, the DoB column was very clear. where I had confusion was age in years "should I write 15 years or 16 years" and all the IAF Kids had same doubt. DoB coulmn was very precise). The non correction (not being done after the mandatory two years) and subsequent agreeing of DoB's have given him advantages as per the babus (I know there is a contrary view here). All I know, I have seen many folks doing it those days. You can accuse me of being judgemental and I will 'readily' agree to that.

Neither now or after retirement, the MoD will stop him from clearing his name.

Now I have added another feather in my anti-force cap. You can choose to shout me down and report this to the Bradmins and get this deleted. At the same time, If someone can show me that "its not bureacratic overzealousness and play safe" is free to correct me.

[sivab]

I firmly believe that the mistake in filling up the form is not just a mistake (what advantage it would have given him, I don't know.

It would help if you argue based on facts. By the account below he sincerely attempted to correct the mistake several times from the begining.

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

Cadet VK Singh joined the Academy a week late as the error was then being corrected. A letter correcting the DOB from his father who was in 14 RAJPUT along with the school-leaving certificate was sent to the UPSC and this was accepted before the cadet joined the Academy. All relevant documents after passing out from NDA and IMA like ID card and record of service etc. reflected 1951 as the DOB.

Even at the IMA in Dehradun, despite the cadet being ordered to enter the DOB as per the UPSC NDA application form, the original mistake was again rectified and the GC was issued all documents including his ID card etc. which reflected 1951 as the DOB. After the IMA training, the GC was then commissioned into the 2nd Battalion of the Rajput Regiment. All his records showed 1951 as the date of birth and that should have been that.

Are you arguing that these are not facts? If so it would help if you would share your version of facts.

[jai]

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

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

Please take a minute to give feedback to the erring fellows and let's tell them what we think of the crap they print. I have started to and would request all fellow rakshaks to do the same. Invariably the readers end up reading up the comments so it's a chance for us to set the matters straight and tell the publishers the corrections required.

By the way - lawyers who excel in service matters agree with Gen Singh - he has a very good case on merits - Gen - are you reading this ?

Cheers !!

[jai]

Received by email

Gen Sinha on V K Singh's row
The author, a retired lieutenant-general, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as governor of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir.

[/quote]

what kind of a message is the general sire giving ? That it is ok to let the politicians appoint their proxies as chiefs? What kind of moral and ethical example is that going to be giving the services generals - are they going to focus on their jobs or lobby with politicians for promotions ? What happens to national security then ?

Also, if the political appointments is the way to go, and if the current service rules and systems are useless, remove the promotions policies and only have political promotions at all levels and ranks. Or if the current system works fine till any levels then go with it completely - why have double standards ?

I am very curious to know why did General Sire the author of this article accept a governorship - after all it's a political appointment ! Many allege that to be the price for paying the way for the political appointee. Is that the right example of ethos and morality ?

[chackojoseph]

what kind of a message is the general sire giving ? That it is ok to let the politicians appoint their proxies as chiefs? What kind of moral and ethical example is that going to be giving the services generals - are they going to focus on t....he author of this article accept a governorship - after all it's a political appointment ! Many allege that to be the price for paying the way for the political appointee. Is that the right example of ethos and morality ?

Jai, I whole heartedly agree with you. Unfortunately, as someone mentioned few posts back that there is huge lobbying. All tactics, caste, religion, community etc are being used and competence, seniority etc has taken a backseat. I remember

As for MoD is concerned, Army Chief is one more (but most important) head of a many wings existing. If they have 4 choices then probably what Mamta or Sonia or Renuka or Singh want will be promoted. The other three are rewarded with governor ship etc as all 4 cannot be chiefs. These 4 go on to show gratitude for the political masters for the plums. The fruits are divided between them and it allows selecting a chief and keep the rest 3 employed (Just an example). This is unfortunate too. But thats how cookie is cast. You have seen how long the political class will streach to uphold the political superiority during the Anna Hazare's anti-corruption fast. And you must remember, Gen Singh has come into the chair is similar conditions. Can someone point out which candidate had approached Punjab Govt for lobbying his candidature? I remember reading about it. Was it Comie kapoor or Dilip Cherian who wrote about it.

There is another point I wanted to make. Some folks are using the word 'duress' to accept his age. Then another said that 1950 or 1951 wouldn't have mattered. At the same time, AKA has pointed out that he did take the advantage of 2 postings with date 1950. Let assume that AKA is misguided. Then If age year did not matter where is the question of duress?

Here is the sequence of events in facts as MoD possibly is looking into. The General fills the DoB wrong in the NDA approximately in late 1960's. Then the things were dormant. In 2006, the issue crops up. As per IT "Then Military Secretary Lt General Richard Khare asked General Singh why he was indicating May 10, 1951, as his birth date. Rules said birth dates could be changed only two years after an officer is commissioned." This is again a procederal problem. Where is the coercion? He was subsequently promoted to Lieutenant General and given command of the crucial Ambala-based 2 Corps. Some people are saying that he tried to change. How? Some people are saying that its a clerical error. How? The NDA form subsequesnt non correction brought out the problem.

The second time: In January 2008, noting the two different birth dates, the MOD called for an inquiry. Then joint secretary (ground and air) Bimal Julka questioned his suitability as army commander. In a January 21, 2008 letter Julka asked General Deepak Kapoor to revisit V.K. Singh's appointment as army commander because he continued to "stand by a birth date not officially recognised".

"General Singh, then commanding the Ambala-based 2 Corps, accepted the 1950 birth date. He was promoted as eastern army commander. In a final November 2009 letter to then army chief General Kapoor, General Singh accepted 1950 as his birth date and "treated the matter as closed".

Here again, the Gen VK Singh accepted it as 1950 when his 2 years of commission were over in 2008 and he could have corrected his birth date.

I am only trying to understand this problem. Can someone enlighten (without shouting) on the 'duress' part? Also, I might be wrong if gen Singh had tried correcting his age pre 2006.

[ASPuar]

Jai, General Sinha became a governor TWO DECADES after retirement. I hardly think that qualifies as coercion.

[rohitvats]

<SNIP> There is another point I wanted to make. Some folks are using the word 'duress' to accept his age. Then another said that 1950 or 1951 wouldn't have mattered. At the same time, AKA has pointed out that he did take the advantage of 2 postings with date 1950. Let assume that AKA is misguided. Then If age year did not matter where is the question of duress? <SNIP>

That is the biggest red-herring in the entire show.

The seniority conferred to VKS would have been by virtue of his course and not, repeat not, his DOB at the time of his appointment as Corps and Army Commander. What matters at that stage in Services is, ceteris paribus, whether the candidate has 2 years of service left. Because if I extend this DOB argument, it will mean that that senior most officer in each batch in terms of age will only become Corps/Army Commander and others will have no chance; competence gets thrown out of window.

Added later:

Lt. General Sinha was commisioned in IA in 1943 while General Vaidya was commisioned in 1945. In case of Lt. General Sinha, he was superseeded when someone his junior was appointed as COAS.

[chackojoseph]

....That is the biggest red-herring in the entire show...

Right! So there is a hole in the 'coercion' theory that might be or not be favorable to one of the concerned party. If there was age factor (which we currently debate isn't there) and Gen accepted it, then Gen is at wrong side.

At ths same time, the MoD said that they have in writing that 1950 is final and gen singh has said that it is the end of the debate. OTOH, Gen Singh says that 'now' consider 1951, which leagally holds true. So, this has to be resolved in law and is a matter of procedure.

IMO, there is no 'victimisation' angle to it. We will have to wait and see if this can turn the course of age difference debates if they ever crop up in the future.

[chaanakya]

Just a clarification on posts after my post in this matter.
According to MHA (17th 11.1962)
Request for Alteration in DOB should not be entertained beyond preparation of service Book and in any case not later that the completion of probation period.It can be altered later if Ministry/Dept.Administrator under whom GS is working is satisfied that a bonafide clerical error has occurred and needs to be rectified.
1954 memo of MHA says that alteration should not make the officer ineligible for the post or the essential qualification needed for the post. The original declared DOB should not give him advantage and change in DOB should not be for some fresh advantage. It does not time bar request for rectification though says it should not be within one or two years of superannuation.

According to Dept of Personnel , GOI memo 15/12/1979 lays down some conditions.
1.request be made within five years of entry into the service
2.that a genuine and bonafide mistake had occurred should be established.
3.the DOB so altered should not make him ineligible to appear for any school or university or UPSC exam in which GS had appeared.

It is my understanding that these rules are equally applicable to Army through similar provisions in their service rules. Well I can say I know it for certain.

Present COAS had given all documents within one year of joining NDA and later IMA also reflected same record. Now as Sivab says it was intimated to UPSC also and accepted as such. Why Govt has not sought opinion of UPSC on this matter as it was recruiting authority.

I am not sure if General would not have got promotion if 1951 was taken as DOB. If so then change could be declined. But since Law Dept had agreed to General's views which was later revised by Attorney General's opinion gives me the idea that the good general would have been promoted even otherwise. Hence dragging the whole thing into mud is not needed.

General ,indeed, has a case and should be done.

[rohitvats]

....That is the biggest red-herring in the entire show...

Right! So there is a hole in the 'coercion' theory that might be or not be favorable to one of the concerned party. If there was age factor (which we currently debate isn't there) and Gen accepted it, then Gen is at wrong side.

At ths same time, the MoD said that they have in writing that 1950 is final and gen singh has said that it is the end of the debate. OTOH, Gen Singh says that 'now' consider 1951, which leagally holds true. So, this has to be resolved in law and is a matter of procedure.

IMO, there is no 'victimisation' angle to it. We will have to wait and see if this can turn the course of age difference debates if they ever crop up in the future.

You're turning the argument on its head. If anything, this argument proves that VKS did not gain anything by accepting 1950 as his DOB.

On the contrary, what it does tell you is that, the GOI/MOD/XYZ, by asking VKS to accept 1950 as DOB, had malafide intent. The more one looks at the events and way they have played out, it becomes evident that powers that be, had a clear succession plan in mind. Why did it not make 1951 as DOB - if it was clear that either ways, his selection as COAS was certain and his DOB did not matter? And how come the DOB issue raised only in 2006 by powers that be in IA, if it had no bearing on his prospects as COAS, unless, someone wanted to plan a succession plan?

The matter is not as simple as you point it out to be.

[ASPuar]

Anyway, considering the reputation of the immediately previous COAS, any succession plan prepared by him should be thrown into the dustbin. VKS has spent half his time undoing the damage that the previous COAS did to the org. MoD is refusing to remove the ridiculous Command/Staff stream scheme created by DK, which has essentially mandalised the army. VKS has been fighting to get rid of it also.

Probably there is some bigger ghotala with political implications waiting in the wings, which VKS is thinking of exploding.

[chackojoseph]

You're turning the argument on its head. If anything, this argument proves that VKS did not gain anything by accepting 1950 as his DOB.

On the contrary, what it does tell you is that, the GOI/MOD/XYZ, by asking VKS to accept 1950 as DOB, had malafide intent. The more one looks at the events and way they have played out, it becomes evident that powers that be, had a clear succession plan in mind. Why did it not make 1951 as DOB - if it was clear that either ways, his selection as COAS was certain and his DOB did not matter? And how come the DOB issue raised only in 2006 by powers that be in IA, if it had no bearing on his prospects as COAS, unless, someone wanted to plan a succession plan?

The matter is not as simple as you point it out to be.

RV,

Your POV is right. My POV

1) It has been explicitly said that he gained with his DOB. It is not that I am not believing you. As you said "red herring", we have a problem wit this two diverse views.
2) Changing DoB is a procedure. An applicant has to write a letter. It goes to various prescribed channels. Either he gets a reply or it can be traced. It is his and his procedure only. The DOB was not clear. There are two versions of date and both have been accepted by Gen Singh. From MoD's current perspective that it was by coercion or malaise interest does not hold. They have to take decision based on what has been submitted by law and there are two versions by the same person.
3) DOB issue was raised in 2006 because it was an conflict with records. The question is why was it not raised before by both the parties and not one alone?

IMO, the DoB proving is to be done by Gen Singh and not by past chiefs. The impression I have gathered is that he was asked twice to choose between his DoB's based on the options ahead. On the contrary that he has been victimized, he has been promoted with what he had an advantage with (Please refer my point 1) before you get into the :Doh: moment).

I totally agree with ASPuar and Jai (already mentioned). I am no fan of the leadership, this you know since 2007. With you I agree on the 1). But that does not change the paperwork and the records lodged there and those don't say that there was malaise and coercion.

Hypothetically, what chance was there for a sure shot succession of Gen Singh?

[muraliravi]

Guys,

Lets just call a spade a spade. The whole game is how to make Bikram Singh the COAS and keep KT Parnaik out. As simple as that. Given Bikram Singh's history, his actions as future COAS will be hazaar times worse than DK. Maybe he will collude with MMS and open up LOC for trade.

The only good thing here is all this was planned by DK, at least VKS is trying to put a spanner in the scheme. Gurus here, please throw in some light, if VKS goes to court (I am not sure, if he should go to SC or AFT) and the court rules in his favour, will the ministry's stand hold or can they over rule AKA's stand and go with VKS provided he has good arguments up his sleeve.

[rohitvats]

^^^What are the charges against Bikram Singh?

[Manish_Sharma]

Could it be that MMS' idea of removing army from Siachen is being resisted by army, extra vigrously by Gen V.K. Singh. And Bikram Singh with porki bahu is another montek who'll lend support to demilitarize Siachen?

[Kartik]

Indian Army looking to acquire Aerostats for enhancing long-range surveillance capabilities

link to DTI

[muraliravi]

^^^What are the charges against Bikram Singh?

Rohit

Watch this video and let me know what you think

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4L7t0Nu ... ata_player

[VinodTK]

^^^What are the charges against Bikram Singh?

Rohit

Watch this video and let me know what you think

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4L7t0Nu ... ata_player

Wow, can this be true! Bikram Singh's daughter inlaw is a Paki.
Hope the good Army chief takes his case to the Supreme Court, instead of settling in some old and smelly governors mansion.
For the first time Saint Antony seems to be in a bind.

[SSridhar]

Does anybody know when was a joint India-Vietnam army exercise conducted ? This ToI article claims it was done recently. TiA.

[nachiket]

Wow, can this be true! Bikram Singh's daughter inlaw is a Paki.
Hope the good Army chief takes his case to the Supreme Court, instead of settling in some old and smelly governors mansion.
For the first time Saint Antony seems to be in a bind.

I'm not sure we can blame Bikram Singh, if his son decides to marry a paki. Or are you saying that in the case of a war with pakistan, it'll be a sort of conflict of interest for him?

[Gaur]

I'm not sure we can blame Bikram Singh, if his son decides to marry a paki. Or are you saying that in the case of a war with pakistan, it'll be a sort of conflict of interest for him?

I don't think that there will be a conflict of interest. However, the anchor raises some interesting points. Let us consider that all these allegations (paki nationality, scams, fake encounters etc...) are false. But even so, why does the Govt want to have a COAS who is so mired in controversy. We all know how media is. If there is some scam, fake encounter or security leak under Gen Bikram Singh as COAS, do you think that media will not further sensationalize the issue by bringing up his past allegations? Surely the GOI is not naive enough to not understand this. But the GOI seems hellbent on making him COAS in spite of all the baggage he carries. Makes one wonder.

[karan_mc]

Field trials of bio-diesel in military vehicles