Indian Army: News & Discussion

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 19 Jan 2012 02:10

Badar wrote:
Very high ranking servants of the state have a burden upon them, like Caesar's wife. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs, merits and demerits of the case - for the man on the street the perspective is that the army chief is filing a court case to serve for one extra year. It is unseemly.

The services are instilled with the concept of obeying orders, if needed to the death, and unquestioned obedience to the civil overseers. Now it seems that this is true unless its the COAS and his tenure - then it is OK to dispute and argue. Had the COAS been an Lt Col or a NCO this whole case might have had the complete backing of everyone. But the COAS fighting for his tenure?! The correctness and merits of the case are irrelevant.

The armed forces are still viewed as a one of the last "honest" state institutions is a sea of rampant corruption/nepotism. This image is being tarnished.

Perhaps you need to take it in the greater context. Ignoring Philip's fulminations of yevil yevil MMS, the impression currently being given out from the facts of the case is that a babucracy crazed with its own power, instead of owning up to its mistake is trying to further compound it by making the General accept a wrong DOB as the correct one. Dont you think this finds resonance with the day to day experience of the common man where the babu makes up rules as he goes along, all to serve his own nefarious needs and corruption? Add to the fact that the GoI appears to be a mute spectator and does not want to act: we have a DM that says nothing to this. You yourself stated that armed forces are "the last honest state institutions". This affair seems to be a direct attack on this body by a corrupt babucracy, and thats is why it seems to find support.

As an aside, what were your opinions on Anna Hazare? Did you understand why he struck a chord with many Indians even though most knew the Lokpal wasnt going to solve corruption overnight? This seems to be a similar case. And no, the General is not Anna before you say that. I am merely commenting why this issue seems to find resonance.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 19 Jan 2012 02:17

Surya wrote:badar

do you believe it??

Do majority of the people on this forum believe it.

So now assuming that we were able to reason I would assume the common man if gets through the barrage of biased lifafa articles will be able to reason out too.

So its more important to combat the Unnithans and soms and others who have twisted the headlines in a certain manner

What I still dont understand is apart from the obstinacy and pig headedness of the MoD babu, what does it stand to gain from the affair? I read the conspiracy theory that some "line of succession" is already decided and somehow the babu stands to gain from not having VKS as the General. The implicit assumption being that the successor will be more pliant and amenable to some shenanigans of the babu. But no one as yet has fleshed this theory out in detail yet: what is the exact gain in all of this? Someone is spending money, influence and power into orchestrating the media campaign ( I would assume Unnithan would not have sold himself for a pittance..) so obviously that "someone" must expect a return on it. What is this "return"? There is this "Pakistani daughther-in-law" of one of the successors. But that D-I-L is not going to give this "return". That part is not clear, and thats the reason why there must be more to this story, another angle than what has been written so far.

Follow the money

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 19 Jan 2012 02:25

Tanaji wrote:what is the exact gain in all of this? Someone is spending money, influence and power into orchestrating the media campaign ( I would assume Unnithan would not have sold himself for a pittance..) so obviously that "someone" must expect a return on it. What is this "return"? There is this "Pakistani daughther-in-law" of one of the successors. But that D-I-L is not going to give this "return". That part is not clear, and thats the reason why there must be more to this story, another angle than what has been written so far.

I guess we'll find out eventually, because regardless of what happens in court, Gen. VKS will probably retire in May or be sacked by the govt. Everything VKS' successor will or won't do will be watched with a hint of suspicion by some of us. Sooner or later the reason behind the conspiracy will come out. The best we can hope for is that this episode will be another nail in the coffin of this terrible government.

ManuJ · Post by **ManuJ** » 19 Jan 2012 04:11

hailinfreq wrote:Did not see this posted earlier and thought it might be pertinent.

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/maj ... ef-of-bias

The article also spells out the intentions of General JJ Singh:

This was when J.J. Singh was Army Chief. Gen. Singh was said to be close to Lt. Gen. Bikram Singh, and apparently wanted to accommodate him as a future Chief after V.K. Singh's retirement. Going by 1950 as the birth year, V.K. Singh retires in May 2012, leaving scope for Bikram Singh to take over as Chief.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 19 Jan 2012 05:25

Dr. Subramanian Swamy of Janata Party tweets

I am informed that MMS has come around to my view--seek compromise with C-in-C. if true it augurs well for us and bad for Vishkanya

Dr Swamy's twitter handle Swamy39

He had written a letter to Dr. MMS about this incident on 14th of Jan. The letter was posted on this forum by nachiket http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1228308

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 19 Jan 2012 06:25

chetak wrote:
chetak wrote:{quote="rajrang"}Gentlemen,

I see there is a lot of sympathy for Gen VKS in BR. But at some risk of offending many of you I am going to go against the grain because I am genuinely concerned about India. I believe VKS's only duty is to fight foreign invaders of India. (I realize that the IA is routinely used to fight internal armed insurgents as ordered by the Government of India.) He needs to have complete focus on his job which is to guard India's borders and not be distracted by other issues. If he wants to fight any other battle, he needs to resign first. His job is "not to reason why, but to do and die" and I quote from the Charge of the Light Brigade:

Someone had blunder'd
Theirs not to make reply
Theirs not to reason why
Theirs but to do and die
Into the valley of death
rode the six hundred

The entire episode is unfortunate and might serve as a role model for the men and women of the 1.3 million IA to "reason why" and that will be the begining of the end of the IA as it exists today and seriously harm India's future as a free society.

By the way has their ever been an episode similar to this in other democracies? All democracies are imperfect, some more than others. Even within army organizations, I am sure imperfections abound. Definitely Britain of 1854 (Charge of the Light Brigade) was far from perfect.

Again my apologies in advance if my viewpoint hurts anyone's sentiments.

What of his personal rights? Should he give up that also? Is that your idea of civilian control??

The civilians can lie and cheat against the General but Gen VKS must keep quiet and simply die??

It is not the job of the IA to correct the wrongs of the civilian government.

You haven't answered the question, sirjee

Is it your contention that anyone can wrong the Army man and he is bound to keep quiet just because the people who wronged him are civilians??

Is this your idea of "civilian control"? as peddled by the MOD jokers!!

I cannot address all possible scenarios. But for the Chief of the IA to APPEAR to challenge the government of India is shocking. Instead he should show a spirit of self-sacrifice, fundamental to a solider. How many times have soldiers and officers lost their LIVES due to mistaken orders given by superiors or the government? Do the families of those men go and file court cases / suit the governmen?. Arguing over a birthday is trivial and that too for the Chief of the IA. It does not matter how imperfect the Indian givernment is. Sorry again if I am offending the feelings of the majority here in BR.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 19 Jan 2012 06:41

ramana wrote:Pranav, You can be better and not contribute right?

Rajrang, Before he is a soldier he is a citizen. And as a citizen he has the Consititution to protect him.
Its his Constitiutional right to seek Court remedy to redress.

Ramana - I agree with you. But when you sign up to be a solider you give up some "rights" that other citizens have. In a battlefield a soldier does have the copy of the Constitution to protect him. He only has his God, weapons and training. For example a solider cannot refuse to attack an enemy post when ordered by his superior (perhaps because he is worried that he will be killed or because is knows that the orders are wrong). He can only refuse to commit an immoral act - such as killing civilians etc. A civilian who does not like his job or boss can simply not even turn up to work. A soldier cannot do that. The military man cannot talk to the press freely. A soldier's life is one of willingness (sometimes a desire) to make the ultimate sacrifice. That is why the soldier is an honored person in society in every democracy. (In dictatorships - TSP, PRC - he may be regarded as a thug.) The IA has COUNTLESS examples of ultimate self-sacrifice similar to the Charge of the Light Brigade - the Ahirs in Ladakh in 1962, the Sikhs in Saragarhi in 1897 and the Gurkhas in Sikkim in 1967 and more recently the Gorkha solider who fought off 30 thugs in a Bihar train. I am shocked that the Chief of such an illustrious army has got into a squabble with the elected givernment of India over his date of birth. The soldier should be above "jagaddas" (hindi word). I am afraid that this precedent if it becomes a trend does not bode well for the future of India as a free country. Ultimately India's freedom is underpinned by the IA.

Roperia · Post by **Roperia** » 19 Jan 2012 06:46

^ This is not about following the orders of his superiors. Its about interpretation of the date of birth.

I'm not saying this, former IAF Chief Anil Yashwant Tipnis said that. I quote

In this case this is not an order, but it is interpretation of the date of birth and that interpretation could well be wrong. In daily interaction with the Ministry, the Chief and the Ministry in many times disagree with each other.

Let me tell you I as a chief, many times I have had many times the subordinates question my judgement on legal grounds. Not on the issue you are talking on promotions or postings but on legal grounds. On the ground they feel I have not examine all the cases no in those case he show there is a legal lacuna, I say listen in my wisdom I do not think you have the legal position but if you feel that you have and if you want to fight, then go ahead.

Source

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Jan 2012 06:55

I would've preferred The IT cover story by Sandeep to have had one small change in its headline.A Q mark at the end.The absence of it is a definitive judgement.Had it been added,it would've kept the door open for a rebuttal by those holding contra views.To me it looks like a set-up by the babus,offering an "exclusive" where the mag has been taken for a ride.Or,the mag has sold itself down the river to the Cong./UPA,which would be a great tragedy if so and here one has to examine the political leanings of the Ed-in-chief/owners.Unfortunately,as I've said before,Gen. Singh gave media interviews which was poor judgement and poor etiquette.He should've kept silent and like a good commando,which he is,attacked the "enemy" with total surprise.The dhotiwallahs would've then been "exposed" with all their "shortcomings",pun intended!

What is the shameful legacy of AKA and MMS,and I maintain that the buck stops with the PM-he cannot absolve himself of the massive controversies that have disgraced his govt,is the open politicking going on now within the IA for VKS's successor.A war is brewing within the IA,and the babus are achieving their objective to "split" the IA and why? The monumental scandals,exposes of so many ,including the services-babu corruption nexus as in Adarsh,AH's movement,the public uprising,has made the people of the nation demand a total "clean-up" of the UPA's despicable regime steeped in corruption upto its turban.The babus long ago split the three services from acting together in appointing a Joint COS,sorely needed in the context of the global situ today.Their great fear is that as the litany of their misdeeds are further exposed,the only institutions in the country left with most of its integrity and reputation intact are the services and the IA in particular.The continual downgrading of protocol of the services and many other acts of babudom affecting the rights and privileges of servicemen has only increased the deep resentment within the services.
babudom and their political bosses' greatest fear is that one day,and it is inevitable if the situ keeps on like this,a peoples' revolution Naxal style will, sweep them away.For this they know that they can rely upon the services and para-military forces.But what if,the great "what if",the services themselves say,"enough is enough" and sweeps babudom and their political masters into history's dustbin?
We only have to look across our border into our neighbour's house to see how precarious is the fate of that "democratic govt".All over the Arab world revolutions are taking place where corruption,oppression and mismanagement of th economy has made citizens take to the streets.The AH movement sent jitters down the GOI/UPA's spine.Had the service chiefs told "Post Mortem" to throw in the towel,it would've been "match over" as they say in cricket parlance.

This is what babudom and the politicos are working hard at,dividing the IA so that they can carry on looting the nation ,safe in the knowledge that there will be no bayonet thrust into their backsides from the IA/services,as long as they pick the chief of their choice!
It is also why the Cong./UPA is so desperate and have pulled out all stops,dredging the bottom of the bucket,bringing in Priyanka into the electoral fray, as a resounding defeat for it in the coming elections will increase the demand for the removal of "Singh,Scamsters & Co. (pvt.Ltd.)" and the swift downfall of UPA-2 which will be deserted by its current allies.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 19 Jan 2012 07:08

A comprehensive compilation.

Received by email.

Apologies, the formatting leaves much to be desired.

---

GEN. V. K. SINGH, COAS: AGE CONTROVERSY;
SOME MYTHS AND HARD FACTS

Sr No.
(a)
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
(b)
DATE
(c)
REMARKS
(d)
1.
Ancestral Village: BAPORA in Bhiwani Distt (Haryana)

2.
Father: Late Lt. Col Jagat of Rajput Regiment (14 Rajput)

3.
Date & Place of Birth
10 May 1951 at MH, Pune
Father’s record of service and 14 Rajput records refer.
4.
Schooling: Birla Public School, Pilani (Rajasthan) up to Class X
MARCH 1966

5.
Date of Birth Recorded in School Register and School Leaving Certificate
10 May, 1951

6.
Applied for written entrance exam for National Defence Academy (ND) Khargwasla as Air Force Entry Cadet for 36 NDA Course commencing 13 July 1966
1966
MARCH
DOB wrongly filled in the UPSC entrance form by BS Bhatnagar, erstwhile. English teacher at Birla Public School, Pilani as 10 May 1950 instead of 10 May 1951.
7.
Eligible age for entry for 36 NDA course as on 01 July 1966
15 Years to 17-1/2 years
Gen. VK Singh eligible for both the ages i.e. 10 May 1951 and 10 May 1950
8.
Matriculation Certificate or Certificate of Date of Birth from his father not attached with the application form pending receipt from Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan/Lt. Col. Jagat Singh (Father)

At the time of filling the UPSC application form, Gen. VK Singh was MINOR (14 years Plus) and had possibly signed the form without checking the details within the confidence that all details filled- in by his teacher would be correct.
9.
Before facing Service Selection Board and entry to NDA, a Certificate from his Father’s Unit (14 Rajput) and School Leaving Certificate giving correct Date of Birth (i.e. 10 May 1951) was forwarded to UPSC/appropriate authorities
03 AUG
1966

10.
UPSC, then, queried the Officer as to the anomaly between DOB filled in the UPSC application form and the two certificates subsequently forwarded as the serial 9 above.

The query was replied to with confirmation that correct Date of Birth is 10 May 1951, as recorded in School Leaving Certificate and his Father’s service records maintained by his unit (14 Rajput) – Receipt for above correspondence with UPSC available.
11.
Based on the facts mentioned at Serial 10 above and having convinced on the correct DOB (10 May 1051) the Officer was given a call for Service Selection Board (SSB) and allowed to join NDA as “PROVISIONAL” candidate pending receipt/submission of MATRICULATION CERTIFICATE.
The UPSC, thereafter, never queried on the issue of DOB confirming that issue has been laid to rest.

The Matric Certificate was not submitted at this time since though the results were declared on13 June 1966, but the Certificate was not issued. However, school had issued Provisional School Leaving Certificate, which mentioned his passing Xth class and DOB as 10 May 1951. The Certificate was accordingly forwarded to appropriate authorities.
12.
The Officer filed a Record of Service particulars form while joining NDA which reflects his DOB as 10 May 1951.

Even his Medical Examination form as an Air Force Candidate reflects 10 May 1951 as his DOB.
13.
The Officer joined Indian Military Academy (IMA) Dehradun after passing out from NDA and was commissioned in Indian Army on 14 June 1970 in Infantry (2 RAJPUT)
14 June 1970
All records maintained by NDA/IMA reflected DOB as 10 May 1951.
14.
Based on Service Records maintained at IMA, it issued officer Identity Card to the Officer reflecting this Date of Birth as 10 May 1951 (based on School Leaving Certificate) since Matric Certificate was not submitted by them.

This endorsement could not have been made if IMA records would not have had 10 May 1951 in the officer’s records of service particulars maintained by them.
15.
The officer on Commissioning joined 2 RAJPUT on 1970and filled form No.IAFZ-2041 on joining the Unit, which is forwarded to Army HQ AG’s Branch (the official Record Holders of all Officers). Even IMA forwarded IAFZ-2041 to AG Branch (10 May 51)
14 June 1970
Here, once again, at Para/Serial 6 of the Form the officer Officer fills-in his DOB as 10 MAY 1951.
16.
The Officer attends Infantry Young Officers Course(YO-COURCE-2) at Mhow and returns to the Unit (2 RAJPUT) on April 1971
Sep 1970 to March 1971

17.
Before reporting back to his Unit, he visits his village and finds the Matric Certificate there.

The Matric Certificate was issued by Rajasthan Secondary Board of Education on 13 June 1966 and forwarded to Birla Public School.
18.
Birla Public School forwarded the Matric Certificate at his father’s Unit address (14 RAJPUT)

But his father had been posted out of the Unit by then to :-
Branch Recruiting office REWA, then to
NCC Narnaul
19.
14 Rajput had accordingly dispatched the certificate to Rewa Rectg Office, who then dispatched to NCC Narnaul, who then forwarded to the Officers ancestral village since his father had moved out from there on retirement.

Obviously the Matric Certificate kept lying at his village unattended since no one was residing at his ancestral house since his father had moved out to Bhiwani where he expired in the year ____________
20.
The officer instantly submitted the Original matriculation certificate late to Army HQ (AG’s Branch) through his Unit (4 RAJPUT).
April 1971
The Unit had sent the certificate to Army HQ (AG’s Branch) who after due verification and updating their records returned the original certificate to the Officer and changed “Provisional” status to “Permanent”
21.
Meanwhile, without checking and confirming detailed record of service from Army HQ (AG’s Branch) who are the Official record holder and authority on all such matters) Military Secretary Branch (MS) got ARMY LIST published on ____________ reflecting wrong Date of Birth of the Officer as 10 MAY 1950, instead of 1951.

Though the Orders on the subject are very clear on the subject, MS Branch failed to verify the Date of Birth of the Officer from official record holder (AGs Branch) and the CGDA (the paying authority) and erroneously and carelessly endorsed 10 May 1950 as the officer’s DOB in the Army List.
22.
Even when Matric Certificate was received by AG’s Branch at Army HQ in April 1971 (within two years of Commissioning of the officer, no effort was made by MS Branch to either correct its records nor verify the same from AG’s Branch annually attached with Annual Confidential Report starting from 1971.

The seeds of MAIN controversy of DOB of Gen VK Singh was sworn by the careless attitude and erroneous actions by the MS Branch at this stage which was allowed to persist till 2006 when they first queried the officer on the anomaly in his DOB. (30 years after commissioning -?)
Why at this belated stage- ??
23.
The mistake was even never rectified till date by the MS Branch even when they were in receipt of the Record of Service annually attached with Annual Confidential Report starting from 1971

24.
The officer is required to endorse Form cechklist on completion of 20 years of service, para ________ of the Forms asks “have you ever asked for a change in DOB, if so what is your correct DOB?”.
30 Nov 1990
The officer has reflected “NO, my correct DOB is 10 MAY 1951”.
Even then no cognizance of this report was taken to correct records by MS Branch
25.
The FIRST ever query on the anomaly on the officer’s DOB as reflected by him in his Annual Record of Service as 10 May 1951 and in Army List as 10 May 1950, was made by, then, Military Secretary on 3rd May 2006.
3rd May 2006
The officer has clearly replied that his correct DOB as endorsed in the AG’s Branch records and all other service records is 10 May 1951, which is maintained till date.
26.
The officer was issued with a certificate by AG MP (5&6) on 17 Oct, 2007 that his correct DOB as recorded with them was 10 May 1951.
17 Oct 2007
The letter signed by AAG of concerned Branch refers
27.
Once again, Additional General (Manpower Planning and Personnel (MP&P) reflected entire details on record of service if the officer confirming DOB at each stage as 10 MAY 1951.
The ADG in his letter has concluded that all recorded endorsements in the documents stated above the DOB of Gen VK Singh is 10 MAY 1951.
January 2008
- The letter clearly states that “Record of Service (IAFZ-2041) of every officer on commissioning is forwarded by IMA/OTA to AG Branch (MP-5/6) at Army HQ. It includes all occurrences during office service.
- Part-I (Personal Particular) of this documents is filled-up by IMA/OTA to the extent applicable at the time of commissioning. Para 5 of Part-I states “Date of Birth” (as recorded by UPSC or in Sheet Roll).
- Interestingly Date of Birth recorded in this Para 5 of Part I is 10 MAY 1951.

Even DOB recorded in all Annual and other Medical Examination Boards is 10 MAY 1951.

28.
Once again DG (MP&PS) at Army HQ Lt. Gen. KR Rao in his Inter Office Note dt 30 Jan 2008 in reply to MS Branch service note dt 28 Jan 2008 mentions correct DOB of the Officer as 10 MAY 1951.
30 Jan 2008
Even then MS Branch failed to correct/reconcile its erroneous records of DOB.
29.
As per Para 136 of Defence Services Regulations (DSR), DOB recorded in Matric certificate is to be taken as correct DOB and the aberration if any in the Record of Service are to be corrected by the concerned record holding authority.

In the instant case the MS Branch failed to rectify their records.
30.
The officer replied to MS Branch query of 3rd May 2006 as at ser 24 above on 10th May 2006
10 May 2006
Officer clarified that:-
- SSC certificate is the authority of his DOB (10 MAY 1951)
- Had forwarded the SSC certificate to Org 3 (AGs Branch) in April 1971.
- Consequently his “Provisional” status of Commission was changed to “Permanent”
- Made efforts in 1985 to correct the Record of DOB in the Army List to MP-5 and was informed that needful would be done.
- Had made another effort in 2002 with MS Branch by sending a photocopy of Matric Certificate to MISO. However, no correction was made in the said DOB erroneously recorded at their end.
31.
MS Branch, vide their letter of 21 Aug 2006 replied that no change in the DOB is possible as the Rules only permit to do so with in first two years of Service.
21 Aug 2006
MS Branch grossly erred here and misinterpreted the “Reconciliation DOB” in their Records to “Change in DOB”
32.
The whole controversy emanates from this misinterpretation of the Rules on the subject and has been allowed to willy nilly or otherwise continue till dates.
October 2007
Even when AG’s Branch in October 2007 had clarified and confirmed to MS Branch on the correct DOB and 10 MAY 1951, no action was taken by the latter to rectify the mistake committed by them earlier.
33.
In Dec 2007 Min. of Defence asked MS Branch to indicate reasons of recording 10 MAY 1950 as been VK Singh’s DOBwhen he had himself indicated 10 MAY 1951 in his Annual Confidential Records.
14 Dec 2007
MOD queries MS Branch for reasons of recording DOB as 10 May 1950 and asks for conduct of inquiry.
34.
MS Branch replied that they had relied upon UPSC application form in which the officer had filled 10 MAY 1950 as his DOB. They also claimed to rely on Army List which they had themselves endorsed with 10 MAY 1950 as his DOB without checking from AG’s Branch (Official Record Holder)
20 Dec 2007
The MS Branch once again quoted GOI Office memorandum 21 April 1964 and MoD Memorandum 23 June 1954, under which no change in DOB is to be made after 2 years of commissioning of the officers.
Again misinterpretation of Orders since officer was not asking for “CHANGE” but “RECTIFICATION” of mistakes committed by them.
35.
Once again MS Branch asked officer to send all correspondence relating to his earlier requests for “CHANGE” of his DOB.
19 Dec 2007
The officer once again replied that he had never asked for a “CHANGE” in DOB, but “CORRECTION” of erroneous records at their end based on Matric Certificate submitted to AG’s Branch and other related documents/reports (ACRs)
36.
Again AG Branch verified that Record of Service received by them from IMA at the time of Commissioning of the officer his DOB recorded is 10 MAY 1951.
Dec 2007

37.
Subsequently on 21 Jan 2008, MS Branch sticking to its previous stand replied that the DOB mentioned in Army List (10 May 1950) will remain to be correct and no change will be affected
21 Jan 2008
Once again the Rule of 2 years restriction in change of DOB was quoted – continuous case of misinterpretation of the issue at Hand and Rules on the subject.
38.
The Officer was pressurized by Gen Deepak Kapoor, the then COAS, to admit 10 MAY 1950 as his DOB and accept it in the interest f Service and other officers whose promotion case files are pending in the Min. of Defence for clearance

Through telephonic conversation with COAS he was also assured that once the needful is done the fresh case for correcting his DOB could be effected later.
39.
The Officer accordingly gave this undertaking especially highlighting the same in the “Interest of Service”, hoping for due justice as the matter would be settled as promised.
24 Jan 2008
MS Branch later in their letter dt 28 Jan 2008 made reference of the officer letter saying doubts on the DOB still remain unanswered. It also referred MOD request to carry out detailed inquiry to find out correct DOB in consultation with AG’s Branch. HOWEVER, NO INQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED AND NOTING ON THE CASE WAS FOUND SAYING, “INQUIRY NOT TO BE CONDUCTED”.
40.
Subsequently the Officer in his letter dt 01 July 2008 addressed to COAS, Gen. Deepak Kapoor requesting for Justice to be done in his case and enquired as the constraints by MS Branch which compelled them to maintain his DOB as 10 MAY 1950 despite submitting SSC Certificate in 1974 which recorded 10 MAY 1951 as his DOB.
01 July 2008
It was mentioned in the officers letter that when he met Lt. Gen. Khare and Gen. Gangadharan of the MS Brnach in 2006 and 2007 respectively, he was assured that all necessary reconciliations with regard to the clarification his DOB would be carried out.
41.
The officer then issued letter dt Feb 2009 to MS Branch in response to their letter dt. 15 Jan 2009 to him which had quoted their letter ratified that verification process of DOB by MS Branch did not required Matriculation Certificate, while the same is an accepted authority for the same
Feb 2009

03 June 2009

The officer pointed out that whereas Matric Certificate was an authority, then what is the procedure for MS Branch to verify the DOB?
-MS Branch asserted that it was not responsible to verify the age (DOB) as it was the duty of AG Branch
- Why not reconciled?
42.
Subsequently the officer sent a letter to MS Branch that it was clear from the earlier letter of MS Branch (letter dt 15 Jan 2009)
06 May 2009
15 Jan 2009
To be made with regard to the Omission.
43.
On 25th May 2011 AG’s Branch, once again, certified the DOB of the officer as 10 MAY 1951.
25 May 11

46.
RTI dt 25 Oct 2010 filed by Dr. Kamal Tiwari in MOD for obtaining information on the subject.
25 Oct 2010
14 Feb 2011
Min. Of Law provided opinion on DOB confirming as 10 MAY 1951 (on 14 Feb 2011).
47.
Min. of Def vide their letter dt. 8 May 2011 informed the RTI Querist that DOB of the officer in High School Certificate and Records of AG Brach at Army HQ was same (10 MAY 1951)
08 May 2011
In the same reply Law Ministry informed that there was Omission in Core Branch (MS Branch) and the Ministry of Law & Justice had advised for the necessary corrections.
44.
But, surprisingly the matter was once again referred to Attorney General of India and the Law Ministry.

The News Media has since reported that now Attorney General and Law & Justice Minister have reversed their earlier opinion saying that now the DOB of Gen. VK Singh is 10 MAY 1950.
45.
The entire case smacks of a deeper plot to malign the image of Chief of Indian Army. In spite of solid and legal proof of his DOB the persons behind the scene are not permitting the corrections be made in his DOB that MS Branch had no system for verification of the DOB. He also intimated that he had given acceptance to the DOB (!0 MAY 1950) in good faith at the behest of COAS and not in agreement with the conclusion of the said MS Branch.

Surprisingly MS Branch responded vide their letter dt 03 June 2009 that “THEY WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF DOB AS THE SAME WAS CHARTERED AS THE DUTIES OF AG’s BRANCH”

48. May be it is an indirect effort to malign both the Government, Party in Power as well as to tarnish the image of this fine institution “INDIAN ARMY”. Ramifications of not taking the issue to rightful conclusion based on justified action are grave, especially when our enemies are eagerly waiting to dismantle and demoralize our Armed Forces.
49. The Print Media and Electronic Media, so far, have reflected the issue in bits and pieces without giving the complete picture, which has left the masses in doubt so serious that some of them have even raised eyebrows on the personal integrity of the Army Chief.
50. Instant effort, towards clearing all such misunderstandings and doubts and to let the people judge the case on the merits of the case and to know from the facts enumerated above that there are some vested Powers, who are hell bent to destroy the image of our Army Chief and promote some gullible and pliable personalities for the post, are required.
51. Important to Note:-
a) The aberration in DOB was first racked- up when Gen. J.J. Singh was COAS (2006). Interestingly planning for “TWO DOWN COAS” commences when a Maj. Gen. is approved for Lt. Gen. (So called “LINE OF SUCCESSION” after Gen. V.K. Singh drawn then, and has since been talked about and quoted today officially.
b) General Deepak Kapoor, the previous COAS followed the line for vested interests and vigorously pursued the issue at each stage and made allout efforts to malign and belittle Gen. V.K. Singh before his being considered as COAS, and now when so called “LINE OF SUCCESSION” is being firmed-in, the matter has hit the headlines.
c) Lt. Gen. Avdesh Prakash, the then, Military Secretary vehemently pursued the agenda of his Chief Gen. Deepak Kapoor. He is now involved in Sukhna Land Scam and found gilty and dismissed from service without any pension and benefits by a Court Martial.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 19 Jan 2012 07:11

Arun Roperia wrote:^ This is not about following the orders of his superiors. Its about interpretation of the date of birth.

I'm not saying this, former IAF Chief Anil Yashwant Tipnis said that. I quote

In this case this is not an order, but it is interpretation of the date of birth and that interpretation could well be wrong. In daily interaction with the Ministry, the Chief and the Ministry in many times disagree with each other.

Let me tell you I as a chief, many times I have had many times the subordinates question my judgement on legal grounds. Not on the issue you are talking on promotions or postings but on legal grounds. On the ground they feel I have not examine all the cases no in those case he show there is a legal lacuna, I say listen in my wisdom I do not think you have the legal position but if you feel that you have and if you want to fight, then go ahead.
Source

Not the IAF or IN. Has any retired Chief of the IA supported Gen VKS? My apologies to everyone if this has already been discussed.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Jan 2012 07:37

link

I don't know why the URL is not displayed. Google for "IMA dossier could prove"

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 19 Jan 2012 07:39

abhishek - source please?

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 19 Jan 2012 07:47

Surya, its Hindustan Times front page in print.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 19 Jan 2012 07:51

There has to be trust between the Army Chief and the government. At this point the trust has been broken, endangering India's security. The Army Chief must demonstrate 100% of the time the discipline to take orders from the government and act on them without reasoning why. (He can perhaps express his misgivings about a government order through private channels, not publicly.) This is not TSP army with personal agendas - however legitimate. In no democracy is the army or its Chief above the government or can question the government.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Jan 2012 07:55

Bharat Karnad in the Deccan Chronicle/Asian Age,"General Mess".

http://www.asianage.com/columnists/general-mess-429

A general mess
Jan 19, 2012
Bharat Karnad

The negatives of replacing the selection system will be strongly resisted by military and politicians as both will perceive it as disruptive

While the colonial-era tradition of Indian Army officers not discussing women or politics — issues with supposedly disruptive potential — in the officers’ mess may be intact, Army politics has always drawn conversation but rarely prompted bad feelings in the way it is doing now. The officer corps — disinterested members aside — is split between those partial to the izzat (honour) argument pushed by the current Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Gen. V.K. Singh, and others, not all necessarily backing Lt. Gen. Bikram Singh, GoC-in-C, Eastern Command, who worry that, whatever the merits of Gen. Singh’s case, the Army’s image has taken a hit.

An amusing side-show saw the Western Army commander, Lt. Gen. S.R. Ghosh who, as the next senior most officer, on discovering he would be in the running for the top post if Gen. Singh was fired or, out of pique or his izzat-logic, resigned before his time was up, quickly reversed a medical disability status fetching higher pension he had secured for himself, and pranced around for reporters to indicate he was in tip-top shape!
Like many other problems that afflict this country, the one relating to the selection of the Chiefs of Staff of the three armed services too was seeded in the early years. In reply to a 1948 note from defence minister Sardar Baldev Singh, asking whether merit or seniority should be the criterion in selecting officers to top posts in the Army, Jawaharlal Nehru insightfully replied that if both merit and seniority were given weightage, seniority would soon elbow out merit. Whatever the reasons ultimately for K.M. Cariappa becoming the commander-in-chief in 1949, the seniority factor unfortunately got the nod. Of the two other officers being considered then — Lieutenant Generals Nathu Singh Rathore and K.S. Rajendrasinhji, the former was brash and outspoken and no doubt irked Nehru. On Nehru’s musing out aloud that owing to insufficient command experience of most Indian officers at the time, the Army might benefit from a few more years of British general-ship, the quicksilver Rathore riposted that on that basis the Indian government too would be better off headed by Britons considering most Indian politicians had no experience whatsoever of running government! Rajendrasinhji was the first Indian officer to win a gallantry award (Distinguished Service Order) in the field in World War II.
There is good reason to believe that after his offer to Field Marshal William Slim, the brilliant commander of the Indian Fourteenth Army, which drove the Imperial Japanese land forces out of Southeast Asia, to succeed Field Marshal Claude Auchinleck as commander-in-chief, was turned down, Nehru wanted a fighting general to lead the Army and, a few years later, first asked Rajendrasinhji to replace Gen. Roy Bucher. To both Rathore (who many claim was also offered the post) and Rajendrasinhji is attributed the high-minded statement that their senior, Cariappa, shouldn’t be bypassed.
Cariappa as Western Army commander during the 1947-48 Kashmir operations did not impress Nehru with his leadership qualities, who perhaps believed that the battle-hardened Rajendrasinhji would have done a better job of it. In any event, with Cariappa followed by Rajendrasinhji, a wrong precedent was set. The Indian Army has paid a heavy price; not the brightest officers have always headed it. The other two services, being smaller, manage their cadres somewhat better with especially the Navy consistently throwing up competent people as Service Chiefs. The Air Force, whose top posts are monopolised by fighter jocks, falls somewhere in between the Army and the Navy.
With seniority as the sole criterion for promotion, we have a vast majority of officers aspiring to top posts becoming progressively more risk-averse in decision-making as they climb up the steep promotional ladder. The consequence of an over-cautious, almost inert, institutional-qua-leadership mindset has been there for all to see for several decades now. The Army Chiefs, for instance, have stuck to a stunted vision responsible for the skewed order of battle that reveals a singular talent for mistaking the minor foe (Pakistan) for major adversary, even as the real danger posed by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army is not addressed, if evidence of the deployment of the main force is anything to go by.
The purely seniority-driven promotion system the military is straitjacketed in means the year of birth is crucial and the documents validating it decisively important. The anomaly with respect to Gen. Singh is that all the records with the Adjutant General (AG) — the record-keeper of the Army — support his contention. The Union Public Service Commission form for admission to the National Defence Academy with the Military Secretary’s Office responsible for postings and cadre/career management, however, shows an earlier year of birth. If the AG’s records have always determined age-related promotion and tenure, then the government’s reliance in this one case on a document available with the MS branch, makes the government’s case legally weak, which is probably why COAS has confidently gone to the court.
Braving a bit of egg on its face, the government should let Gen. Singh serve out his full, legitimate term in office. This will have far smaller fallout than if, standing on ego, it ousts him, which will set an even worse precedent and complicate the situation. Until now the selection of Service Chiefs, because based on material criterion (birth year document), was safely pre-determined. The upside was that it absolved the politicians, principally the Prime Minister and defence minister, of applying their minds to choosing military Chiefs of Staff. The negatives of replacing this selection system with the more professionally desirable merit-based one will be strongly resisted by the military as well as the politicians because both will perceive it as disruptive. If the government owns up its fault on the condition that Gen. Singh puts in his papers, or the Army Chief resigns anyway before his retirement date, then the government will have no option, on seniority principle, but to appoint Lt. Gen. Ghosh as COAS, leaving Lt. Gen. Bikram Singh in the lurch. But this is a far better option than permitting a succession plan hatched by a couple of less-than-scrupulous Army Chiefs to go through, thereby avoiding the worst possible denouement imaginable — an enraged Army.

The writer is a professor at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Jan 2012 08:07

Pranab ‘assured’ Army Chief of a face-saving exit

Tea for two..

A simple cup of tea that Army Chief General V K Singh had with Defence Secretary Shashikant Sharma on Wednesday sparked off a series of speculation that a resolution to the age controversy was in the works. While Singh met Sharma in connection with the visit of Nepal’s Deputy Prime Minister Bijay Gachhadar, speculation spread like wildfire that something was in the works. Singh also held a separate meeting with Gachhadar, who also holds Nepal defence ministry portfolio. The two loosely discussed not fighting the age controversy through the media as the matter is now in court.

‘Was forced to accept wrong year’

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Jan 2012 08:18

Thia "age before beauty/merit" legal angle,criteria will ensure only mediocrity and sycophancy within the IA,to gain promotion and climb the ladder.Whatever the age status,a govt. should have the power to decide which officer is the best choice,in case the senior general has perceived shortcomings,or his junior by age,is far more outstanding..

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 19 Jan 2012 08:18

Age row: Four former CJIs come out in support of Army chief.

Army chief General V K Singh's contention before the Supreme Court on his age has the backing of at least four former chief justices of India and a former solicitor general.

Of the four retired CJIs, at least two have raised questions about the attorney general's opinion in the case, which led the defence ministry to dismiss Gen Singh's stand that his date of birth is May 10, 1951. Besides the CJIs, former solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam too has given legal opinion to the Army chief saying that the attorney general's opinion was not binding on the government.

It is still not clear if all five legal opinions would be placed before the SC in the course of the case. These opinions were obtained at various times in recent days, as the Army chief was battling the MoD over the issue.

Justice G B Patnaik, who was CJI in 2002, has said that the attorney general's legal opinion, while it carried great weight, "cannot be said to be binding upon the central government".

"The position of law is crystal clear that in case of government employee, the date of birth is required to be recorded in the service register on the basis of age as recorded in school and college records at the time of entry into service and any correction with regard to the said date of birth can be permissible only if the rules governing the conditions of service allow the same," Patnaik has said.

Patnaik also argued that the UPSC form filled with 1950 as the year of birth "cannot be treated as conclusive piece of evidence recording date of birth nor can it be taken as admission on the part of the querist in the teeth of the official document like matriculation certificate" and other documents.

Justice J S Verma, who was CJI during 1997-98, has said the UPSC form was a "feeble support" to argue for 1950 as the Army chief's year of birth. "This mistake was corrected promptly by UPSC, while selecting him for the NDA and accepting May 10, 1951 as the correct DOB of the candidate. This correct date was thereafter accepted and recorded in the authentic records of the AG's branch in performance of the mandate in the charter of duties. It is needless to reiterate that except for the negligence of the MS branch to correct the revenant entry in its records, the correct DOB of Gen V K Singh was alone accepted and recorded in all the revenant documents of the Army," Verma has said in his opinion.

Verma also said, "If it be true that the learned attorney general has taken a different view (I would not like to believe it), then it is likely that the query for his opinion may not have been framed correctly to give the erroneous impression that it is indeed Gen V K Singh who seeks a change in his authentic DOB as recorded by the AG's branch to attract the jurisdiction of the MS Branch which refuses to do so."

Verma also pointed to a "contextual observation" which "is of greater national significance". "Recent media reports give this impression of Army chief Gen V K Singh for not sparing even the highest in the armed forces for their involvement in the housing and land scams. I am afraid edging out such an Army chief before the end of his legitimate tenure on this pretext may give the public impression of silencing the voice of an 'inconvenient truth'," he said.

Justice V N Khare, who was CJI during 2002-04, listed 12 documents that attested to the fact that Gen V K Singh was born on May 10, 1951. Among them are certificates issued by Rajput Regiment in 1965 from the records of his father Major Jagat Singh, class X certificates, identity card etc.

The Army chief also has the opinion of former CJI R C Lahoti, and former solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam to buttress his case.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 19 Jan 2012 08:26

There has to be trust between the Army Chief and the government. At this point the trust has been broken, endangering India's security. The Army Chief must demonstrate 100% of the time the discipline to take orders from the government

Actually most of this country has lost trust in the Government -thats what is endangering the country

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 19 Jan 2012 08:35

Surya wrote:
There has to be trust between the Army Chief and the government. At this point the trust has been broken, endangering India's security. The Army Chief must demonstrate 100% of the time the discipline to take orders from the government

Actually most of this country has lost trust in the Government -thats what is endangering the country

Happens in democracies all the time. When the country looses trust in a government then either a no-confidence motion or elections are the opportunities to replace it. By the way, please let us not go OT on this, but, under MMS India has had a stellar economic growth and that also enhances India's security, i.e. more money to buy more weapons, bigger army etc.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Jan 2012 08:50

rajrang wrote:

Actually most of this country has lost trust in the Government -thats what is endangering the country

Happens in democracies all the time. When the country looses trust in a government then either a no-confidence motion or elections are the opportunities to replace it. By the way, please let us not go OT on this, but, under MMS India has had a stellar economic growth and that also enhances India's security, i.e. more money to buy more weapons, bigger army etc.[/quote]

Look MMS is a disaster and a fraud in terms of claiming credit for something he has not done. But that is OT.

The important part here is that Govt is wrong and Gen V K Singh is right.

Saying that Gen V K Singh should be a mute spectator to the inherent murder of democracy without exercising his constitutional rights is supporting criminal behavior.

In fact Gen V K showed solider like behavior by taking on the entire might of GoI (read politicos) for the right cause.

Its simple, those who stand for the right thing are right.

If GoI has guts let them sack him and explain to the court, after all, it will not be the first time -- but the fact is that the Govt was trying to do a wrong in a very slimey underhanded and mischevious ways. It has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar.

This is very much a "Tainted Thomas for CVC" moment -- MMS Govt tried to do yet another blatant murder of the institutions of India and was caught.

No different -- Chief is a brave man, standing up to those who mess with his institution instead of buckling under sweet words of serpentine snakes.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Jan 2012 08:53

Anyway Army chief should follow the Govt 100% is both a moronic and a extra-constitutional statement.

What if GoI asks Army chief to line up and shoot all members of opposition after which they will have a vote of confidence? Should he obey?

An army man follows orders as long as within the ambit of constitutions. This is a professional army, not a horde of blind servants.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 19 Jan 2012 08:57

Happens in democracies all the time. When the country looses trust in a government then either a no-confidence motion or elections are the opportunities to replace it. By the way, please let us not go OT on this, but, under MMS India has had a stellar economic growth and that also enhances India's security, i.e. more money to buy more weapons, bigger army etc.

Lets not go overboard here.

We are a democracy to the extent we have regular voting. Other aspects are open to discussion.

A couple of scams more and some more of populistic spending spree and we are down the drain. Our economic growth still have a long way to go to be sustainable,

and the Govt has done nothing new to boost growth
most growth is inspite of this asinine govt.

sigh - you are pushing me into philip saar territory

Already you can see money tightening.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 19 Jan 2012 09:03

For those who are interested
a poll at NDTV

http://www.ndtv.com/article/polls/is-th ... 67725%26cp

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 19 Jan 2012 09:17

I believe VKS's only duty is to fight foreign invaders of India. (I realize that the IA is routinely used to fight internal armed insurgents as ordered by the Government of India.) He needs to have complete focus on his job which is to guard India's borders and not be distracted by other issues. If he wants to fight any other battle, he needs to resign first. His job is "not to reason why, but to do and die"

He has to be given full freedom to focus on his job. All his needs have to be taken care off. He is a special person as he has to fight the enemies of India.
Now what is the role of GOI to help him in this process. GOI should make sure he is not distracted. He is a human being like me and you. But he dies for us. So GOI is accountable for not making him focussed. This is not his job to fight what was in the first place never his.

The entire episode is unfortunate and might serve as a role model for the men and women of the 1.3 million IA to "reason why" and that will be the begining of the end of the IA as it exists today and seriously harm India's future as a free society.

Fat chance. They dont have DOB falsified by GOI mandarins.

By the way has their ever been an episode similar to this in other democracies?

How does it matter?. we have redressal mechanisms to address. That is what VKS is doing living in a democratic country.

But for the Chief of the IA to APPEAR to challenge the government of India is shocking. Instead he should show a spirit of self-sacrifice, fundamental to a solider. How many times have soldiers and officers lost their LIVES due to mistaken orders given by superiors or the government? Do the families of those men go and file court cases / suit the governmen?. Arguing over a birthday is trivial and that too for the Chief of the IA. It does not matter how imperfect the Indian givernment is.

VKS has been doing his job. But GOI has distracted him from his job. DOB could have been long settled by the GOI. This is a trivial matter which can be done by GOI in a jiffy. It is humiliating for a soldier to fight for his DOB rather than fight for India's enemies. Who is responsible for this sordid episode. It is shocking some one like you can talk like this. You dont understand it.

But when you sign up to be a solider you give up some "rights" that other citizens have.< snip> I am shocked that the Chief of such an illustrious army has got into a squabble with the elected givernment of India over his date of birth. The soldier should be above "jagaddas" (hindi word). I am afraid that this precedent if it becomes a trend does not bode well for the future of India as a free country. Ultimately India's freedom is underpinned by the IA.

Soldier gives his life for us commoners. He has long periods of absence from his family due to his duty to protect his country men etc etc. He assumes his family is well, does not question GOI. GOI should reciprocate and shoulder other resposnibilities for his sake due to his work. Soldier is the highest profession you can ever ask for. Even enemies do not mess with them. Now this GOI with silly DOB issue. It speaks volumes of the intentions of men responsible. You support them. Really depressing if commoners like you also do this. India will be again ruled by nincompoops later by furriners.

VKS has to fight both external and internal enemies of India. He is a true soldier.

Not the IAF or IN. Has any retired Chief of the IA supported Gen VKS? My apologies to everyone if this has already been discussed.

How does it matter. If any retired chief supports him will GOI do anything about it. ridiculous.

There has to be trust between the Army Chief and the government. At this point the trust has been broken, endangering India's security. The Army Chief must demonstrate 100% of the time the discipline to take orders from the government and act on them without reasoning why. (He can perhaps express his misgivings about a government order through private channels, not publicly.) This is not TSP army with personal agendas - however legitimate. In no democracy is the army or its Chief above the government or can question the government.

GOI/MS has created the mess, not VKS. He went thru' regular channels since 2006 when this issue cropped up. But the GOI did not listen.

Happens in democracies all the time. When the country looses trust in a government then either a no-confidence motion or elections are the opportunities to replace it. By the way, please let us not go OT on this, but, under MMS India has had a stellar economic growth and that also enhances India's security, i.e. more money to buy more weapons, bigger army etc.

specious arguments with no relevance. politicians are elected thru elctions. This does not occur in defence.

Considering all the posts of yours, really shocking to say the least.
You are blaming only COAS despite he doing everything since a few years. looks like a hit job. IMHO.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 19 Jan 2012 09:19

HT claims

Army chief General VK Singh had not only mentioned 1950 as his year of birth while applying for entry to the National Defence Academy in 1965, but also reaffirmed it four years later in his confidential Indian Military Academy dossier.

This is in stark contrast to Singh’s assertions that 1950 was wrongly entered in his NDA form and the year was not reflected in any other record filled in his own handwriting to show that his date of birth is May 10, 1951.

True or False?

But to get back to Tanaji's query and ignoring the usual fulminations against GOI - Cui bono?
If GOI wants to replace Gen VKS with a more 'pliable' General, is there any proof of this?
Or is it just to convey a message to future chiefs from the political / babu complex that "don't mess with us"?
Or is it some black sheeps within the Army is orchestrating this campaign to get back at VKS for the Sukna case and the subsequent courtmartial of Gen Awdhesh?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jan 2012 09:55

rajrang wrote:
ramana wrote:.......

Rajrang, Before he is a soldier he is a citizen. And as a citizen he has the Consititution to protect him.
Its his Constitiutional right to seek Court remedy to redress.
Ramana - I agree with you. But when you sign up to be a solider you give up some "rights" that other citizens have. In a battlefield a soldier does have the copy of the Constitution to protect him. He only has his God, weapons and training. For example a solider cannot refuse to attack an enemy post when ordered by his superior (perhaps because he is worried that he will be killed or because is knows that the orders are wrong). He can only refuse to commit an immoral act - such as killing civilians etc. A civilian who does not like his job or boss can simply not even turn up to work. A soldier cannot do that. The military man cannot talk to the press freely. A soldier's life is one of willingness (sometimes a desire) to make the ultimate sacrifice. That is why the soldier is an honored person in society in every democracy. (In dictatorships - TSP, PRC - he may be regarded as a thug.) The IA has COUNTLESS examples of ultimate self-sacrifice similar to the Charge of the Light Brigade - the Ahirs in Ladakh in 1962, the Sikhs in Saragarhi in 1897 and the Gurkhas in Sikkim in 1967 and more recently the Gorkha solider who fought off 30 thugs in a Bihar train. I am shocked that the Chief of such an illustrious army has got into a squabble with the elected givernment of India over his date of birth. The soldier should be above "jagaddas" (hindi word). I am afraid that this precedent if it becomes a trend does not bode well for the future of India as a free country. Ultimately India's freedom is underpinned by the IA.

Rajrang, You are confusing battlefield discipline with obeying civilian manipulation in peace time. All examples you gave are battlefield examples. VK Singh has even at a young age fought in 1971 war. He has seen enemy fire. He has passed many courses like Ranger etc. So dodnt give me BS about how a soldier is to behave. Your arguments are like that of a famous ex-intel person who wrote in BRF during Kargil that soldiers are payed to fight for the country so we shouldnt feel for Lt Kalia and his six soldiers who were tortured and killed by TSP and couldn't take the flak in the forum.

I don't think this forum can be a platform where civilians safely ensconced in Dilli tell the soldiers how they are supposed to behave.

Rights and duties are to faces of a coin:Rt Hon V S Srinvasa Sastri a great freedom fighter before the Gandhi-Nehru era.

If you want to tell what are the duties of the service personnel, pray tell what are the rights? It cant be one sided!!!!!!

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Jan 2012 10:20

Tanaji wrote:

What I still dont understand is apart from the obstinacy and pig headedness of the MoD babu, what does it stand to gain from the affair? I read the conspiracy theory that some "line of succession" is already decided and somehow the babu stands to gain

Ramana asked one question about line of succession for Cabinet Secy. Think hard and you might find answer in future.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 19 Jan 2012 10:22

ramana wrote:
rajrang wrote:{quote="ramana"}.......

Rajrang, Before he is a soldier he is a citizen. And as a citizen he has the Consititution to protect him.
Its his Constitiutional right to seek Court remedy to redress.{/quote}

Ramana - I agree with you. But when you sign up to be a solider you give up some "rights" that other citizens have. In a battlefield a soldier does have the copy of the Constitution to protect him. He only has his God, weapons and training. For example a solider cannot refuse to attack an enemy post when ordered by his superior (perhaps because he is worried that he will be killed or because is knows that the orders are wrong). He can only refuse to commit an immoral act - such as killing civilians etc. A civilian who does not like his job or boss can simply not even turn up to work. A soldier cannot do that. The military man cannot talk to the press freely. A soldier's life is one of willingness (sometimes a desire) to make the ultimate sacrifice. That is why the soldier is an honored person in society in every democracy. (In dictatorships - TSP, PRC - he may be regarded as a thug.) The IA has COUNTLESS examples of ultimate self-sacrifice similar to the Charge of the Light Brigade - the Ahirs in Ladakh in 1962, the Sikhs in Saragarhi in 1897 and the Gurkhas in Sikkim in 1967 and more recently the Gorkha solider who fought off 30 thugs in a Bihar train. I am shocked that the Chief of such an illustrious army has got into a squabble with the elected givernment of India over his date of birth. The soldier should be above "jagaddas" (hindi word). I am afraid that this precedent if it becomes a trend does not bode well for the future of India as a free country. Ultimately India's freedom is underpinned by the IA.
Rajrang, You are confusing battlefield discipline with obeying civilian manipulation in peace time. All examples you gave are battlefield examples. VK Singh has even at a young age fought in 1971 war. He has seen enemy fire. He has passed many courses like Ranger etc. So dodnt give me BS about how a soldier is to behave. Your arguments are like that of a famous ex-intel person who wrote in BRF during Kargil that soldiers are payed to fight for the country so we shouldnt feel for Lt Kalia and his six soldiers who were tortured and killed by TSP and couldn't take the flak in the forum.

I don't think this forum can be a platform where civilians safely ensconced in Dilli tell the soldiers how they are supposed to behave.

Rights and duties are to faces of a coin:Rt Hon V S Srinvasa Sastri a great freedom fighter before the Gandhi-Nehru era.

If you want to tell what are the duties of the service personnel, pray tell what are the rights? It cant be one sided!!!!!!

Right on, saar.

Following the Nehruvian contempt for the Army and excessive fear of the Army after having seen what the paki army has done across the border, the Indian civilians seem to have, from the very beginning, taken the line that the only way to control the Army in India is to treat it with contempt and enslave it.

Gen VKS has just broken out of that mould. The civilians have to be kicked and taught the hard way what it is to have a disciplined and loyal Army that openly and always acknowledges the supremacy of civilian control.

They are most valuable colleagues AND FIRST AMONG EQUALS not bloody servants of the civilians.

That having been said, the Army and all that it implies needs to be treated with due respect.

Respect and loyalty can never be one sided. Do not take the Soldier's respect for granted, you too have a bounden duty towards the Soldier, some of whose fundamental rights have been abrogated by the constitution of India whilst he is in service.

The bloody IAS civilians have always been disloyal towards the Indian Armed Forces all the while slyly promoting themselves and trampling the Armed Forces in the dust given the slightest opportunity.

The frequent calling out of the Army for "child trapped in open Tubewell" sort of incidents HAS to stop. The inefficient district collector or magistrate should use the fire services of other forces at his disposal and not palm off his / her responsibility to the Army for house keeping jobs or he / she should be kicked and forcibly taught crisis management.

Familiarity always breeds contempt. ESPECIALLY IN INDIA.

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 19 Jan 2012 10:25

krisna wrote:
I believe VKS's only duty is to fight foreign invaders of India. (I realize that the IA is routinely used to fight internal armed insurgents as ordered by the Government of India.) He needs to have complete focus on his job which is to guard India's borders and not be distracted by other issues. If he wants to fight any other battle, he needs to resign first. His job is "not to reason why, but to do and die"
He has to be given full freedom to focus on his job. All his needs have to be taken care off. He is a special person as he has to fight the enemies of India.
Now what is the role of GOI to help him in this process. GOI should make sure he is not distracted. He is a human being like me and you. But he dies for us. So GOI is accountable for not making him focussed. This is not his job to fight what was in the first place never his.

The entire episode is unfortunate and might serve as a role model for the men and women of the 1.3 million IA to "reason why" and that will be the begining of the end of the IA as it exists today and seriously harm India's future as a free society.
Fat chance. They dont have DOB falsified by GOI mandarins.

By the way has their ever been an episode similar to this in other democracies?
How does it matter?. we have redressal mechanisms to address. That is what VKS is doing living in a democratic country.

But for the Chief of the IA to APPEAR to challenge the government of India is shocking. Instead he should show a spirit of self-sacrifice, fundamental to a solider. How many times have soldiers and officers lost their LIVES due to mistaken orders given by superiors or the government? Do the families of those men go and file court cases / suit the governmen?. Arguing over a birthday is trivial and that too for the Chief of the IA. It does not matter how imperfect the Indian givernment is.
VKS has been doing his job. But GOI has distracted him from his job. DOB could have been long settled by the GOI. This is a trivial matter which can be done by GOI in a jiffy. It is humiliating for a soldier to fight for his DOB rather than fight for India's enemies. Who is responsible for this sordid episode. It is shocking some one like you can talk like this. You dont understand it.

But when you sign up to be a solider you give up some "rights" that other citizens have.< snip> I am shocked that the Chief of such an illustrious army has got into a squabble with the elected givernment of India over his date of birth. The soldier should be above "jagaddas" (hindi word). I am afraid that this precedent if it becomes a trend does not bode well for the future of India as a free country. Ultimately India's freedom is underpinned by the IA.
Soldier gives his life for us commoners. He has long periods of absence from his family due to his duty to protect his country men etc etc. He assumes his family is well, does not question GOI. GOI should reciprocate and shoulder other resposnibilities for his sake due to his work. Soldier is the highest profession you can ever ask for. Even enemies do not mess with them. Now this GOI with silly DOB issue. It speaks volumes of the intentions of men responsible. You support them. Really depressing if commoners like you also do this. India will be again ruled by nincompoops later by furriners.

VKS has to fight both external and internal enemies of India. He is a true soldier.

Not the IAF or IN. Has any retired Chief of the IA supported Gen VKS? My apologies to everyone if this has already been discussed.
How does it matter. If any retired chief supports him will GOI do anything about it. ridiculous.

There has to be trust between the Army Chief and the government. At this point the trust has been broken, endangering India's security. The Army Chief must demonstrate 100% of the time the discipline to take orders from the government and act on them without reasoning why. (He can perhaps express his misgivings about a government order through private channels, not publicly.) This is not TSP army with personal agendas - however legitimate. In no democracy is the army or its Chief above the government or can question the government.
GOI/MS has created the mess, not VKS. He went thru' regular channels since 2006 when this issue cropped up. But the GOI did not listen.

Happens in democracies all the time. When the country looses trust in a government then either a no-confidence motion or elections are the opportunities to replace it. By the way, please let us not go OT on this, but, under MMS India has had a stellar economic growth and that also enhances India's security, i.e. more money to buy more weapons, bigger army etc.
specious arguments with no relevance. politicians are elected thru elctions. This does not occur in defence.

Considering all the posts of yours, really shocking to say the least.
You are blaming only COAS despite he doing everything since a few years. looks like a hit job. IMHO.

Thank you for your detailed explanations. My expectations of military discipline may have been extreme. It is very likely that Gen VKS is an excellent soldier. I do not know too much about him.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jan 2012 10:35

Yet you want to jump in and tell him how to behave!

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 19 Jan 2012 10:40

Sanku wrote:
What if GoI asks Army chief to line up and shoot all members of opposition after which they will have a vote of confidence? Should he obey?

An army man follows orders as long as within the ambit of constitutions. This is a professional army, not a horde of blind servants.

Sorry, your question above is hypothetical. While I do agree with your second comment, however in a democracy an army cannot be consulting legal opinion all the time regarding the constitutionality of orders before acting on them. I do not see crowds in the streets of India demanding change (similar to Arab countries recently). Therefore I have to assume that India continues to be a democracy, albeit an imperfect one just like so many of them.

Anyway, my comments on this subject were entirely based on what I believed is good for India, what is good for Gen VKS was secondary. We can agree to disagree. Thanks

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Jan 2012 10:41

I will submit that it is both mischievous and mala-fide for GoI to play this as IAS vs Army or Army vs Army.

That could be the case if the matters were not raised to the highest levels with PM involved as well.

The B***** Attorney Gen comes up with a third rate crappy hit job which goes against the grain of all legal opinions from 4 retired CJI and MoD own legal cell.

This has Kangress fingerprints all over, since THEY took the call -- completely highlighted -- those who disagree are either in denial or particularly insidious.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Jan 2012 10:47

rajrang wrote:
Sanku wrote:
What if GoI asks Army chief to line up and shoot all members of opposition after which they will have a vote of confidence? Should he obey?

An army man follows orders as long as within the ambit of constitutions. This is a professional army, not a horde of blind servants.
Sorry, your question above is hypothetical.

Obviously its hypothetical -- it is show the hollowness of your position. That Army is a bunch of blind goons jumping up and down to any random arbitrary order.

While I do agree with your second comment, however in a democracy an army cannot be consulting legal opinion all the time regarding the constitutionality of orders before acting on them.

It indeed can. All the actions at all time are strictly in accordance with the Army law and other laws. IA is one hell of a rule abiding organization -- and what are the rules? Not some hot air pulled from the Mushharrf of a chaprasi of dynsaty. It is enshrined in various acts.

To follow rules is drilled into a solider -- he is a walking model of knowing which are correct rules. Not merely orders but rules.

Get the difference.

And a solider always has various means of redressals available to him.

Therefore I have to assume that India continues to be a democracy, albeit an imperfect one just like so many of them.

And it is absolutely because India is a democracy even if imperfect that Gen V K Singh is going by the book to achieve justice and fairness.

If it was not a democracy, the corrupt turds would see a different treatment.

Anyway, my comments on this subject were entirely based on what I believed is good for India, what is good for Gen VKS was secondary. We can agree to disagree. Thanks

No your comments are ill considered, ill informed and frankly an apologist for a corrupt crooked govt. And I shall be forced to say how it is.

People have to take sides between right and wrong.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jan 2012 10:58

So why does MMS take this seriously?
Last time he took it like this was the IUCNA deal.

This must be closer still. Its not just a matter of line of succession nonsense.
its about the piss process. Maybe he wants to tell the Pakis he has the IA under control and there wont be any cold or warm start. So lets get on with the piss with Siachen as a park and open borders in kashmir. He might even give the Pakis a say in running the Valley.

Yes I sound like Philip but what are the other reasons?

rajrang · Post by **rajrang** » 19 Jan 2012 10:58

ramana wrote:
rajrang wrote:
Rajrang, Before he is a soldier he is a citizen. And as a citizen he has the Consititution to protect him.
Its his Constitiutional right to seek Court remedy to redress.

Ramana - I agree with you. But when you sign up to be a solider you give up some "rights" that other citizens have. In a battlefield a soldier does have the copy of the Constitution to protect him. He only has his God, weapons and training. For example a solider cannot refuse to attack an enemy post when ordered by his superior (perhaps because he is worried that he will be killed or because is knows that the orders are wrong). He can only refuse to commit an immoral act - such as killing civilians etc. A civilian who does not like his job or boss can simply not even turn up to work. A soldier cannot do that. The military man cannot talk to the press freely. A soldier's life is one of willingness (sometimes a desire) to make the ultimate sacrifice. That is why the soldier is an honored person in society in every democracy. (In dictatorships - TSP, PRC - he may be regarded as a thug.) The IA has COUNTLESS examples of ultimate self-sacrifice similar to the Charge of the Light Brigade - the Ahirs in Ladakh in 1962, the Sikhs in Saragarhi in 1897 and the Gurkhas in Sikkim in 1967 and more recently the Gorkha solider who fought off 30 thugs in a Bihar train. I am shocked that the Chief of such an illustrious army has got into a squabble with the elected givernment of India over his date of birth. The soldier should be above "jagaddas" (hindi word). I am afraid that this precedent if it becomes a trend does not bode well for the future of India as a free country. Ultimately India's freedom is underpinned by the IA.
Rajrang, You are confusing battlefield discipline with obeying civilian manipulation in peace time. All examples you gave are battlefield examples. VK Singh has even at a young age fought in 1971 war. He has seen enemy fire. He has passed many courses like Ranger etc. So dodnt give me BS about how a soldier is to behave. Your arguments are like that of a famous ex-intel person who wrote in BRF during Kargil that soldiers are payed to fight for the country so we shouldnt feel for Lt Kalia and his six soldiers who were tortured and killed by TSP and couldn't take the flak in the forum.

I don't think this forum can be a platform where civilians safely ensconced in Dilli tell the soldiers how they are supposed to behave.

Rights and duties are to faces of a coin:Rt Hon V S Srinvasa Sastri a great freedom fighter before the Gandhi-Nehru era.

If you want to tell what are the duties of the service personnel, pray tell what are the rights? It cant be one sided!!!!!!

I am sure a lot of Indians are deeply horrified to this day about what happened to Lt Kalia and his men and that includes me and probably all of us on BR. I share his dad's hope that the perpetrators or their leaders are brought to justice - but that is unlikely to happen.

We can agree to disagree on other points.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 19 Jan 2012 11:00

Sanku wrote:I will submit that it is both mischievous and mala-fide for GoI to play this as IAS vs Army or Army vs Army.

This has Kangress fingerprints all over, since THEY took the call -- completely highlighted -- those who disagree are either in denial or particularly insidious.

ok - but how does then INC gain from this? Are they trying to get a more pliable chief? What was the role of the Military Secretary?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jan 2012 11:01

Its not a matter to agree or disagree. There is only one truth. He cant be born on both the dates!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 19 Jan 2012 11:03

arnab wrote:
Sanku wrote:I will submit that it is both mischievous and mala-fide for GoI to play this as IAS vs Army or Army vs Army.

This has Kangress fingerprints all over, since THEY took the call -- completely highlighted -- those who disagree are either in denial or particularly insidious.
ok - but how does then INC gain from this? Are they trying to get a more pliable chief? What was the role of the Military Secretary?

Yes, they want a chief who will do as they want, it can be used in multiple places -- implementing religious quotas in army, withdrawl from siachien and what not.

This is exactly a Gen Kaul moment with Antony playing Krishna Menon to V. K. Singh refusing to play Thimayaa.