Indian Army: News & Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7734
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rohitvats » 12 Feb 2012 11:55

Austin wrote:Philip there was no conspiracy here , he simply invented it because he was an opportunist.


Well, at least now we know why you've been defending SU...birds of feather flock together!!! Coming to opportunist part - opportunist don't dare and put their life's worth on line for petty gains...they conspire and manipulate and snipe from someone else's shoulder or hide behind anonymity....something you'd never understand. Had the Chief being an opportunist, he would have been sitting in some foreign land as Ambassador or Governor in India. No, but he chose to fight it out and risk everything knowing fully well that people like you and SU will call him names in case he chooses.....but then, that is what a true soldier is - someone who rides out knowing fully well that it can end either way. The righteousness of the cause is what drives them....but I'm not sure you'd understand this.

Show no Mercy or Pity to an Opportunist.


The only opportunists here are people like you...reminds me of the scene of jackals trying to take a pot-shot at a injurned lion. But remember, injured or not, he remains a lion and you remain a jackal.

Well, as for rest of your posts...ack thoo!!!

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 12 Feb 2012 12:00

It does not need a genius to figure out how he exploited the system for his personal gain and the best part is its documented. So no one will claim i told him this or that verbally and he blindly accepted trusting him.

And you dont have to take my words either for it , the SC has itself proved it accepting his service entry date as 1950.

So you dont have to do ack thoo on some one but to search you own consciousness .....like they say if one figures is pointing at others three are pointing towards you.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 12 Feb 2012 12:00

nelson wrote:I too find it funny, when renowned reporters from national media, acknowledge in private the murky hands of the former COAS and Joint Secretary (G/S), none of them or their media-houses find it worthwhile to take a scoop from their side. May be political compulsions.


It is elementary my dear Watson : Don't Pitch Army against the govt and there is still professionalism left in Army.

Army Chief vs Govt is a myth. Media remained a broker not stoking the fires. They presented both sides. Rest all was just chatter from all and sundry.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 12 Feb 2012 12:02

nelson wrote:
Other than the last ditch announcement of "not for 1 more year tenure," can you categorically state that he did not want to extend his service life for one more year in past?


As was being reported, VKS could have enjoyed the five years as Governor of a state, than hang on to this DoB. Why, is Governorship<<COAS?


What that got to do with my question on his Army tenure. BTW, he had a future in NSA, than governorship.

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby negi » 12 Feb 2012 12:03

nelson wrote:The members of the forum are missing the point in its entirety. It does not matter to the nation directly, if VKS got justice or not. At least not till the next war. However, it definitely matters to the thousands of officers who are serving in the Army and are looking to shape their career ahead. From the ringside, it is plain obvious to me that the deleterious effect of this SC action has shocked a majority of them.

Sir it was fine until we kept this limited to COAS and his DoB; lets not bring in this thousands of other officers part it sounds hillarious to say the least for the verdict is very much on the EXPECTED lines because that is the way SC rolls it always has (on all cases relating to the state vs an individual SC has more or less given 'haajmola' judgements); if you expected something different then all I have to say is HELLO, this is INDIA! :mrgreen

Obviously from COAS's perspective justice was not done; but then when was last time justice delivered in our courts ? They are all a big farce.
Last edited by negi on 12 Feb 2012 12:06, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 12:06

^^What with everyone wanting to be a broker SC, media and who else? And to believe that media presented both sides fairly would be hard, umm... very hard. Ninety nine percent of the articles favouring VKS were from private blogs/ opinions. Media houses and reporters played it very safe, may be knowing very well the interests of the PMO in this issue.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 12 Feb 2012 12:10

^^^ Nobody wanted to be broker. SC definitely did not, it was approached. Media called for debates, but, stuck re(porting) (there might be bad apples).

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 12:12

^ That media remained a broker were your own words three posts above.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 12 Feb 2012 12:16

Ok, Broker didn't mean that they brokered a deal. If that's how everyone understood it, I couldn't convey the meaning correctly. However, meant that they used material from both sides and reported what they said, the SC said etc. Rest was opinion chatter and not opinion from media houses.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 12:18

chackojoseph wrote:
Other than the last ditch announcement of "not for 1 more year tenure," can you categorically state that he did not want to extend his service life for one more year in past?

....
....
What that got to do with my question on his Army tenure. BTW, he had a future in NSA, than governorship.


The answer was indirect. If he had the opportunity to become Governor, some Charman/ Vice chairman with cabinet equivalency etc, why did he choose to ignore that and opt for establishing his true DoB, knowing very well the odds stacked against him.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 12 Feb 2012 12:22

nelson wrote:The answer was indirect. If he had the opportunity to become Governor, some Charman/ Vice chairman with cabinet equivalency etc, why did he choose to ignore that and opt for establishing his true DoB, knowing very well the odds stacked against him.

here is my original question

Other than the last ditch announcement of "not for 1 more year tenure," can you categorically state that he did not want to extend his service life for one more year in past?

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 12 Feb 2012 12:26

Livefist , Who will succeed VKS ?

Image

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 12:27

^^IMO, VKS did not want to extend his service for ten more months, had his application for recognising his DoB as 1951 been accepted by the govt.

Reasons are as aforesaid.
Last edited by nelson on 12 Feb 2012 12:44, edited 2 times in total.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23567
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chetak » 12 Feb 2012 12:29

chackojoseph wrote:Ok, Broker didn't mean that they brokered a deal. If that's how everyone understood it, I couldn't convey the meaning correctly. However, meant that they used material from both sides and reported what they said, the SC said etc. Rest was opinion chatter and not opinion from media houses.



Hindi will probably serve better. The words are more expressive in this particular case. :)

dalal and dalali. This is exactly what the media whores and gigolos have been reduced to as revealed by the dramatis personae of the radia tapes.

Even food critics / "journalists" have been reduced to pimping dressed up as intellectual effort, such is the lure of money. The less said about the burkha brigade the better.

It is never opinion chatter but always simple dalali meaning that it's a transactional process.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 12:35

Amidst conflicting reports, this gives an indication of what is to come...

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120212/nation.htm#4

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4787
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Yayavar » 12 Feb 2012 12:48

Austin wrote:
viv wrote:Austin: It is government's prerogative. In that case it can do it without forcing an 'acceptance' for a particular birthday. So there was an unjust action and a forced acceptance. You can argue that it should not have been accepted and the general should have stayed a Brigadier but that is beside the point. The main issue is that until 2006, 1951 suffice and then from then on, for some reason the incorrect date was forced. Why? and for what reason.


No one forced VKS to accept 1950 DOB , he simply traded it on 3 occasion to get a promotion.

He could have said no I dont accept DOB as 1950 and borne all the consequences of what comes out of it , that IMO is a more Honourable way ......but he thought it was better to accept promotion now and on all 3 occasion accepting 1950 as DOB.


He was coerced and told no promotion unless you accept the wrong date. Enough reports in this thread attest to that. So why was this wrong perpetuated? There is something black in the dal right there.
1951: 5 promotion plus NDA. 1950 deliberate coercion and 3 promotions. Why? If you do not want to discuss that aspect say so.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Austin » 12 Feb 2012 12:56

viv wrote:He was coerced and told no promotion unless you accept the wrong date. Enough reports in this thread attest to that. So why was this wrong perpetuated? There is something black in the dal right there.


Coerced ? He was simply told are you accepting 1950 DOB for this promotion , He knew that was not it to be so he could have said no let the consequences follow it.

No one wanted him to be the Army Chief 3 promotions back and coerced him to be the chief and yet accept the DOB.

It was a choice put to him , He traded his DOB over accepting promotions , it was his choice. He knew very well what he was trading for and what that could mean for his future promotions.

I see this more of a Tradeoff here on his part for his career which is fine as long as he did turned back later on which he did.

1951: 5 promotion plus NDA. 1950 deliberate coercion and 3 promotions. Why? If you do not want to discuss that aspect say so.


Ofcourse i want to discuss it , the moment he was given a choice to accept 1950 DOB the first time he should have said NO , if the top boss insisted it he should have taken the Court , that IMO was a honorable way.

At best then the court would have said then you are right and you deserve the promotion , may be he would have lost out to becoming a chief , so what ....I am sure many capable men aspire to become chief and loose out.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chackojoseph » 12 Feb 2012 13:10

nelson wrote:^^IMO, VKS did not want to extend his service for ten more months, had his application for recognising his DoB as 1951 been accepted by the govt.

Reasons are as aforesaid.


nelson, my friend. peace.

chetak wrote:Hindi will probably serve better. The words are more expressive in this particular case. :)

dalal and dalali. This is exactly what the media whores and gigolos have been reduced to as revealed by the dramatis personae of the radia tapes.

Even food critics / "journalists" have been reduced to pimping dressed up as intellectual effort, such is the lure of money. The less said about the burkha brigade the better.

It is never opinion chatter but always simple dalali meaning that it's a transactional process.


:)

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 12 Feb 2012 13:46

Sanku wrote:

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

Yes, What if Justice Shah would have moved with the wind? Face of Indian Democracy would have been different. We have right to expect more from those who are sworn to uphold nothing but truth.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby merlin » 12 Feb 2012 13:55

sunnydee wrote:
merlin wrote:
But for people who reside here - be afraid, be very afraid.


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


I have zero, 0, zip, nada, confidence of the SC protecting me if GoI is intent on screwing me. Justice be damned the courts will go whichever way the wind blows.

My opinion is that the general thought the courts would give him a fair hearing. You can ask him his thoughts on whether he is satisfied with the fairness of the courts process.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 14:14

There is a popular triad of wise sayings in the Army, that one hears. One of them goes like this...
"Fauj mein bahut jhoothe khaane ko milta hai, lekin izzat kabhi kam nahi hota"

An officer enters his CO's room. At the entrance a stick-orderly in his full ceremonial rig, stamps his foot, salutes the officer and says in loud voice 'Jai Hind saab'. In the CO's cabin the officer is lambasted to smithereens for whatever reasons. CO 's voice during this, is loud enough to make the entire HQ stand up. The officer has no answer and is dismissed. Officer steps out of CO's room, the stick-orderly stamps his foot in greater measure, salutes the officer and says in louder voice 'Jai Hind saab'. That is why they say "Fauj mein bahut jhoothe khaane ko milta hai, lekin izzat kabhi kam nahi hota".

The position of VKS now aptly describes the above.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 12 Feb 2012 14:19

viv wrote:^^Promotions are not based on DoB. However why should he get the last three under 1950 when he got 5 (up to Brigadier) under 1951?

Upto Lt Gen promotion his DOB was 1951. It was only for GOC, GOC in C and COAS that he was coerced into accepting 1950.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 12 Feb 2012 14:26

Austin wrote:
No one forced VKS to accept 1950 DOB , he simply traded it on 3 occasion to get a promotion.

That's a Lie.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 12 Feb 2012 14:28

nelson wrote:
Other than the last ditch announcement of "not for 1 more year tenure," can you categorically state that he did not want to extend his service life for one more year in past?


As was being reported, VKS could have enjoyed the five years as Governor of a state, than hang on to this DoB. Why, is Governorship<<COAS?

Yes.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby peter » 12 Feb 2012 14:28

Austin wrote:
Philip there was no conspiracy here , he simply invented it because he was an opportunist

He took 3 promotions based on 1950 DOB and at that time he did not raise a red flag or refused to accept the diktat from superiors. He took it quitely and quite willingly and quite happily.

Pure Lie. Read Katoch's piece linked earlier.

Austin wrote:
Antony was/is a Honest and Lenient Minister was dealing with kids glove and he took opportunity of it.

Anthony is the worst Defence Minister I have seen thus far. To belittle Army's honour by having the COAS drag the GOI to court is abominable. It is high time that India as a country should choose better defence ministers or this portfolio should rest with the PM and not morons like Anthony.


Austin wrote:The SC saw his game plan on this and came with a Just a Fair Judgement ...and He deserves exactly that.

Nonsense again I am afraid. Lodha and co got pushed through back channels in delievering this "Non judgement".

Any one with brains would realise that a person's affidavit cannot be binding for DOB. Xth class certificate would be the litmus test.

Are you saying personal affidavits for your DOB, signed under duress or not, would be binding from now on? Somebody should file a PIL about this.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 12 Feb 2012 14:39

merlin wrote:

I have zero, 0, zip, nada, confidence of the SC protecting me if GoI is intent on screwing me. Justice be damned the courts will go whichever way the wind blows.

My opinion is that the general thought the courts would give him a fair hearing. You can ask him his thoughts on whether he is satisfied with the fairness of the courts process.


Next time this question comes up before a future COAS, he would know what to do. That would be the most unfortunate day for Indian Democracy. I hope no Chief is faced with such choice.
If you sow the wind you will reap whirlwind.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 451
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Anoop » 12 Feb 2012 17:30

I very rarely post on BRF anymore, but am compelled to note that Austin's posts on the character of Gen. V.K. Singh are some of the vilest, deliberate lies I have read here. Here is a man who has been asked to accept a wrong DOB by appealing to organizational interest of not holding up other promotions (the proof of that is in these pages) with the assurance that the error would be sorted out in due time. His superior officers reneged on that promise and colluded with the civil bureaucracy to settle scores with him. Gen. Singh has been let down by his superiors, by the MoD and now by the SC which advised him to go with the wind. And now, we have Austin calling the Chief an opportunist and worse. Shame on you, Austin. You can reply to this, but I am putting you on my ignore list so don't expect a rebuttal.

Kapil
Webmaster BR
Posts: 282
Joined: 16 Jun 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Kapil » 12 Feb 2012 18:28

Guys,
Please watch "We,the People" on NDTV at 2000 IST tonight.Invitees/Panelists are:
Lt Gen P C Katoch,Kunal Verma, a lawyer from VKS's team,the INC's Manish Tiwari and the BJP's Manvendra Singh

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Feb 2012 19:11

merlin wrote:I have zero, 0, zip, nada, confidence of the SC protecting me if GoI is intent on screwing me.


That's tough for you. Let's hope you don't have two birth dates when you take up your government job. Children in India will not be allowed to write exams or join educational institutions if the written date of birth and the date on the birth certificate don't match. Ultimately in India the date of birth on the school leaving certificate is accepted as the de facto date of birth (possibly because many Indians do not have birth certificates). College application forms demand the entering of date of birth as in the school leaving certificate.

However here we have a man who joined the army with one date and his rise to the top was based on that date of birth and his competence of course. It turns out that his actual birth certificate has a different date.

Here is a timeline of the controversy:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/time ... 72949.html
The controversy over army chief General V.K. Singh's age has been dragging on for several years. It started with General Singh, as a young officer, submitting his year of birth as 1951 in a school certificate and the Indian Army list publishing it as 1950 about 38 years back.

Army adjutant general branch recorded the date of birth as May 10, 1951, but military secretary's branch recorded it as 1950.

In 2002, General Singh demanded the differing records to be reconciled.

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

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

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

In May 2011, General Singh petitioned in the ministry of defence, demanding a "reconciliation" of his date of birth.

In July 2011, the ministry rejected his petition based on the attorney general's opinion.

In August 2011, General Singh filed a statutory complaint with Defence Minister A.K. Antony.

The defence ministry rejected army chief's plea for a change in his age on December 30, 2011.

On January 16, 2012, General Singh moved the Supreme Court challenging the government order.

On February 3, the Supreme Court questioned the manner in which the government handled the issue of General Singh's age contention. It gave the government time till February 10 to explain its stand

On February 10, 2012, the defence ministry withdraws its December 30, 2011 order but stands by July 2011 order. SC upholds defence ministry's decision of maintaining 1950 as the year of birth and asks army chief to withdraw his petition and settle the issue amicably with the government. General Singh abides. Lawyer announces matter "resolved amicably".


Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/time ... 72949.html


The General has asked for a reconciliation in 2002.

No reconciliation was done but he was offered a promotion in 2006 on the basis of his 1950 date (as opposed to his real 1951 date). This happened again in a 2008 promotion.

An RTI asked about his real date of birth in 2010. I suspect this was a motivated act perhaps by one of his fellow officers. Anyhow an RTI is an RTI. No one can refuse. But this RTI would have served as an insult to the general. Once the RTI findings were public, the general had no option but to save his honor or be called a liar. The general did exactly that. He played the ball into the governments court, but clearly the government was in no position to make him 1 year younger having earlier declared him 1 year older and having signed documents from him accepting that, under duress or not.

The government was right in refusing to change it, but that still left the General open to being called a liar. He had no option but to go to the Supreme court. He has saved his honor by doing that. In India Indians are supposed to accept the verdict of the Supreme court. The General has done that. He is not a liar. The government was in a situation that the Government could not correct. The original error was probably a twin error - or maybe one lie (by schoolteacher) and one error by Army clerk.

I cannot see how the government can change the date of birth after accepting another one . Was the General totally unaware of his real year of birth from the time he joined the Army (maybe 1969 or 70) for 32 years until he asked for a "reconciliation"? No one has publicly asked this question. It need not have been raked up at all because the error was not his. But once it came up he had to save his honor. He has done that well. He has lost nothing. I don't know why people are getting their chaddis so twisted up.

rajatmisra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 05 Feb 2010 10:16

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rajatmisra » 12 Feb 2012 19:37

From all accounts vks is totally upright man and a general with his own mind. I hope he continues in office and is not forced to resign just because media is building up pressure on him to do so. Even in SC verdict, the court and the govt have accepted that. That is, unless he really feels like putting in his papers.

rajatmisra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 05 Feb 2010 10:16

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby rajatmisra » 12 Feb 2012 19:39

Kapil wrote:Guys,
Please watch "We,the People" on NDTV at 2000 IST tonight.Invitees/Panelists are:
Lt Gen P C Katoch,Kunal Verma, a lawyer from VKS's team,the INC's Manish Tiwari and the BJP's Manvendra Singh

Why should political parties be jumping in? It is really sad, either ways

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 19:49

shiv wrote:However here we have a man who joined the army with one date and his competence and his rise to the top were based on that date of birth. It turns out that his actual birth certificate has a different date.

It would be OK with everyone, if what you say here were to be true. The same DoB as in his birth certifcate, is recorded in all documents with Adjutant General branch of the army. They are the custodians of the personal records except the Confidential Reports. All the Confidential Reports of VKS, with the Military Secretary branch, on the basis of which he has been assessed and promoted from time to time carries this correct DoB
.... No reconciliation was done but he was offered a promotion in 2006 on the basis of his 1950 date (as opposed to his real 1951 date). This happened again in a 2008 promotion.

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

An RTI asked about his real date of birth in 2010. I suspect this was a motivated act perhaps by one of his fellow officers.

False and motivated. The RTI application was filed by an IAS officer.

In India Indians are supposed to accept the verdict of the Supreme court.

Except that the verdict has not been given. I would have accepted it as a verdict if the SC has ordered on the basis of merits of the petition, rather than browbeating the petitoner and giving the option of taking the petition back.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Feb 2012 20:28

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


Just curious. Was the date of birth not required for all promotions up to rank Lt General? Is there any information that the general fought to have his date of birth corrected all the way up until he became Lt general after 3 decades in the Army?

May I point out that in medicine there is a legal requirement for a patient to sign an informed consent for surgery. But, on the other hand the fact that a patient voluntarily underwent surgery implies consent, whether signed or not. Did the general fight against his promotions because of an error in the date of birth? The fact that he took those promotions based on the 1950 date implies his complicity. He is after all not claiming that he did not know his real date of birth.
Last edited by shiv on 12 Feb 2012 20:35, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Surya » 12 Feb 2012 20:31

However here we have a man who joined the army with one date and his rise to the top was based on that date of birth and his competence of course. It turns out that his actual birth certificate has a different date.


Wrong - only for 2006 and later and that too under duress as the obnoxious letters from MOD show.

Before that

As you can see from the letter here

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/09/ ... nt-on.html

Business Standard has viewed MS Branch letter No A/4501/01/GEN/MS(X), signed by the Military Secretary, Lieutenant General G M Nair. This letter informs the defence secretary that Gen V K Singh’s promotion to brigadier in 1996; to major general in 2003; and to lieutenant general in 2005; all had May 10, 1951 as the date of birth.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby shiv » 12 Feb 2012 20:39

Surya wrote:
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/09/ ... nt-on.html

Business Standard has viewed MS Branch letter No A/4501/01/GEN/MS(X), signed by the Military Secretary, Lieutenant General G M Nair. This letter informs the defence secretary that Gen V K Singh’s promotion to brigadier in 1996; to major general in 2003; and to lieutenant general in 2005; all had May 10, 1951 as the date of birth.


So it was changed to 1950 for promotion in 2006 (to Lt Gen) and after promotion and he was made to approve that under duress? I am not trying to implicate the general but according to the timeline above he was "forced" to take promotion in 2006 and 2008, and after that in 2011 he asked again that his DoB be reconciled. He waited 5 years and had two promotions under duress before he tried to have that set right. is that correct?
Last edited by shiv on 12 Feb 2012 20:44, edited 1 time in total.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10097
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sum » 12 Feb 2012 20:40

^^ Wow, Gen Katoch is on fire on NDTV!!!

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby Surya » 12 Feb 2012 20:41

Shiv

Yes - he tried to reconcile at that point itself and got an obnoxious letter from MOD from a Jt Secy to boot (that letter gets me all worked up)

Eventually he was told that his stance was holding up others for promotion and in organizational interests he should accept and it would be later resolved.
Last edited by Surya on 12 Feb 2012 20:47, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby nelson » 12 Feb 2012 20:45

@Shiv
Every officer's performance and suitability for promotion is periodically reported upon by his seniors in chain of command. The document on which the report is the CR. This carries the DoB of the officer being reported and this goes up the chain of command along with a copy of the Record of Service. The same Record of Service is maintained by the Adjutant General and updated on the basis of Daily Orders Part II received from the officers unit.
All the documents CRs and Record of Service of VKS carry the DoB as 1951, because the officer himself enters it and signs it as correct and his Commanding Officer or the superior officer initiating the Report countersigns it as 'verified'.

The Military Secretary branch prepares an assessment of all the officers being considered for promotion and presents it befor the Selection Board. It is in the form of a Master Data Sheet of the officer considering all relevant details(including DoB) to comparatively assess an officer among others. The Selection Board selects the number of officers as per merit and vacancies available. The proceedings of the board along with, Master Data Sheet is approved by the COAS for Colonels and below and by MoD for Brig and above. Now this Master Data Sheets of VKS contains the DoB of 1951 for all the ranks. This is explained in the form of a letter from the previous Military Secretary quoted above in Surya's post.

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

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby chaanakya » 12 Feb 2012 20:49

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


Just curious. Was the date of birth not required for all promotions up to rank Lt General? Is there any information that the general fought to have his date of birth corrected all the way up until he became Lt general after 3 decades in the Army?
.

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

sunnydee

Re: Indian Army: News & Discussion

Postby sunnydee » 12 Feb 2012 20:54

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


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


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests