Indian Army: News & Discussion

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 09 Jan 2012 20:22

Rupesh wrote:^
Muppalla was referring to the next one in line to Succeed VKS

Rupesh, Muppalla: do you have any references to the Paki daughter-in-law angle?

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 09 Jan 2012 20:42

Philip wrote:Sandeep is not a fawning lickspittle journo,available for hire like many other yellow-rag journos.Pl. don't insult him.I have known him for a very long time and can vouch for his simplicity,integrity and steadfastnes.He is widely respectd by many of his eminent peers in the media who hold him in high esteem.He is a fine upright man who has spent years at his job and has rightfully been rewarded by reaching the top in his mag. as def. editor.

All along, one point I could not fathom,long before this article came out,why oh why didn't the chief correct/demand correction when his promotions came up? He had "3" promotions with the same DOB.It means that he was satisfied with the promotions and DOB,unless he wrote for it to be corected at that time.That would remove any doubts about his "honour" and integrity.Babudom can be remorseless and dates,figures,stats,rules are the religion of the babu which he uses to defend his actions or inactions.I agree with ACM Major who said that if the Chief was so upset,he shoulld've resigned and fought from outside.His honour thus would've not then been in question.

Are promotions based on DOB? If they are then all selection grade officers in IA should have the exact same age when they attain a selection grade rank.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Jan 2012 20:52

Philip wrote:why oh why didn't the chief correct/demand correction when his promotions came up? He had "3" promotions with the same DOB.It means that he was satisfied with the promotions and DOB,unless he wrote for it to be corected at that time.That would remove any doubts about his "honour" and integrity

This is exactly what I heard from someone else - a retired senior armed forces officer

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Jan 2012 20:55

Austin wrote:
chetak wrote:Actually, it is at the pleasure of the President of India.
If i am not wrong thats for the navy chief becuase i distinctly remember removing AVB needed presidential approval . while the Air and Land forces chief serves at the pleasure of GOI.

I am just wondering had similar incident been related to RAW ,IB chief or CS or other equally important people in GOI circle would we would have seen such controversy ?

It is not only the COAS, every commissioned officer of the Indian Army serves at the pleasure of the President. For the GoI to remove an officer it has to institute due legal or administrative process and then obtain the sanction of President(except in case of SGCM).

Sections 18 and 19 of Army Act 1951 reads...
http://indianarmy.nic.in/Site/RTI/rti/M ... ERVICE.htm

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Jan 2012 21:06

merlin wrote:Are promotions based on DOB? If they are then all selection grade officers in IA should have the exact same age when they attain a selection grade rank.

shiv wrote:
Philip wrote:why oh why didn't the chief correct/demand correction when his promotions came up? He had "3" promotions with the same DOB.It means that he was satisfied with the promotions and DOB,unless he wrote for it to be corected at that time.That would remove any doubts about his "honour" and integrity
This is exactly what I heard from someone else - a retired senior armed forces officer

Age, particularly if someone is on the younger side, has not been a consideration in the SBs except that the officer is required to have the minimum residual service before superannuation, to tenant the appointment he is likely to take over. One can not say that Gen V K Singh got an edge over a competing officer by virtue of his stated DOB(1950) in the previous SBs. On the contrary a younger age(1951) would have helped him, then also.
Let us suppose he stood by his later DOB at that point( of his appointment as Army Commander) and he did not give the 'purported acceptance' to the then chief regarding his DOB, he simply would not have been considered for that SB. His case would have been 'Deferred' to his sole detriment and any sane person would be expected to do otherwise only.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Jan 2012 21:14

And as per existing rules, then and now, if VKS were to have applied for amendment/ change of name, address or DOB it should have been to the Adjutant General branch in whose records his name, address and DOB was correct since his commissioning.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jan 2012 21:26

Just had one question , he says that he accepted twice promotion after being pressurized to accept DOB as 1950.

So is it normal to get pressurised by superiors in case of promotions and do they have any thing like dissent note , which would put it on writing ?

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 09 Jan 2012 21:27

shiv wrote:
Philip wrote:why oh why didn't the chief correct/demand correction when his promotions came up? He had "3" promotions with the same DOB.It means that he was satisfied with the promotions and DOB,unless he wrote for it to be corected at that time.That would remove any doubts about his "honour" and integrity
This is exactly what I heard from someone else - a retired senior armed forces officer

I came across this article

Antony has rejected the army chief’s statutory complaint seeking to change his date of birth from May 10, 1950, to May 10, 1951. He first sought the change in 2006 but the defense ministry has steadfastly refused to budge.

Antony told parliament, in reply to questions last September that “the date of birth of General Singh has been maintained as May 10, 1950, at the time of his selection as corps commander in 2006 as well his subsequent promotions as army commander in 2008 and the chief of army staff in 2010″.

The army chief has asked for change since 2006 when he was promoted, but the minister has refused to do so.

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 09 Jan 2012 21:36

Philip wrote:Sandeep is not a fawning lickspittle journo,available for hire like many other yellow-rag journos.Pl. don't insult him.I have known him for a very long time and can vouch for his simplicity,integrity and steadfastnes.He is widely respectd by many of his eminent peers in the media who hold him in high esteem.He is a fine upright man who has spent years at his job and has rightfully been rewarded by reaching the top in his mag. as def. editor.

All along, one point I could not fathom,long before this article came out,why oh why didn't the chief correct/demand correction when his promotions came up? He had "3" promotions with the same DOB.It means that he was satisfied with the promotions and DOB,unless he wrote for it to be corected at that time.That would remove any doubts about his "honour" and integrity.Babudom can be remorseless and dates,figures,stats,rules are the religion of the babu which he uses to defend his actions or inactions.I agree with ACM Major who said that if the Chief was so upset,he shoulld've resigned and fought from outside.His honour thus would've not then been in question.

Philip,
just to correct a few things IMHO
1) VKS has asked for correction of his DOB earlier when he was promoted in 2006. But AKAministry refused since then. God knows why things were not set right. If some one has some issue especially a defnec chief it should have been settled soon. Hope you dont doubt his honour and integrity.

Hope AKA and his ministry can be taken to task in this.

2) Regarding Sandip Unnithan article- not much research to get facts. selective writing to tarnish the army chief image.
To my eyes it is a con job. Unnithan may be upright in your esteem, I dont doubt it. One plausibility is the person above him might have changed his wordings and other aspects to make it a hit job. Now it is upto Mr Unnithan to prove his " honour and dignity" . Hope he comes with some . May it is too much to ask him as his job will be on the line.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Jan 2012 22:05

Austin wrote:Just had one question , he says that he accepted twice promotion after being pressurized to accept DOB as 1950.

So is it normal to get pressurised by superiors in case of promotions and do they have any thing like dissent note , which would put it on writing ?

it was in his own interest and coincidentally that of the organisation as well, that VKS would have voiced his consent to the then COAS, for MS to proceed the SB with his DoB in their records (the Army List).
IMO had he not done that he would be a Lt Gen(Retd) running around the corridors of AFT/ Supreme Court, for the same reasons that he is anticipated to do now.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jan 2012 22:14

If it was in his own interest to accept it under pressure as he says he did , he very well knew then this issue about DOB willl come up during his retirement.

So is he is expecting and asking for best of both world which is to get the previous 2 promotion accepting under duress DOB as 1950 and once he is the chief he expects his right DOB as in his certificate be accepted , ignoring what two promotion and duress part ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jan 2012 22:23

chetak wrote:
merlin wrote:In today's DNA Seema Mustafa makes the claim that the new guy that GoI wants in place is unpopular and that with 50 as DoB we will have that new guy. With 51 we get someone else who is considered a thinking general.

For once, she has hit the nail on the head!

Chetak, Are their bigger forces behind this issue? Seems that TSPA got regular browning with VKS speeches. So maybe as part of piss process there are moves to rake up DOB and other non-sequitor issues?
Kolaveri NYT is taking interest in this matter?

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 09 Jan 2012 22:27

^^ now, if it is to be surmised as 'asking for both the worlds' there is little that can be discussed further. else, it explains rational behaviour on part of VKS.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Jan 2012 23:26

Another question i had on DOB , now the General states the two promotion was based on forced DOB of 1950 but not the right one of 1951 , would he get the one or two promotions if he had insisted on correct DOB which was 1951 at that point in time ?

Or the true DOB of 1951 was irrelevant to his promotion , which is to say could he had easily missed the bus to the other guy who was also in the queue if he had accepted 1951 instead of 1950 ?

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 09 Jan 2012 23:50

Austin wrote:Another question i had on DOB , now the General states the two promotion was based on forced DOB of 1950 but not the right one of 1951 , would he get the one or two promotions if he had insisted on correct DOB which was 1951 at that point in time ?

Or the true DOB of 1951 was irrelevant to his promotion , which is to say could he had easily missed the bus to the other guy who was also in the queue if he had accepted 1951 instead of 1950 ?

Being "young" does not stop an officer being promoted, but for certain posts the officer can be too "old". In short, Gen VKS would have got all his promotions even if the last 2 or 3 promotions had used 1951 as his birth year. There is no minimum age to be a Lt. Gen, or a Corp Commander, or an Army Commander, or Chief.

Seems to me that all of Gen. VKS's promotions were based on 1951 until Gen. VKS' predecessor became Army Chief and started to insist to VKS that VKS accept 1950.

Why did VKS' predecessor have to insist to VKS that he accept 1950? Why not 1951, which is what all the documentary evidence supports? Why was VKS being pressured to accept the wrong date? It appears to me that there is a deep-rooted conspiracy between certain government officials and Gen. VKS' predecessor to ensure that VKS retired in May 2012.

I think the Supreme Court should examine the actions of both Gen. VKS' predecessor in this case, as well as the merits of Gen. VKS's case. The government cannot be relied upon to act fairly in this matter.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 10 Jan 2012 00:26

nelson, eklavya

thats an interesting point

Seems to me that all of Gen. VKS's promotions were based on 1951 until Gen. VKS' predecessor became Army Chief and started to insist to VKS that VKS accept 1950.

do we have some references to this?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Jan 2012 03:35

Gen VKS ,if he was "pressurised" by a superior to accept his "new" and "incorrect" DOB,should've added the words "without prejudice",in his correspondence on the matter.However,what has happened is that the controversy,which should've been kept "within the family",is now fast becoming a "street brawl".What the good general should've done was to have exhausted his passionate plea of preserving his "honour" with his DM and we are told that he even wrote to the PM,but got no relief.

Therefore,he should've resigned in protest before his successor was announced and fought the "good fight" to preserve his honour,if he so wished ,from the outside.His esteem in the public eye would've soared,as everyone knows that service chiefs are sometimes treated like domestic servants by babudom and the politicos.Gen.VKS instead when "discretion" on his part would've been the "better part of valour" ,has even given a TV interview,when he should've kept silent. Lt.Gen Sinha set a very fine example when he resigned after being superseded.His reputation today is the equal of any chief.

But this controversy has also disgraced the MOD/GOI,as knowing the ultra-sensitivity of the matter,the DM and PM should've immediately sorted out the issue one way or the other and given the good general the bad news that according to the MOD's legal opinion,he was on the losing side,listing out his options: to accept,to reject and resign,or to reject and remain fighting a battle in the courts.It could've also asked HIM,what HE thought was the best option in the interests of the service and himself.The entire matter could've been resolved behind closed doors.However,selected leaks all along have informed us that the good general has been consulting a battery of lawyers,judges,etc., implying that he is actually right and in the courts will fight!
When Adm.Bhagwat was being armtwisted by the MOD and Uncle George,he stood firm and to his credit refused to budge.He was sacked as a result for his obstinacy,but gained a lot of sympathy for sticking to his guns.

Now that the matter has gone public,I cannot see the GOI and babudom willing to give in to the general,as they would wish to preserve and demonstrate the fact that the armed services are always under civilian control. A "compromise" now as suggested by some,where the MOD accepts the general's DOB as stated by him,yet sends him on his way into the sunset in May,perhaps even giving him a gubernatorial assignment or as envoy to some far flung land as compensation for his "loss",will make a mockery of procedure and protocol and henceforth any multi-starred officer can in the future produce a school entrance certificates showing that he is actually a stripling young lad years younger than his stated age ,deserving a long innings at the crease!

I know of one fine highly decorated officer,who someyears ago said NO to his chief on a matter of principle.He was punished by the denial of flag rank,which he richly deserved,which promotion would've seen him ending up as chief of his service.He never fought his case ans suffered in silence.Says a famous quote,"I weigh the man, not his title; 'tis not the king's stamp can make the metal better or heavier"? Or as the poet Robert Burns famously wrote,"rank is but the guinea stamp,man himself's the gold".

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 10 Jan 2012 04:14

^^Philip have you gone through this video, posted by Nelson on previous page ? Especially last 10 mins :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRlT4dIP ... embedded#!

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Jan 2012 08:15

From the Hindustan Times

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 10 Jan 2012 08:40

Surya wrote:nelson, eklavya

thats an interesting point

Seems to me that all of Gen. VKS's promotions were based on 1951 until Gen. VKS' predecessor became Army Chief and started to insist to VKS that VKS accept 1950.
do we have some references to this?

It is under RTI that MOD has stated that all promotions till 2006 was based on 1951. Youtube video clearly informs that UPSC sought explanation on wrong date of birth in application form and VKS had clarified to UPSC with his Matric certificate.

It is wrong to suggest that VKS wanted change in DOB based on Matric certificate. It was always 1951 till MS branch brought this issue in 2005-06 and did not reconcile with AG Branch. VKS had no reason to believe that his DOB as 1951 was not entered in the records. Just because an officer writes his DOB in some application paper, it does not become accepted till proof is shown. If we follow his advise then whatever is stated in application form, irrespective of accepted documentary proof, should become authentic. The matter of reconciliation between two branches of army is being tauted as application by an officer to get his DOB changed at the fag end of his career. It is not. This is politicking and dirty one at that to promote someone who otherwise be equally deserving but would not become COAS if VKS does not give way. When he gave that letter under orders of the then COAS, he did mention "as directed" which clearly indicated that it is no his acceptance although I would have liked him to say plain and simple no. But I don't think mater is as innocent as it is made out to be.

There is no reason why he should resign prematurely. He should seek remedy available before SC and if decision does not come before his retirement, he should retire and wait for judgement to come out. The judgement would be the proverbial last straw on the the Camel's back.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 10 Jan 2012 09:59

Lt Gen AK Chaudhary takes over Director General Military Operations

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 10 Jan 2012 10:20

This flare up with the civilians was a time bomb waiting to happen. Politicians and bureaucrats, most of them from backgrounds unfamiliar with the importance of traditions, have longridden rough shod over the armed forces, and they have suffered in silence. It is time the defence force defended itself against this internal enemy. If the General is right, and all indications are that he is right, then he should stick to his guns and not give in to the civilians, who want to hoist their own choice on the services.

That the civilians are wrong is proven by the fact that they made an offer of post retirement employment in the form of governorship/ambassadorship to VKS, which, to his eternal credit, VKS rejected. Kudos to the man who refuses to be bribed.

The civilians need to be taught a lesson and this is it.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jan 2012 10:30

In 1958 Gen Thimmayya was eased out and we saw what happened in 1962. Times are similar. Dont want to give wrong ideas to anyone.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Jan 2012 10:34

abhischekcc wrote:The civilians need to be taught a lesson and this is it.

Exactly what lesson ? All chief from IB ,RAW , CS ,NSA and Defence Chief serves at the pleasure of GOI and not the other way round ...... Constitutionally and Legally Its entirely within Government prerogative to kick out any of the above mentioned person if it wishes to do so and at any time it wants to.

Had this been some IB or RAW chief the Govt would have just told him to go and fly a kite , since the matter involves Defence Chief like it was done during Adm VB and now VKS the GOI is being sensitive and handling it accordingly.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 10 Jan 2012 10:37

Surya wrote:nelson, eklavya

thats an interesting point

Seems to me that all of Gen. VKS's promotions were based on 1951 until Gen. VKS' predecessor became Army Chief and started to insist to VKS that VKS accept 1950.
do we have some references to this?

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

Antony faces trouble for statement on army chief's age

Now Antony faces potential trouble in Parliament. Samajwadi Party MP Mohan Singh has demanded a clarification on Antony’s apparently false reply to a parliamentary question that the MP raised on the army chief’s date of birth. In his written reply to the Rajya Sabha on September 7, Antony declared, “The date of birth of General V K Singh, Chief of Army Staff, has been maintained as May 10,1950 at the time of his selection as Corps Commander in 2006, as well as his subsequent promotions as Army Commander in 2008 and Chief of the Army Staff in 2010.”

This, it is learnt, is untrue. The army’s Military Secretary’s Branch (MS Branch), which directly handles promotions, clearly informed the defence secretary in writing, on July 1 that all senior-level promotions of the army chief had been approved with his birth date reflected as May 10, 1951.

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.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 10 Jan 2012 11:01

Thanks Kanson. I think that settles it. ALL promotions to VKS upto Sept 2005 was on the basis of 1951 then. To what level these people stoop to is unimaginable.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Jan 2012 11:07

Austin wrote:If it was in his own interest to accept it under pressure as he says he did , he very well knew then this issue about DOB willl come up during his retirement. So is he is expecting and asking for best of both world which is to get the previous 2 promotion accepting under duress DOB as 1950 and once he is the chief he expects his right DOB as in his certificate be accepted , ignoring what two promotion and duress part ?

Well, it would be good for discussion if you get the facts correct and not twist them.

Him accepting his DOB as 1950 did not help him in promotion. 1950 or 1951 would not have made a difference. He was forced to accept it under duress. This is what Shukla wrote:
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/09/ ... attle.html

In concluding that 1950 should be regarded as Gen Singh’s birth year, the MoD has argued that the army chief had himself accepted that date. Now Business Standard has accessed confidential documents that show that this acceptance was under pressure. The documents illustrate that Gen Singh was explicitly threatened by MS Branch to accept that he was born in 1950; and that the MoD had serious concerns over the MS Branch’s handling of this issue.

When Gen Singh was being evaluated for appointment as the commander of the eastern army in Kolkata, the MS Branch sent his documents to the MoD in 2007. On 14th Dec 07, the key MoD official dealing with promotions and postings of senior officers, Joint Secretary (G) Bimal Julka, wrote a secret letter --- number MoD ID No. 11(9)/2007-D(MS) --- to the Military Secretary, Lt Gen PR Gangadharan. Julka asked how the MS Branch had changed Gen VK Singh’s date of birth from 1951 to 1950. Echoing what Gen Singh says today, Julka demands to know, “It is seen… that the officer has all along indicated his date of birth as 10.5.1951. Hence, the basis for officer’s date of birth as 10.5.1950 may please be indicated.”

Julka’s question triggered a flurry of letters from the MS Branch to Gen Singh (then a lieutenant general commanding the prestigious 2 Corps), demanding an unequivocal written commitment that he was born in 1950. When Gen Singh demurred, the MS Branch issued a bald threat. In wireless signal number 388025/2008/MS(X) dated 24th Jan 08, MS Branch demanded an unconditional and immediate commitment to a 1950 birth year, adding, “If reply not recd (received) by 1000 hrs (hours) on 25 Jan 08 action deemed appropriate will be taken.”

Gen Singh believed that “action deemed appropriate” was an MS Branch threat to scuttle his candidature as eastern army commander. The same day he sent off his acceptance to MS Branch, but continued a testy correspondence, protesting this demand.

The MS Branch lost no time in triumphantly telling the MoD’s Julka that Singh had accepted 1950 as his birth year. But it was hardly possible for the MS Branch to hide its own faults. In letter number A/45751/Army Cdr/MS(X) dated 25 Jan 08, addressed to the MoD’s Bimal Julka, Lt Gen Gangadharan admitted that two birth dates existed “because of lack of coordination between the two branches (MS and AG’s) at that point in time…. The officer had also been mentioning 10 May 1951 in all his ACRs (Annual Confidential Records) but the MS Branch did not seek clarification/reconcile his date of birth.”

The MoD could see that Gen Singh’s acceptance of 1950 was half-hearted. In a confidential letter --- MoD ID No. 11(9)/2007-D(MS) dated 25 Jan 08 --- Bimal Julka wrote to the MS, “On perusal of the letter of Lt Gen VK Singh to MS dated 24 Jan 2008, it is evident that the doubts regarding his date of birth remain unanswered.” Julka demanded “a detailed enquiry into the matter to find out the correct date of birth of the officer immediately in consultation with AG’s Branch.”

The AG’s Branch responded on 30th Jan 08, stating that “the date of birth of IC-24173 Lt Gen VK Singh has always remained 10 May 1951. This has been corroborated in all of the documents on file of the officer in MP Directorate (which maintains officers’ records). Copies of the same have already been endorsed to MS Branch.”

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 10 Jan 2012 11:12

ramana wrote:In 1958 Gen Thimmayya was eased out and we saw what happened in 1962. Times are similar. Dont want to give wrong ideas to anyone.

ramana, the man General Thimmayya wanted to become as COAS, Lt. General SPP Thorat, was an outstanding officer and serving as Eastern Army Commander. This gentleman, in 1959/1960 had predicted the outcome of Indo-China hostilities when he carried out a detailed exercise called Operation Lal Quila.

Kailash · Post by **Kailash** » 10 Jan 2012 11:13

Defence diary: AAD Raising Day today

The Corps of Army Air Defence (AAD), the youngest arm of Indian Army, will celebrate its 19th raising day on Tuesday. The Army Air Defence has dedicated itself to the service of the nation with its motto, Akashe Shatrun Jahi, (Destroy the enemy in sky).
A vibrant and effective air defence environment backed by low and medium level surveillance and automated control and reporting system, is essential to protect the key strategic installations as well as combat potential and to provide freedom of manoeuvre to our fighting force. It is imperative that the Corps remains abreast with ever changing face of technology and maintain high degree of operation preparedness. The Corps is always- First In and Last Out in the gamut of operations and provides credible air defence cover to vital assets of strategic importance and field forces, said a press release.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Jan 2012 11:45

rohitvats wrote:Well, it would be good for discussion if you get the facts correct and not twist them.

Him accepting his DOB as 1950 did not help him in promotion. 1950 or 1951 would not have made a difference. He was forced to accept it under duress. This is what Shukla wrote:
http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2011/09/ ... attle.html

Gen Singh believed that “action deemed appropriate” was an MS Branch threat to scuttle his candidature as eastern army commander. The same day he sent off his acceptance to MS Branch, but continued a testy correspondence, protesting this demand.

Ok lets assume Shukla is 100 % factually correct and Gen Singh believed that MS Branch was threatening to scuttle his candidature as EAC , why didnt he simply refused to budge under threats and approached the court then.

Wouldnt it been right of him to approach the court when twice he was forced to accept 1950 as DOB under threats or just refuse to accept any promotion , rather then waiting to become the Army Chief and in the last 4 month ending up in stand off with the Govt.

Wouldnt some one who says to be a man of honour would rather not accept any position under force if that simply meant he wont be a EAC but would put his resignation then and/or approach the court ?

To me it seems he wanted both those position for his career advancement even if that was meant to be accepted under force and he also wanted both DOB to continue as it as , since he foresaw this would come to haunt the Government during his end of his tenure which is exactly the case.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 10 Jan 2012 11:57

Austin wrote: To me it seems he wanted both those position for his career advancement even if that was meant to be accepted under force and he also wanted both DOB to continue as it as , since he foresaw this would come to haunt the Government during his end of his tenure which is exactly the case.

What exactly is wrong with this position? Now he is in a far more visible position that people will actually hear him out. Otherwise hes just an army-wallah that nobody else cares about. Now that he actually gets press visibility, pressure on him is reduced or he can put pressure on the opponents. Sounds like a very wise move when you're not fighting idiots with guns but political games. I see nothing wrong with it. Especially with that document linked above.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Jan 2012 12:21

pandyan wrote:Why is almighty-government feeling "haunted" by a simple man? Why did different organizations within Army not reconcile the differences on their own? What is their motivation to do this?

To me this case is another example of bullying/corruption/arm twisting that is going on in different sections of Government/MOD/Army.

I don't see how the government is responsible here. It was the Army that forced Gen. VK Singh to accept 1950 as his year of birth, after the MoD asked it to explain the discrepancy. The government today has a letter from Gen. Singh recording his acceptance of the older DoB, and an explanation that it was half-hearted. Now while the goodl thing might be for it to overlook it, I can see why the govt. wouldn't want to set a precedent and would simply ask him to leave as scheduled.

Bala Vignesh · Post by **Bala Vignesh** » 10 Jan 2012 13:03

Austin wrote: Wouldnt it been right of him to approach the court when twice he was forced to accept 1950 as DOB under threats or just refuse to accept any promotion , rather then waiting to become the Army Chief and in the last 4 month ending up in stand off with the Govt.

Wouldnt some one who says to be a man of honour would rather not accept any position under force if that simply meant he wont be a EAC but would put his resignation then and/or approach the court ?

To me it seems he wanted both those position for his career advancement even if that was meant to be accepted under force and he also wanted both DOB to continue as it as , since he foresaw this would come to haunt the Government during his end of his tenure which is exactly the case.

Austinji,

In my very humble opinions, what Gen VKS did could be considered a tactical retreat.. At that point of time he was not in a position to get his voice heard, so like a good tactician, he realized that it was best to carry out a fighting retreat and carry out his fight at much more favourabe position, which is what he is doing.
If he had done any of the things that you mentioned, he would have been sidelined the day he resigned and be forced to wander around in the labyrinths of the Indian courts. Instead he took his stand at a position where he would not only be heard but be noticed by a lot more influential people which would put pressure on whoever was behind this conspiracy.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 10 Jan 2012 13:08

Viv S wrote:
pandyan wrote:Why is almighty-government feeling "haunted" by a simple man? Why did different organizations within Army not reconcile the differences on their own? What is their motivation to do this?

To me this case is another example of bullying/corruption/arm twisting that is going on in different sections of Government/MOD/Army.
I don't see how the government is responsible here. It was the Army that forced Gen. VK Singh to accept 1950 as his year of birth, after the MoD asked it to explain the discrepancy. The government today has a letter from Gen. Singh recording his acceptance of the older DoB, and an explanation that it was half-hearted. Now while the goodl thing might be for it to overlook it, I can see why the govt. wouldn't want to set a precedent and would simply ask him to leave as scheduled.

One can change their name, religion or even gender but change the date of birth???

How is it possible??

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Jan 2012 13:16

chetak wrote:One can change their name, religion or even gender but change the date of birth???

How is it possible??

No one is saying his actual date of birth has changed to 1950. The issue is that he gave a written undertaking accepting a faulty record, that he technically speaking shouldn't have.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 10 Jan 2012 13:30

Viv S wrote:
pandyan wrote:Why is almighty-government feeling "haunted" by a simple man? Why did different organizations within Army not reconcile the differences on their own? What is their motivation to do this?

To me this case is another example of bullying/corruption/arm twisting that is going on in different sections of Government/MOD/Army.
I don't see how the government is responsible here. It was the Army that forced Gen. VK Singh to accept 1950 as his year of birth, after the MoD asked it to explain the discrepancy. The government today has a letter from Gen. Singh recording his acceptance of the older DoB, and an explanation that it was half-hearted. Now while the goodl thing might be for it to overlook it, I can see why the govt. wouldn't want to set a precedent and would simply ask him to leave as scheduled.

Firstly, i am surprised to see the govt divested of its responsibility of the Army, after all it is the Indian Army.
Secondly, this 'armtwisting' is the very reason that one expects more skeletons to fall out Military Secretary's closet, if and when VKS moves court.
Thirdly, an army officer cannot give a two-sentenced letter and change his name, address, DoB, religion or sex.
IIRC
-one has to produce proof of fact (Gazette notification/ matriculation certificate, etc) and justify change in circumstance necessitating the amendment. these are sent to the record keeper Adjutant General branch.
-there is police verification at the state DGP/ commissionerate level. -after this the Army HQ Adjutant General branch gives sanction to amends its records with publication of a Daily Order Part II.
- the concerned ship/ unit publishes the order and then amendment of records takes place.
-the AGs branch then notifies all others including the pay disbursing agency - CDAO and posting and promotions agency - Military Secretary branch.

with this knowledge it would be easier to understand that MS branch role in handling of personal details like name, age and address is in the form of a user and not as a record keeper. and the record keeper (AG) has always maintained VKS DoB as 1951,
now if one extracts a two line letter from VKS stating that he is not 'he' but a female, he is not going to become Gen Mrs VKS overnight.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 10 Jan 2012 13:50

In other news, as per reliable website giving out news on all matters of top bureaucratic and administrative echelons of the nation, there are three Army Corps without GOC ie 9, 14 and 15.
It can be safely presumed that the MoD is not finalising the list of promotees to Lt Gen rank with undue haste.

for details see yesterday's whispers in http://www.whispersinthecorridors.com

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 10 Jan 2012 13:54

nelson wrote: Firstly, i am surprised to see the govt divested of its responsibility of the Army, after all it is the Indian Army.
Secondly, this 'armtwisting' is the very reason that one expects more skeletons to fall out Military Secretary's closet, if and when VKS moves court.
Thirdly, an army officer cannot give a two-sentenced letter and change his name, address, DoB, religion or sex.
IIRC

Its doesn't share any direct responsibility. Sure, the government controls the armed forces, and is therefore implicitly responsible for all decisions taken by the army. But that's an issue of semantics. Its like saying people elected the govt. so the Indian public is at fault. For all practical purposes, the course of events was played out within the Army.

If and when the officer was arm-twisted, he should have gone to court right away.

I haven't read the text of his letter accepting the older DoB, but I would assume it was very relevant to the issue in hand i.e. retirement age.

now if one extracts a two line letter from VKS stating that he is not 'he' but a female, he is not going to become Gen Mrs VKS overnight.

Again one would have to go through the text of his letter, but in general - the 'letter was extracted under duress' is not an adequate defence. If the contents were false or even in dispute, he should never have signed that piece of paper.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Jan 2012 14:05

Viv S wrote:If and when the officer was arm-twisted, he should have gone to court right away.

Agreed wonder why any one wouldnt do that after taking the first promotion under duress and wouldnt be worried that the second one could end up in the same way ( which it did ) and go to court to reconcile with correct DOB , he would have been aware having 2 DOB floating in some official record would end up with some kind of stale mate during end of his tenure.

So to put it on record he had 3 opportunities to approach the court the first time , the second time and 3rd time when i suppose he became the chief , One opportunity is good enough for any one to know where he stands and what are the pitfalls.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 10 Jan 2012 14:06

^^^also, a very pertinent question arises, as to "what is the consideration, for which the then COAS and MS extracted such assurances from VKS?"
if a logical answer to this question can be given either based on facts or merely conjecture, it is easy to fill the gap, between their interest in getting VKS DoB fixed to 1950 and the impending successor.

Viv S wrote: if and when the officer was arm-twisted, he should have gone to court right away.
I haven't read the text of his letter accepting the older DoB, but I would assume it was very relevant to the issue in hand i.e. retirement age.
.
.
.
Again one would have to go through the text of his letter, but in general - the 'letter was extracted under duress' is not an adequate defence. If the contents were blatantly false, he should never have signed that piece of paper.

i would like to believe that VKS has not given " I accept that for all practical purpose, hitherto and henceforth, my actual DoB is ...May1950". he probably would have polished it enough to leave it to the interpretation of the reader or "the extractor"