Indian Army: News & Discussion

sunnydee · Post by **sunnydee** » 06 Feb 2012 00:28

Nelson you want them to destroy the Indian Army further by letting an officer, who made it from a Brigadier to a LtGeneral on the basis of his political considerations, become the COAS ?

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 06 Feb 2012 00:30

Surya wrote:The IA has been tragically unfortunate that it had 3 l;ousy chiefs one after the other Vij , JJ and DK - one all pompous, one all fun and frolic and one a crook.

And all rewarded in one way or another, by the GOI. The (very competent) chief before Vij (Gen. Sundararajan Padmanabhan) very politely declined any offers of governorship, etc being thrown around by the govt. Far from chasing such post retirement sinecures, he refused them. And his reputation is unimpeachable. Meanwhile, the three rubbish chiefs that followed, had actively sought such 'rewards'. Looks like the Govt is unable to deal with a clean chief.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 06 Feb 2012 00:32

Meanwhile, I will remind EVERYONE, that the matter is sub judice, and unnecessary speculation and ranting about the truth of the facts one way or another is not only unnecessary, but undesirable, during pendente lite.

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 06 Feb 2012 00:34

^^^@Sunnydee
That they can achieve only if the govt wins in the present one.

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 06 Feb 2012 00:39

What better place than the Army thread to remind ourselves that misplaced sense of morality led us to aftermaths of the Battles of Tarain.

sunnydee · Post by **sunnydee** » 06 Feb 2012 00:39

Nelson couldnt the question be changed to "what if the government wins" ?

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 06 Feb 2012 00:41

Where is the honour in this battle, General VK Singh?

Sir,

As a person who grew up dreaming of joining the army, I was shocked to hear the news of you approaching the Supreme Court on the issue of your age.

The military has been a part of my life; my father served in the army and the schools I attended the most were surrounded by the aura of uniformed personnel. Even though I could not become an army officer, I looked upon it as THE way of life.

Like a young child that believes its English teacher is right more than its English-professor father, I pin my faith in you in your battle with the government. However, as even reality is only relative, I write you this letter.

I don’t understand why your official date of birth — you say it should be 1951, while the government says it is recorded as 1950 — is being discussed now in the twilight of your term as chief of the army. For, the issue was cleared when you were promoted as a commander in 2008.

Even the news reports that seem to support your case say that in 2008, when the discrepancy was raised and you were told to accept 1950 as your DoB, you — maybe under duress — said “whatever decision is taken in organisational interest is acceptable to me”. Other reports say you accepted 1950 as the DoB.

In either case, didn’t the issue end at that point? Unless you think that what was in the organisational interest then is not so anymore.

Since generals are the face of the 1.1 million-strong force and show the way for the soldiers, my doubt is why such a senior officer would — whatever the pressures be — give a vague reply about organisational interest when the issue at hand was a very personal one. Or why even under duress accept a wrong DoB.

Once you accepted a lie for a personal benefit, what example were you setting?....

sunnydee · Post by **sunnydee** » 06 Feb 2012 00:44

ldev wrote:Where is the honour in this battle, General VK Singh?

Sir,

As a person who grew up dreaming of joining the army, I was shocked to hear the news of you approaching the Supreme Court on the issue of your age.

The military has been a part of my life; my father served in the army and the schools I attended the most were surrounded by the aura of uniformed personnel. Even though I could not become an army officer, I looked upon it as THE way of life.

Like a young child that believes its English teacher is right more than its English-professor father, I pin my faith in you in your battle with the government. However, as even reality is only relative, I write you this letter.

I don’t understand why your official date of birth — you say it should be 1951, while the government says it is recorded as 1950 — is being discussed now in the twilight of your term as chief of the army. For, the issue was cleared when you were promoted as a commander in 2008.

Even the news reports that seem to support your case say that in 2008, when the discrepancy was raised and you were told to accept 1950 as your DoB, you — maybe under duress — said “whatever decision is taken in organisational interest is acceptable to me”. Other reports say you accepted 1950 as the DoB.

In either case, didn’t the issue end at that point? Unless you think that what was in the organisational interest then is not so anymore.

Since generals are the face of the 1.1 million-strong force and show the way for the soldiers, my doubt is why such a senior officer would — whatever the pressures be — give a vague reply about organisational interest when the issue at hand was a very personal one. Or why even under duress accept a wrong DoB.

Once you accepted a lie for a personal benefit, what example were you setting?....

+1
The Author shares my background and couldnt have mirrored my feelings better..

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 06 Feb 2012 00:59

^^^ there is no need to keep regurgitating. you prove the 'benefit' and rest your case. he has earned his rank. he did not rise to this position at the benevolence of anyone else.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Feb 2012 01:00

And the writer of that letter has mis-cast the subject as the Chief seeking an extension when the real issue is the dual set of records in the Army AG and MS branch and the MOD using them selectively. The MS branch records are incorrect and need to be corrected based on principles of natural justice.

So the issue is being fogged to ensure that the victim seeking justice for correcting is being accused of having repugnant motives. This is the same hit job the general was complaining about.

So sunnydee you have already made you view clear. If you post more in the same vein I need to warn you fro trolling and misrepresentation of the VKS DOB issue.
Thanks,

ramana

Nelson, I would suggest you edit your post about MI. Its not pertinent to the issues.

Thanks.
ramana

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 06 Feb 2012 01:06

sunnydee wrote:....Where is the honour in this battle, General VK Singh?

Sir,

As a person who grew up dreaming of joining the army, I was shocked to hear the news of you approaching the Supreme Court on the issue of your age.

The military has been a part of my life; my father served in the army and the schools I attended the most were surrounded by the aura of uniformed personnel. Even though I could not become an army officer, I looked upon it as THE way of life.

Like a young child that believes its English teacher is right more than its English-professor father, I pin my faith in you in your battle with the government. However, as even reality is only relative, I write you this letter.

I don’t understand why your official date of birth — you say it should be 1951, while the government says it is recorded as 1950 — is being discussed now in the twilight of your term as chief of the army. For, the issue was cleared when you were promoted as a commander in 2008.

Even the news reports that seem to support your case say that in 2008, when the discrepancy was raised and you were told to accept 1950 as your DoB, you — maybe under duress — said “whatever decision is taken in organisational interest is acceptable to me”. Other reports say you accepted 1950 as the DoB.

In either case, didn’t the issue end at that point? Unless you think that what was in the organisational interest then is not so anymore.

Since generals are the face of the 1.1 million-strong force and show the way for the soldiers, my doubt is why such a senior officer would — whatever the pressures be — give a vague reply about organisational interest when the issue at hand was a very personal one. Or why even under duress accept a wrong DoB.

Once you accepted a lie for a personal benefit, what example were you setting?....
+1
The Author shares my background and couldnt have mirrored my feelings better..

@Sunnydee
The author's background i note is that he is an ardent supporter of the present govt from topics ranging from corruption , lokpal to DoB. Do you really share this background.
Or, are you misled by first lines where he says he dreamt of joining the army?
JMT

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 06 Feb 2012 02:07

sunnydee wrote:The Author shares my background and couldnt have mirrored my feelings better..

That letter is pure rubbish. No half-way self-respecting newspaper would ever publish an anonymous personal attack of this nature.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 06 Feb 2012 04:05

narmad wrote:
Sanku wrote:To think Vishnu also comes across and posts here pretending to be a well wisher of armed forces.
May be he is being the Devil's Advocate

Finally got some time to watch his interview and to me it looked very pro army discussion. As interviewer you get questions from skeptics answered by believers. He invited 2 most pro general, ex-army folks to discuss issue witout anyone from govt/congress to counter them. Than he goes on to paraphrasing (he clearly says many times that Gen VK's critics's say this.....) all the questions that anti-army brigade is asking and gets them answered.

This is as pro army as it gets in my book.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Feb 2012 04:16

Kunal,this is not the first time (way before the current issue) that one has heard that "Caesar's wife is not above suspicion".

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 06 Feb 2012 06:16

I dont know if this has been posted earlier.

The guilty men of 2012

Let us analyse who are the guilty men in this entire saga:
Guilty No.1: Mr. Bhatnagar, Gen. Singh’s school teacher who put in his date of birth as 10 May 1950 in his UPSC form for NDA. As to why the General, then 14-and-a-half years old, did not fill the form himself as required is a moot point. This entry remained in the records of the Military Secretary branch, to be exploited by interested parties later.

Guilty No.2: Military Secretary at Army HQ in 2006. In 2006, Gen. Singh wrote to Army HQ to reconcile his two dates of birth, 1950 in MS branch and 1951 as given in his high school certificate held by the Adjutant General’s branch, which is the date on every military record, including his identity card, and the basis of every promotion he was given upto the rank of Lt. Gen. The school certificate is the authority on date of birth, as per a Supreme Court ruling. The Military Secretary did not reconcile the dates. Not even a reply was sent to Gen. Singh. Army HQ does not normally function in this way. The Military Secretary could not have ignored the issue on his own.

Guilty No.3: Military Secretary, Army HQ in 2008. In 2008, Gen. Singh once again wrote to Army HQ requesting that the date of birth be rectified. Once again, it was not done. This time, the issue is more sinister. The MS branch at Army HQ is responsible for forwarding the dossiers of all army commanders and the vice chief to the MoD, who then forward these to the appointments committee of the Cabinet to select a new chief. The MS branch did not send the high school certificate of Gen. Singh in his dossier. Not only that, he was asked to give an undertaking that he would accept any date of birth that the government wanted him to. Why this illegal activity took place and why the General accepted this blackmail must be probed.

Guilty No.4: Defence Secretary in 2008. Once the dossiers reached the MoD, it was the duty of the Defence Secretary to ensure that all documents in it were in order. Either inadvertently or deliberately, he did not put in the high school certificate of Gen. Singh in the dossier to be sent up to the appointments committee of the Cabinet which, based on an incorrect input, declared Gen. Singh as Army chief until 31 May 2012, based on the MS branch’s date of birth, 10 May 1950. The government now has egg on its face due to this error.

Guilty No.5: The Army chief in 2008. Gen. Singh claims that when he remonstrated with the Army chief in 2008 about his wrong date of birth being sent up, he was coerced to accept it in writing. This calls into serious question the role of the then Army chief.

Guilty No.6: Gen. V.K. Singh, in 2008 and subsequently is now claiming the moral high ground that he is only fighting for his honour and recognition of his correct DoB by the Supreme Court. However, the fact that he gave it in writing in 2008 that he would accept 1950 as his year of birth goes to show that the urge to become the Army chief was so strong, it overcame his sense of injustice. As an honourable soldier, he should have refused to give any such undertaking and exposed the perpetrators. In all fairness, only then he would have been entitled to the moral high ground he now claims. Even now, he is being cagey about it. Also Gen. Singh says he only wants his honour vindicated. Why then on the last page of his writ petition has he said that in case the Supreme Court upholds his case, he should get all attendant benifits. This means he could continue in service until 31 March 2013, when he attains 62 years of age. This flies in the face of his moral posturing.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 06 Feb 2012 06:46

sunnydee wrote:As suggested repeatedly an inquiry would help clear every question posed

Which was stymied by a previous army chief as not necessary. Ofcourse VKS as the present army chief could have ordered his subordinates to conduct an inquiry over this issue but it would have been improper and thus approached the courts after a proper complaint was made to the defence ministry. Remember no inquiry was conducted while changing the date in 2006. So the inquiry which was cancelled by a previous army chief is going on RIGHT NOW. So what is your problem with that?

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 06 Feb 2012 07:20

Even now, he is being cagey about it. Also Gen. Singh says he only wants his honour vindicated. Why then on the last page of his writ petition has he said that in case the Supreme Court upholds his case, he should get all attendant benefits. This means he could continue in service until 31 March 2013, when he attains 62 years of age. This flies in the face of his moral posturing.

I didn't understand this part. Why should the General not continue if the SC upholds his version? Why is it immoral to be Army chief if the SC says that he can continue? Is it not immoral if he after winning the case acts like an idiot and allow the govt to do what they were trying to do, to subvert the selection process for reasons only known to the govt? After winning the case he should with great moral responsibility, continue to be India's Army chief.
To the editor: Morality is not about surrendering to criminals and corrupt people. Fighting against them and winning to uphold Dharma and good rule is called Morality. Good people must be at the top, not criminals. In India all good people sit aside thinking that people with good morality must not be at the top like in politics. And the political area is filled with criminals and corrupt. This will end when good people start to take over. If challenged by the corrupt, you must fight for it and win.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 06 Feb 2012 07:53

Indian Armed Forces to begin vaccination programme among new recruits

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 06 Feb 2012 08:25

Meningococal Meningitis can be fatal as this disease affects the brain. Military recruits are known to be a high risk population for this disease as it is known to occur more commonly among crowded living conditions.

huh??

more crowded than life in India???

nelson · Post by **nelson** » 06 Feb 2012 12:02

Gentlemen, it is slowly unraveling. Listen to Mr KC Singh former Diplomat between 7.30 min and 10.00 min on this. He says and repeats that PM has personally authorised the Tribune's editor Raj Chengappa for his 'balanced' and no-holds barred dissection of the DoB row.

http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/226948/ind ... desai.html

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 06 Feb 2012 13:54

Dont be surprised if that worthy toady gets nominated to the Rajya Sabha pretty soon...

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Feb 2012 14:04

^^^This very KC Singh had the temerity to say on national TV that VKS is doing all this because of grudge against former Chief(s) and both Antony and VKS need to be sacked by the GOI. So, very slowly but surely the truth is coming out.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 06 Feb 2012 14:08

rohitvats wrote:^^^This very KC Singh had the temerity to say on national TV that VKS is doing all this because of grudge against former Chief(s) and both Antony and VKS need to be sacked by the GOI. So, very slowly but surely the truth is coming out.

Satyamev Jayate.

kunalverma · Post by **kunalverma** » 06 Feb 2012 14:14

kunalverma wrote:MORAL BEARINGS

Hope this is not true, for if it is, it would be such a shame...
A little Birdie tells me...
Trade off for projecting the CAG's case in such detail, the PMO is nominating the editor of the Tribune for the Rajya Sabha.
Wonder where that leaves the editor of yet another weekly? Padma B? Bharat Ratna?

Had posted on 29 January. Wait and watch....

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 06 Feb 2012 14:18

Haha, KC Singh is just cheesed off, because defence secretary's have been summarily sacked in the past... AP Venkateswaran was fired by Rajiv Gandhi, and Salman Haider by Vajpayee...

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 06 Feb 2012 15:10

nelson wrote:Gentlemen, it is slowly unraveling. Listen to Mr KC Singh former Diplomat between 7.30 min and 10.00 min on this. He says and repeats that PM has personally authorised the Tribune's editor Raj Chengappa for his 'balanced' and no-holds barred dissection of the DoB row.

http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/226948/ind ... desai.html

KCS says "look, the PM authorised this attack in the Tribune, the relationship is broken, even if VKS wins, how can he work with this PM". Answer is simple and obvious, "if VKS wins, MMS should resign and go home".

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 06 Feb 2012 15:17

What KC says is ok, and even factual perhaps. But the fact is, that that does not stop VKS from demanding that his honour be restored.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 06 Feb 2012 15:19

ldev wrote:I dont know if this has been posted earlier.

The guilty men of 2012

Guilty No.6: Gen. V.K. Singh, in 2008 and subsequently is now claiming the moral high ground that he is only fighting for his honour and recognition of his correct DoB by the Supreme Court. However, the fact that he gave it in writing in 2008 that he would accept 1950 as his year of birth goes to show that the urge to become the Army chief was so strong, it overcame his sense of injustice. As an honourable soldier, he should have refused to give any such undertaking and exposed the perpetrators. In all fairness, only then he would have been entitled to the moral high ground he now claims. Even now, he is being cagey about it. Also Gen. Singh says he only wants his honour vindicated. Why then on the last page of his writ petition has he said that in case the Supreme Court upholds his case, he should get all attendant benifits. This means he could continue in service until 31 March 2013, when he attains 62 years of age. This flies in the face of his moral posturing.

Let's be clear; this entire controversy is the handiwork of a few powerful men manipulating the so called "line of succession". For justice to be done, the objectives of these manipulators must not be achieved. It is not important whether VKS serves another 10 months as Chief. If he wins his case, his stature (which is already very high) will be sky high. But if he HAS to serve another 10 months to ensure the plans of the manipulators do not succeed, then so be it. That is in the interest of the Indian Army and the Republic of India, not just a personal issue for gen VKS.

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 06 Feb 2012 16:56

I think now we know who PC Katoch was referring to in terms of extraneous actors....and this brings in another angle to the issue - IMO, JJ Singh did what he did to please the powers that be in the PM gaddi....this is how long it has been planned out. This whole episode is being orchestrated by PMO with MOD/Antony being the sidelings....and this is the reason that inspite of GOI being on weak wicket, the MOD is going ahead with the showdown.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 06 Feb 2012 17:25

Isnt it time that Soniaji stepped in, and told the Jolly old PM not to embarass the govt for narrow nepotistic reasons?

sunnydee · Post by **sunnydee** » 06 Feb 2012 18:03

A question for the users on this board<Admins i am not trolling or mis-represnting any facts here> - Do journalists who do not subscribe to the views of the majority on this forum get branded as toads etc ?

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 06 Feb 2012 18:24

Persons who produce news in exchange for alleged (alleged by other journalists) elevation to political office, are by definition toads. Also lickspittles, and bootlickers. A troll of course, is something completely different. But both are intelectually dishonest, in pursuit of a particular objective.

sunnydee · Post by **sunnydee** » 06 Feb 2012 18:37

Admins can you shift my question to the thread suggested by Marten. I have no clue on how to do it. Thank You

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 06 Feb 2012 19:17

ASPuar wrote: Persons who produce news in exchange for alleged (alleged by other journalists) elevation to political office, are by definition toads. Also lickspittles, and bootlickers. A troll of course, is something completely different. But both are intelectually dishonest, in pursuit of a particular objective.

Good one

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 06 Feb 2012 19:24

ASPuar wrote:Isnt it time that Soniaji stepped in, and told the Jolly old PM not to embarass the govt for narrow nepotistic reasons?

PM appears to be unable to organise successfully an athletics meet (CWG), legislation (Lok Pal bill), a halfway decent conspiracy, or for that matter a "pi*ss-up in a brewery".

Jaybhatt · Post by **Jaybhatt** » 06 Feb 2012 19:52

<snip>

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 07 Feb 2012 20:34

Age row: No compromise with Army chief, say government sources

New Delhi: The Supreme Court will on Friday hear the Army chief's case against the government. Sources in the Ministry of Defense tell NDTV that the government has ruled out any compromise with General VK Singh. Sources say the government has been advised by Defence Minister AK Antony and others that its legal case is strong. The Prime Minister has been briefed twice by senior officials in the Ministry of Defence. Sources say Mr Antony is very upset by the General's decision to battle the government in court over his age............. The first round of the legal battle was won by the General on February 3, when the Supreme Court said the government had violated "the principles of natural justice" in the manner that it rejected the General's appeal in December. The judges said they were not commenting on whether the government's decision was correct; they objected to the way in which that decision had been reached. The court said the government had used the opinion of the same legal officer- Attorney General GE Vahanvati - to twice rule against the General. In July, Mr Vahanvati advised the government that the chief's petition to accept 1951 as his date of birth was not valid; in December, the Defence Minister rejected the chief's complaint against that decision.

General Singh says that several crucial documents establish that he tried at different points in his career to have his records amended to reflect the correct date of birth, but was turned down. The government counters that he accepted several key promotions, including the one that gave him the top job in the Army, on the basis of his seniority as established by records that show he was born in 1950.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 07 Feb 2012 21:37

What compromise can there possibly be? The General says his date of birth is 1951. The government, for some reason, wishes it to be 1950. Where does the compromise happen? That he was born at the end of 1950, or beginning of 1951? Looks like govt is very keen to receive an anda on its face.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Feb 2012 08:12

What if DOBgate is a scam to get AKA out of the PM race?

Maana ki AKA follows orders and will go with the script. Very clear the issue got muddled in the MS branch record which doesn't reconcile with actuality. He might have went with the advice given by the civilian apparatus. Now he is being pilloried for being the face that stares down the military! If SC goes with the natural justice that would mean he has to resign. However he did do a lot of good for the services: he kept the MRCA choice in the IAF loop, he supported retention of AFSPA in J&K, by pointing out the issue is within Army HQ he ensured VKS can clean up so future officers wont get sand bagged.
2G scam has shot down PC's ambition.

Hope DOBgate doesnt fix AKA.

very few good people left in INC.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 08 Feb 2012 08:25

ramana garu,
If there was a scam of getting AKA out, he is very well part of it himself. He is the one who decided on the statutary complaint.