Army chief General VK Singh takes government to court

[cyphercide]

It's petty considering the MOD has already clarified it's position.The General should've thought about rectifying his documentation on his age long before he was at the fag end of his career.Squabbling when he's already at the door makes no sense.Leave with your dignity intact Sir.


PS# Poll required for this thread

 

[gubbi]

It's petty considering the MOD has already clarified it's position.The General should've thought about rectifying his documentation on his age long before he was at the fag end of his career.Squabbling when he's already at the door makes no sense.Leave with your dignity intact Sir.

X2. Agreed.

 

[Always Neutral]

Don't get Pakistan involved, keep it within your borders, bharti!

Brain fart from Batman. Atleast he can be sacked by the Govt. whereas the Pak Chief can sack Govt.s and retires when he feels like.

---------- Post added at 09:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 PM ----------

Gen VK Singh's date trouble:

1965: Date of Birth (DoB) filled as May 10, 1950, in UPSC application form (Gen Singh says it was done by a school teacher)

1967/68: Gen Singh submits school certificate showing 1951 as year of birth

1974-75: Army List published showing 1950

The age row: Timeline

Army's Adjutant General branch records DoB as May 10, 1951, but Military Secretary's branch records it as May 10, 1950

2002: Gen Singh demands the differing records be reconciled

2006: Gen Singh is promoted to Lt-Gen rank, says he was forced to give an undertaking accepting 1950 as the year of birth

2008: When he is promoted as Army Commander, he gives an undertaking again to maintain 1950 as his year of birth, but Gen Singh's supporters say it was extracted under coercion

Early 2010: Just before his appointment as the chief in April, Gen Singh writes to then Army chief and defence secy, saying the issue was a closed chapter

October 2010: An RTI application is filed by an IAS officer seeking Army chief's birth date. It is referred to legal adviser to MoD, who says the chief was born in 1951

May 6, 2011: MoD objects to being bypassed in seeking legal opinion and Army HQs efforts to correct records

May 2011: Army chief petitions MoD on the issue, demands 'reconciliation' of his DoB

July 2011: MOD rejects the demand, based on Attorney General's opinion

August 2011: Gen Singh files a statutory complaint with defence minister AK Antony

December 2011: MoD rejects the statutory complaint, based on Attorney General's opinion

January 16, 2012: Gen Singh moves SC

 

[metro]

Apparantely when General VK Singh filled his NDA form, wherein the wrong date was filled in by mistake, he was only 14 years old.

 

[metro]

 

[metro]

Four former CJIs back Army Chief General VK Singh in age row

Army Chief General Vijay Kumar Singh has been wronged in the controversy over his date of birth, according to four former Chief Justices of India. In their opinion General Singh has been consistent on his date of birth since he joined the National Defence Academy (NDA).

While one former Chief Justice of India, Justice (retired) JS Verma was consulted by the Army over General VK Singh's age row, the other three advised the Army Chief.

According to the former Chief Justices of India the Military Secretary Branch recorded General Singh's date of birth wrongly as May 10,1950 and not as May 10, 1951. Opining that recording the wrong date of birth was the Military Secretary Branch's fault, they said that its conduct does not inspire confidence.

Adjutant General Branch is the official record keeper in the Army and according to it General Singh's date of birth is May 10, 1951.

Former Chief Justice of India RC Lahoti observed that General Singh has been consistent over May 10, 1951 as his date of birth since joining the NDA. Even the Adjutant General Branch has maintained May 10, 1951 as his date of birth from the very beginning and all confidential reports relating to General Singh since 1970 have the same date of birth.

Former Chief Justice of India Verma pointed out the the Military Secretary Branch entry on the officer's date of birth was erroneous and it was never corrected. According to him the Military Secretary Branch has been raising a needless controversy based on its own failure.

Justice (retired) VN Khare, who was the Chief Justice of India from December 2002 to May 1, 2004, said that Defence Service Regulations specify that matriculation certificate alone will decide the date of birth. According to him any discrepancy must be reconciled with the date in the matriculation certificate.

He said that all branches of the Army must accept May 10, 1951 as General Singh's date of birth and added that the Military Secretary Branch has no authority to direct the Adjutant General Branch to record May 10, 1950 as the date of birth.

However, former Chief Justice of India GB Pattanaik, who held the post from November 8, 2002 to December 18, 2002, said that the Centre can change the date of birth of an officer if service rules so allow.

But no such decision can be taken without informing the officer concerned and the officer's reply in this context is important. He added that government records must reflect the matriculation certificate.

Senior lawyer Gopal Subramaniam also backed General Singh's claim saying that his matriculation certificate gives May 10, 1951 as the date of birth that was accepted by the Union Public Service Commission, which conducts the NDA exam.

Subramaniam added that May 10, 1951 was the date of birth when he was commissioned in the Army and Military Secretary Branch's insistence on maintaining May 10, 1950 as the Army Chief's date of birth does not inspire confidence.

General Singh, a para-commando and veteran of 1971 Indo-Pak war, has been contending that May 10, 1951 should be treated as his actual date of birth as it was mentioned in his matriculation certificate but the Defence Ministry has rejected it as May 10, 1950 is the date entered in his UPSC form for the NDA.

If General Singh's date of birth is taken as May 10, 1951 then he will retire in March 2013 and if May 10, 1950 is accepted then his tenure will come to an end in May 2012. The difference of one year will have an affect on who will succeed him as the next Army Chief.

If he retires on May 31, 2012 then Eastern Army Commander Lieutenant General Bikram Singh will take over as the next Army Chief, but if he demits office in March 2013 then Northern Army commander Lieutenant General KT Parnaik could take over from him as Lt Gen Bikram Singh will retire later in 2012.

But if General Singh is removed or resigns before May 31, 2012, then Western Command Chief Lieutenant General Shankar Ghosh, who is the senior most serving officer in the Army, will take on as the 27th Chief of the Indian Army.

Four former CJIs back Army Chief General VK Singh in age row - India News - IBNLive

 

[KS]

Ha ha and if I don't will you go back crying to your old lady? The Gen. took his time to rake it up and hence his intentions are suspect. Can't believe a 16 year old man needs his teacher to fill in his academy joining form. How can you trust him with a million strong army?

The General did take his time..but that was because he was giving time for this Govt to correct its mistake instead of planting stories in media, attributing to him quotes he never said and all that below the belt stuff.

It's time he hauled those sorry arses to court. And contrary to what you may assume this move of the chief on taking on the unhealthy,toxic babu/neta nexus has actually lifted the morale of the rank and file of the Armed forces.

Go Chief Go

 

[KS]

It's petty considering the MOD has already clarified it's position.The General should've thought about rectifying his documentation on his age long before he was at the fag end of his career.Squabbling when he's already at the door makes no sense.Leave with your dignity intact Sir.


PS# Poll required for this thread

Just because it has clarified its position doesn't mean it is correct. This Govt wants to remove this man because he did not give into their political chicanery in the Anna episode, because he relentlessly pursued the Adarsh and Sukhna scammers (in which by no mere coincidence former Gen.Deepak Kapoor who is rumoured to be close to the Govt is involved), because he had the guts to convey the independent Army stand on the AFSPA issue and many others.

And just for clarification sake, in the Army all matters -- and I mean all -- regarding age are sorted out by the AG and AG has clearly said that the DoB of the Gen is May 10, 1951. So please give the theory of faulting him for any wrong a rest.

The Gen is on a strong wicket here and this Govt which could have sorted this in a more subtle way thought that they could take on the Chief and he will bow don to their will without a fight...Clearly they underestimated him and this episode rather than tarnishing his image has boosted his image among the people and among the rank and file of the army.

 

[cyphercide]

Just because it has clarified its position doesn't mean it is correct. This Govt wants to remove this man because he did not give into their political chicanery in the Anna episode, because he relentlessly pursued the Adarsh and Sukhna scammers (in which by no mere coincidence former Gen.Deepak Kapoor who is rumoured to be close to the Govt is involved), because he had the guts to convey the independent Army stand on the AFSPA issue and many others.

And just for clarification sake, in the Army all matters -- and I mean all -- regarding age are sorted out by the AG and AG has clearly said that the DoB of the Gen is May 10, 1951. So please give the theory of faulting him for any wrong a rest.

The Gen is on a strong wicket here and this Govt which could have sorted this in a more subtle way thought that they could take on the Chief and he will bow don to their will without a fight...Clearly they underestimated him and this episode rather than tarnishing his image has boosted his image among the people and among the rank and file of the army.

I wouldn't necessarily see it as so.The chain of authority still flows from the civilian government and,as long as we remain a democracy,the armed forces is subservient to it's command as the final arbiter.Period.

Sure,the Army chief is approaching the courts in what he terms as a fight for his dignity but the fact remains he is going against the orders handed out to him.He can challenge it all he wants but I do not foresee a reversal of the decision.The General is within his rights to appeal but is it honorable? That's the grey area here

My dad faced a similar predicament before he voluntarily retired as they told him to accept a transfer order which he couldn't fulfill at that time(my sister and I were in our midterms and couldn't screw up our results by moving out). He too was enraged that a higher up(CO) like him was being smacked around like a sailor.Yet he didn't go in for any appeal probably because he didn't want to want his bosses and more importantly his service being dragged through the mud just to prove a point.That's what the Navy meant to him and I would pray the Army chief sees it as the same with his service.

 

[Mirza Jatt]

i dont understand why the Govt messed this up, when The army chief clearified that he does not want any extension inthe office but just for the correct record he wants the date corrected and now whic has become a matter of homour. Govt. could easily solve this matter in a closed room. saving the public spat as well as the hard time they have landed themselves into.

 

[KS]

I wouldn't necessarily see it as so.The chain of authority still flows from the civilian government and,as long as we remain a democracy,the armed forces is subservient to it's command as the final arbiter.Period.

Actually its not period. The Army is there to serve the country, the constitution..not the whims and fancies of neta/babus in MoD.This is a very faulty notion that we have that Army is subservient to civilian set up and thus cannot question the orders of the babus..no it does not function that way --the Army is obliged to obey the authority only as long as it is constitutionally correct. In a scale of balance between the constitution and the bureaucracy its the constitution that trumps.

Sure,the Army chief is approaching the courts in what he terms as a fight for his dignity but the fact remains he is going against the orders handed out to him.He can challenge it all he wants but I do not foresee a reversal of the decision.The General is within his rights to appeal but is it honorable? That's the grey area here

It is entirely honorable. Infact they (Govt) tried to weasel out by offering the Gen a plum post in a civilian setup which he refused rightfully and stood up for what he believed in. If at all this episode has had any effect on the honor of the Chief and the morale of the Army it is only on a positive note and not on a negative note.

My dad faced a similar predicament before he voluntarily retired as they told him to accept a transfer order which he couldn't at that time(my sister and I were in our midterms and couldn't screw up our results by moving out). He too was enraged that a higher up(CO) like him was being smacked around like a sailor.Yet he didn't go in for any appeal probably because he didn't want to want his bosses and more importantly his service being dragged through the mud just to prove a point.That's what the Navy meant to him and I would pray the Army chief sees it as the same with his service.

I'm sorry to say..but your Dad did the wrong thing. If the decision to transfer him was based on mere point scoring and not on genuine national interest then your dad should have stood up to them. And again no offence, your dad was not the CoAS. The institution of the CoAS commands its own dignity.

---------- Post added at 12:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 AM ----------

i dont understand why the Govt messed this up, ....

Simple.

Why this chief is sore in their eye?

1. Not part of arms lobby-govt nexus.
2. Pressing cases against Adarsh, Sukna scammers.
3. Conveyed army’s independent view on AFSPA and opposed its removal.
4. Opposed involvement of Army in anti-naxal operations.
5. Army did not play game on Anna’s character.
6. Trying to clear army of corruption (honest army is too dangerous for corrupts).
7. Tried to assert his position as chief to much disliking of Govt (not behaving like head chowkidars).

 

[cyphercide]

^^^ None taken.I guess we just have two different ways of looking at things.I've made what I had to convey quite clear and this is in keeping with the ethics instilled in the Indian Armed Forces as per my observations.No point in me trying to make you see things from my angle.So yeah,have a good one.

 

[KS]

^^^ None taken.I guess we just have two different ways of looking at things.I've made what I had to convey quite clear and this is the ethics instilled in the Indian Armed Forces as per my observations.No point in me to try and make you see things from my angle.So yeah,have a good one.

Well let's agree to disagree. AFAIK there is a rule in the Army that prohibits soldiers from obeying the command of the superiors if that is unconstitutional and Army Chief is following that.

For more detailed arguments, please visit the link I'm posting on your visitor message where many former Army men themselves have discussed it.

 

[KS]

 

[KS]

Kunal Verma, BRF:


All this talk of resigning is a whole lot of rubbish. VKS is like the bone in the Govt's throat that it can neither dispel nor swallow.
Two days ago I posted on BR my comment on what I call 'Moses List'. Moses parted the sea, and cleared the way for his followers. Since 2006 the same thing began happening in the highest echelons of the Indian Army when the 'look down' policy was brought into play. I name the officers concerned yet again - Brigadier Padam Budhwar, Major Generals Ravi Arora, Shujan Chatterjee and AK Singh. In our pyramidical structure people get superseded and side lined, but in these four cases these four officers were 'boarded out' in a motivated manner. Being a subjective issue, it can always be argued against, but the one common factor in the entire game was that the 'line of succession' was being spelt out and adhered to. VKS was the fifth name on the list, and since he couldn't be eliminated, his tenure had to be truncated.

Once this sort of nonsense and politics was allowed to start within the Army, it was a matter of time before the bureaucrats got their foot in and what is happening now is a direct result of that.
Comments against the successor are also completely out of place. No one becomes an Army Commander in the Indian Army without having something going for him. The issue here is that those who are pointing out that the 'look down policy' is suicidal for the army in the long run probably have nothing personal against the person at the receiving end - the problem is more to do with the people who have manipulated the entire system.

I personally feel that VKS, by stating that it is a personal issue which concerns only him, has actually put his head on the line. In a way he is insulating the army from the backlash which will surely come from the holy trinity - a element within the army, the bureaucrats and the politician. He's fired a shot into the beehive and now they are gunning for him every which way. Just think about it, if he had one hair out of place, by now they would have hung him from the yardarm!

Lastly, how come no one is saying that the Defence Secretary, The AG, the Law Minister, the Defence Minister et all should resign despite every Tom, Dick and Harry saying that things should never have come this far! One Lt General was going on on NDTV (I think) about how VKS's action had affected the morale of the Indian Army. You bet it has - most officers I know feel that finally someone is standing up and fighting, and finally there's some Calcium in the backbone!