The Cabinet Committee on Appointments — the panel headed by the prime minister that clears all top appointments in the country — had returned the defence ministry’s recommendation to appoint General VK Singh as an army commander in January 2008 for a cross-check, following the dispute over his date of birth.
The recommendation was sent back by the top panel even though the defence ministry had flagged a commitment made by Gen Singh that he would go by 1950 as his year of birth, as against 1951 that he had been fighting for.
The appointments committee of cabinet (ACC) cleared Singh’s promotion to commander after the ministry cleared the 1950 date (issue) with the army headquarters for the second time.
The ACC had wanted to “satisfy itself” that there was “no unresolved age issue” before it cleared Singh as one of the army’s top eight commanders — the senior-most amongst whom takes over as army chief, top government sources told Hindustan Times.
Singh had later again reassured then army chief General Deepak Kapoor in November 2009 that he would stick to the commitment of 2008 accepting 1950 as his year of birth.
In his petition filed in the Supreme Court on Monday, Singh has indicated that he was pressured into accepting 1950 as his year of birth. Top government officials monitoring the age row contested Singh’s version, saying that the defence ministry could have proceeded with the version given by Singh’s superiors but it followed “a transparent approach and keeping his interests in mind”, sought his views on the age row at every step.
A top government source said, “He need not have given that unconditional commitment and could have said that the age controversy had not been resolved. The ministry would have still recommended him to be promoted as army commander.”
He said Singh’s year of birth had to be reflected in the cabinet committee’s note for his own career progression.
The government finds itself in a peculiar position where it has to deal with an army chief appointed by it who has dragged it to court.
The awkward situation is likely to have an impact in the daily functioning of the defence ministry where a regular interaction with the army chief is required.
It was hoped that General V.K. Singh would resign before moving court as it would have reduced the prospects of civil-military relations being crippled. But he has surprised everyone by taking on the government while still holding the post.
It remains to be seen if the court tussle will have an impact on the country’s security. As it is, the army’s modernisation plan has already slowed down.
Just days before moving court, General Singh had, in his annual media interaction, listed achievements of his 21-month tenure and given an elaborate view of the transformation process that was set rolling under his leadership.
But it is also a fact that compared to the air force and the navy, army’s modernisation plan is lagging behind. Be it the purchase of new weapons or artillery, expanding aviation fleet or raising a new strike corps, all are stuck at various stages.
The army chief’s move is bound to result in the government losing confidence in him. Even if it does not remove him, the standoff means no major decision is likely to be taken during his remaining tenure.
General Singh has chosen to detach his date of birth row with organisational matters and sought to assert that it was business as usual for the army. But the fact is that the controversy has divided the top echelon of the army and is also bound to affect the morale of the force. The middle and lower rung officers and the troops look up to the chief, who is now embroiled in a battle which is blowing into a government versus military conflict.
It all started as a conflict within the army as General Singh has blamed his former bosses for not allowing the controversy to end by accepting his date of birth as May 10, 1951.
The tussle has led him to challenge the same system that allowed him to become chief despite adverse inputs from certain sections of the bureaucracy and the army leadership.
Among various options that the government is said to be considering is to ask the chief to go on leave till the matter is settled in court, though there was no confirmation from the official quarters about the move.
It has also created bad blood among the top commanders as the age row threatens to have an impact on the succession chain. The leading contender to succeed General Singh, if he retires on May 31, 2012 – Lieutenant-General Bikram Singh – is already facing a court case in an old encounter case.
If the army chief is removed or resigns before completing his tenure, General Shankar Ghosh will be the seniormost after him.
On the face of it, the age dispute surrounding army chief General V K Singh would appear to be rather silly. But in this case personal virtue is the issue: there is more than ample evidence to suggest that long before he was appointed general-in-chief, he was called upon to confirm whether May 10, 1950, was indeed his actual date of birth.
At least on three occasions in 2008 he stuck to the position that 1950, and not 1951, is his year of birth. To be fair to Gen Singh, his original matriculation certificate does show 1951 as the birth year and that document is with the military authorities. What has suddenly come about that has made the general sit up and scream that he was not born in 1950 but a year later? Was the 1950 entry a simple error or is his claim now that he was born in 1951 an afterthought aimed at gaining a year and with it some fat retirement benefits?
Gen Singh claims he is a man and soldier of honour. But his actions and words do not appear to be those of a soldier of integrity. For the better part of over a year, his time has been consumed by pursuing his age controversy – a scandal actually – with the government. This battle has distracted him from performing his duties as the commander of forces of whom the nation should justifiably be proud of. However, there are reports that point to a more sinister gameplan in which some actors in the government want to see him out early so that another general could replace him. There are also whispers that Gen Singh was not clearing some crucial, but questionable deals, or proving to be a stumbling block for the aspirations of a few not just in the army but also in the ministry of defence. On all these issues the government needs to come clean.
For nearly a quarter century now, the army has, sadly, not been led by thinking generals. The Kargil war exposed a leadership problem, not to speak of a rotting and decrepit institution being eaten away by the termite of corruption. Gen Singh’s action to take the government to court over the age issue is a matter perilously close to insubordination. But the government too has not covered itself in glory. If the unstated objective is to appoint a more pliable person in place of Gen Singh, it would be doing a great disservice to the fighting men and the country.
In 1983 the Supreme Court defined why and what an ideal Armed Force should be in the following words: “It is elementary that a highly disciplined and efficient Armed Force is absolutely essential for the defence of the country. Defence preparedness is in fact the only sure guarantee against aggression. Every effort has therefore to be made to build up a strong and powerful army capable of guarding the frontiers of the country and protecting it from aggression. Now obviously no army can continuously maintain its state of preparedness to meet any eventuality and successfully withstand aggression and protect the sovereignty and integrity of the country unless it is at all times possessed of high morale and strict discipline. Morale and discipline are indeed the very soul of an army and no other consideration, howsoever important, can outweigh the need to strengthen the morale of the Armed Forces and to maintain discipline amongst them. Any relaxation in the matter of morale and discipline may prove disastrous and ultimately lead to chaos and ruination affecting the well being and imperilling the human rights of the entire people of the country.”
SC
The public debate on the age of the Chief of Army staff, possibly generated because of the request by General V.K. Singh himself, seriously undermines the morale and strict discipline of one of the finest Armed Forces of the world, that the Indian Army is. Every Indian is proud of its Armed Forces and is bemused by this public spectacle.
The law as to correction of birth dates profoundly stated by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Harnam Singh is:-
“The date of birth entered in the service records of a civil servant is, thus of utmost importance for the reason that the right to continue in service stands decided by its entry in the service record…….A Government servant who makes an application for correction of date of birth beyond the time, so fixed, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, the correction of his date of birth even if he has good evidence to establish that the recorded date of birth is clearly erroneous.”
The rationale for this explained by the Supreme Court in Home Department vs. R.Kirubakaran is:-
“An application for correction of the date of birth should not be dealt with by the tribunal or the High Court keeping in view only the public servant concerned. It need not be pointed out that any such direction for correction of the date of birth of the public servant concerned has a chain reaction, inasmuch as others waiting for years, below him for their respective promotions are affected in this process. Some are likely to suffer irreparable injury… ⦠Before any such direction is issued, the court or the tribunal must be fully satisfied that there has been real injustice to the person concerned and his claim for correction of date of birth has been made in accordance with the procedure prescribed, and within the time fixed by any rule or order.”
In rejecting his request the Ministry of Defence appears to have acted as per the law governing the country. Undisputably General Singh has not suffered any injustice much less “real injustice” having been appointed Chief of the staff with a tenure of over two years.
Controversy
The government could not have ignored the fact that while seeking entry into the National Defence Academy, a highly respectable and professional organisation, the date of birth claimed was 10th May 1950 which was also carried on to the Army List published in 1974-75. It is absolutely unclear why and how a wrong birth date could have at all been given by the son of a serving Army Officer. Could it be a simple mistake or was it given to gain an undue advantage at that stage? If the latter is true, then the matter assumes a very different complexion. If the initial entry is a question mark then questions can also be raised about subsequent events in the long career. But it would be in the interests of all to bury the past as it is too difficult to decipher the reasons for giving a wrong birth date and even if one wants to go into it, it may produce unfortunate results.
The nation is not interested in all this. But to be fair to him, it must be said that the original matriculation certificate showing 1951 as the birth year was indeed sent to the authority though six years later in 1971. This is not to reflect on General Singh’s integrity, which is beyond doubt, but to put the point in correct perspective.
What does really go against him is the fact that though he cites documentary evidence to support his claim, he never seriously and much less legally challenged the authorities.
Perhaps, he thought it fit to let things rest for better reasons. The Rules require a claim for correction of birth date to be made within two years. True, some part of the record does mention 1951 as the birth year but then that is not conclusive as per the Rules.
This confusion is further compounded to the detriment of General Singh’s case since in 2008, well before his appointment as the Chief, he was indeed called upon to confirm 1950 as the birth year. It seems that on three occasions between January and July 2008 he accepted this position in writing. May be he did it in “organisational interest” or with “reservations” but once he accepted this position, in law he is estopped from contending otherwise. On moral grounds he is absolutely forbidden to argue to the contrary. The case of some of the commentators that he was “coerced” or “left with little choice” is, to say the least, a sad commentary on an officer expected to maintain absolute integrity and one who leads one of the finest military institutions in the world and perhaps does disservice to him too.
Solution
The attempt, by some sympathisers of General Singh, to have this issue resolved by the Supreme Court through a PIL is, to say the least, unfortunate. His own attempt to re-kindle this issue by purportedly meeting senior ministers, if true, is equally distasteful. Once he accepted the highest position that he could have aspired for, even with reservations, on the basis of the birth date recorded on the date of entry, he himself should have gracefully allowed the issue to rest in the larger interests of the Armed Forces and the Nation.
Any attempt, directly or indirectly, to keep the issue alive is clearly contrary to what the Supreme Court described, as the very soul of an Army: “High Morale” and “Strict Discipline” and may lead to “Chaos” and “Ruination”. General Singh, having a distinguished record, must himself put the debate to rest by declaring that he is no longer keen to have the date changed at this stage in the larger interests of the nation. Public interest will suffer irreparably unless this controversy is allowed to rest forthwith.
Army chief General Vijay Kumar Singh’s 21-month tenure has been consumed by a singular passion. He calls it transformation; turning the 1.1 million-man Army into an agile, lean and lethal force. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is more cynical. It believes the only change General Singh wants is to have his date of birth changed from May 10, 1950 to May 10, 1951 so that he can stay 10 months more in office. The Army chief claims his honour is at stake. The Government dismisses General Singh’s demand as petulant, pointing out that the Army chief has been free with his public comments and quiet about his standoff with defence minister A.K. Antony.
South Block has not seen such an ugly confrontation between civilian and defence authorities, at least since 1998, when Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat was sacked by the then defence minister George Fernandes for not agreeing to the appointment of the deputy naval chief. And that was a comparatively quiet fracas.
A joke within the armed forces testifies to the importance of heading the world’s second largest Army: ‘The Government listens to the Army chief, humours the air force chief and ignores the navy chief.’ From his teak-panelled office on the first floor of South Block, the Army chief has a spectacular view of India’s power centre.
He jets around in a 13-seat Embraer 135 jet from the IAF’s VIP fleet, drives in a convoy of black bulletproof Ambassador cars, is consulted on border disputes and is a key element of India’s military diplomacy.
The ongoing standoff between the army chief, General VK Singh, and the government has become so messy that in national interest it is best to let the army chief go. No army chief in any country will be allowed to fight a case against his own government or refuse to heed the decision taken by the ministry on any matter.
There are various other reasons why an army chief, who has over the last one year shown many signs of taking a position contrary to that of the civilian authority, should be asked to go.
General VK Singh had two birth dates registered with the army and, after due process, the defence ministry has taken 10 May 1950 as his birth date, thus making it incumbent upon him to retire this May. Once a government takes such a decision, an army chief has to accept it. It is the supremacy of the civilian government that is at stake here.
After this decision was taken, Gen Singh, who till then was trying to get his tenure extended, switched tactics like a politician and started saying through leaks in the media that it was not a question of tenure but “personal honour”.
This stance, in turn, brings to the fore many such issues which exist in a constitutional twilight zone and hence can have no formal remedy. The following questions arise:
* Where is the question of personal honour when the sovereign state or government has taken a decision which he has no option but to obey?
* Whose ‘so-called honour’ is at stake here? What about the honour, sanctity and sovereign status of a duly-elected government which reflects the will of the people in a democratic system? The honour of the army has never been at stake here.
In the cat and mouse game that Gen Singh has been engaging in during the last one year, he has crossed all boundaries of accepted behaviour, worst of all by regularly leaking stories to the press and letting one particular defence correspondent see all the documents.
If Gen Singh had any notion of sensible behaviour expected of people in high positions, he should have let the national government and civilian authority’s decision to gain precedence over his so-called honour. He could have accepted the decision, maybe under protest. The general could have, after retirement, presented facts and documents to the public, if at all, for his “honour”.
Gen Singh is guilty of showing disrespect to his own government in many instances while this issue was being decided on by the government. He has even threatened to go to the Supreme Court and approached Pranab Mukherjee (who is higher in rank in the cabinet to the defence minister, and hence this was in open defiance of his own minister), who advised him against taking the matter to court.
Now, in a story again planted on Tuesday in sections of the media, Singh claims that he is being treated like the chief of the Pak army. Such outrageous leaks and statements alone are enough for the government to ask the army chief to go because there is every indication that he is getting ready to fight dirty. Under no circumstance can any government allow that.
In such cases, the example to follow is the US, where President Obama summoned and sacked General Stanley McChrystal, who was US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, for making comments against civilian authority and army strategy in a magazine interview.
In the US, unlike here, the president comes out in the open and speaks his mind. Pictures of him during the sacking meet with McChrystal were published to show that it is the civilian authority which calls the shots.
Obama justified his sacking decision: “I don’t make this decision based on any difference of policy with General McChrystal…But war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private a general or a president… By going public, the general eroded the trust that is necessary to work together …” Obama rightly said.
The US president acted swiftly and decisively. Even the opposition accepted his decision because it concerned the army. A Republican senator then said Obama did the right thing because McChrystal had damaged the military by showing disrespect.
Using the same two arguments which Obama used, namely, supremacy of the civilian authority and the erosion of trust, the government must, without delay, remove the general. Otherwise, between now and May, the waters would be muddied so terribly that the fallout will cause permanent damage.
The relationship between the army and the government, and, in this case, the defence minister, will be eroded and that cannot be allowed to happen just to sustain or vindicate the “so-called “personal honour” of one man who had two dates of births registered with the army for so long.
The UPA government, still smarting from the Lok Pal Bill fiasco in the Rajya Sabha, already contemplates its next battle. Business Standard has learnt that the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), General V K Singh, plans to petition the Supreme Court on Monday after the Ministry of Defence (MoD) yesterday rejected his statutory complaint asking for his date of birth to be reconciled.
The army chief contends (supported by 19 documents, including matriculation and birth certificates) that he was born on May 10, 1951. That makes him eligible to serve till May 31, 2013, when he would retire after completing 62 years that month. The Adjutant General’s (AG’s) Branch, the army’s official record keeper, supports that date. But the Military Secretary’s Branch, which handles promotions, has him born on May 10, 1950 and, therefore, due for retirement on May 31, 2012. The MoD has ruled that the latter date is correct.
“The chief will leave on January 5 for an official visit to Myanmar. Before that, he would like to file his writ petition, to which he is entitled as a citizen of India,” says a close aide to Singh.
Sources close to Singh describe him as “extremely bitter” at the government’s “backstabbing” over this issue. They say Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee was mediating with the army chief on behalf of the government. After Singh refused the offer of a post-retirement ambassadorship or governorship, retorting that this was a matter of honour, Mukherjee is said to have asked the chief to wait till January 16, 2012, when a face-saving compromise would be worked out. To the army chief’s surprise yesterday, the government rejected his petition.
Approached for comments, Mukherjee’s office admitted the finance minister met Singh yesterday, in a closed-door one-on-one meeting. But the official denied that the date-of-birth issue was discussed. “So many people discuss different things with the finance minister. We cannot reveal what they talked,” the official said.
Business Standard learns that Singh’s legal team in the Supreme Court will be headed by Uday U Lalit, CBI’s Special Public Prosecutor in the 2G spectrum case.
Lalit is also associated with the defence of former Karnataka chief minister, BS Yeddyurappa; controversial mining tycoon, G Janardhana Reddy; and Commonwealth Games Organising Committee chairman, Suresh Kalmadi.
This will be the first time that a serving defence chief takes legal recourse against the government. In handling this confrontation, the government has no precedence to fall back upon.
The MoD’s strained relations with the army chief are apparent in the army’s day-to-day functioning. Just days ago, the MoD rejected the army chief’s nomination of Lt Gen Sanjiv Chachra for the post of Military Secretary (MS), on the grounds that he had just six months to serve as MS before being elevated to be the army commander on June 1, 2012. Now, the army chief has returned the proposal to the MoD, arguing that it is his prerogative to choose his MS, whether for three months or three years.
Attorney General (AG) Goolam Vahanvati has closed the door on General V. K. Singh‘s face as far as the controversy surrounding the army chief’s year of birth (May 10, 1950) is concerned. This means Gen Singh will have to retire in May, 2011 instead of May, 2012, as he has been claiming.
Sources told Headlines Today that the AG, after analysing each and every document and Gen Singh’s explanation, has found his claim completely unsatisfactory and trashed it outright. The AG has reportedly said there is no case for change in the year of birth whatsoever.
The ministry of defence (MoD) had referred the matter to the law ministry seeking clarity on Army Chief Gen Singh’s year of birth. With the law ministry asking the AG to give his opinion on the matter, the long running case may finally come to an end.
The AG considered several documents while evaluating the case. Apparently in 1965, Gen Singh had filled up a UPSC form where he gave 1950 as his year of birth in his own writing as it was a prerequisite. This is something that cannot be ignored even though Gen Singh had subsequently contested this.
Similarly, in the Indian Military Academy dossier filled up by him in January 1969, Gen Singh once again put 1950 as his year of birth. Crucially, in 1974- 75, the army list again gave his year of birth as 1950.
Sources have confirmed that after going through all the papers and documents, the AG has reportedly told the MoD that Gen Singh cannot change his year of birth at the last minute before retirement as this tantamounts to sacrilege.
Vahanvati is believed to have said this would lead to widespread disaffection in one of the finest fighting forces in the world. Moreover, all the records provided show Gen Singh is misrepresenting facts pertaining to his age. This is the second time the AG’s opinion has been sought in the matter. Both times the AG has been scathing in his observations.
Defence Minister A. K. Antony is on record as saying that, “The date of birth of Gen Singh 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 the COAS in 2010.”
The AG’s opinion simply reinforces and strengthens the MoD’s earlier observation that the chief’s birth date should not be changed. What this means is that the MoD now has the ammunition to reject the chief’s complaint even more forcefully.
On the basis of media reports, Army Chief General V K Singh had levelled the allegation that the Defence Ministry “lacked objectivity” and was “biased” on his age issue, the Defence Ministry has said.
“It is little odd that Chief of Army Staff has chosen to come to a conclusion that the reference made by the Defence Ministry to Attorney General (AG) lacked objectivity, was biased and designed to procure a particular opinion,” the Defence Secretary had said in a note sent to Defence Minister A K Antony in June this year.
The then Defence Secretary Pradeep Kumar had made these remarks on the petition submitted by Army Chief to Defence Minister A K Antony on his age issue after the AG had opined that May 10, 1950 should only be considered as his date of birth.
He said the Army Chief had arrived at this conclusion without even going through the reference made to the AG “merely on the basis of the reports appearing in the media and calls made to him by some journalists.”
The Defence Secretary said the Army Chief has given his “misgivings” about the first reference made by the Defence Ministry to the AG to seek opinion on his date of birth issue.
“In order to address his concerns about his point of view not being projected properly, it would be best if his petition (submitted to Defence Minister on May 25) along with enclosures is forwarded to the Law Ministry and the AG again,” Kumar said in the Ministry noting accessed through RTI.
In the review opinion also, the AG had stuck to his previous view that Gen Singh’s date of birth could not be changed to May 10, 1951. If 1951 was accepted, the army chief would have got an extra ten months in office.
Again the same has happened. On Saturday 12 May 13 an Air Force Sergeant killed himself on guard duty with his service issue rifle at Air Force Base Kalaikunda, West Bengal. It is alleged that the reason is extreme work pressure and a worst administrative failure to provide a better work culture rather than to harass and push People to the brink of their exi […]
this is a white elephants !!!!!!!!!!!!!!, all are doing meeting ,eating and mating only ,their ADA, GTRE,CBAS, BEL,BEML etc Nothing is doing, making paper commitments ,meetings with other organizations, last 50 years taken to make one "kaveri Engine" and it is now outdated technology .we have to tolerate them because of So called research work , an […]
The recommendation was sent back by the top panel even though the defence ministry had flagged a commitment made by Gen Singh that he would go by 1950 as his year of birth, as against 1951 that he had been fighting for.
Gautam Datt.
Editorial, Deccan Herald.
Chief of Army staff
