AN EDITORIAL IN ECONOMIC TIMES: 04 Jan 2012

[Veterans India]

It is totally unbecoming of the army chief General V K Singh to be
involved in a bitter public row over his date of birth and to drag the
government to court over it. The chief repeats ad nauseam that he was
born on May 10, 1951, and produces his birth certificate (from an army
hospital), matriculation certificate, service records , etc, as
proof.

But the fact remains that he was admitted to theNational Defence
Academy (NDA) in June 1966, aged 15, despite the minimum age for
admission being 16½. He was able to do so by mentioning 1950 as his
year of birth when filling out the entry form for NDA.

It is another matter that Gen V K Singh went on to be an outstanding
officer and military strategist, who has risen to the very top of his
profession. But the fact of the matter is that when Gen Singh was a
major general, waiting to be promoted to lieutenant general, he did
give a written undertaking that he would abide by 1950 as the year of
birth and not petition for it to be changed to 1951. Reportedly, it
was only in 2006 that the discrepancy in his birth year in the
documents held by the adjutant general's office and that of the
military secretary's was noticed by army headquarters.

Having been promoted to a higher rank on an assurance (and promoted
again since), it is wholly inappropriate on the chief 's part to now
demand that 1951 be accepted as his year of birth. The General now
insists that official acceptance of 1951 (so that he can remain army
chief till 2013) is a matter of honour and army morale. On the
contrary.

The chief 's course of action would only undermine the proud
reputation and dignity of the Indian military, one of the few
institutions that remain above controversy, by continuing to challenge
the government's stand. The year entry in the NDA admission form was
plainly fudged.

And if the General insists on 1951 as the year of his birth, the
government should ask the chief to step down and initiate disciplinary
action for fudging, cover-up and gross impropriety. No general,
however distinguished, ought to have the perverse right to rewrite
well-laid down military rules and procedures, simply to stay on in
office.

[Narendra Behl]

This is just bull-shit.

These paper wallas are best at this sort of trash. This is the result of the Armed Forces loosing its respect mostly due to weakness at the top echelon of our organisation. Today the fauji's are taken for granted.

NB

----------------------------- 

[Omprakash Saxena]

What is our PRO doing? Why not give a shut up call to this irresponsible journalism? Somehow I am totally disillusioned with the way our great army are accepting this kind of utter nonsense? I hope somebody there will put the facts in proper perspective to stop this canard.

--
Regards,

OP Saxena
+919953240888
--
We all have been sent by the Almighty for a fixed purpose of serving the humanity without blinking at all even for a moment.

[vjs gill]

Hi all

This undying debate will go on till cows return home.

The fact remains bureaucrates and politicians nexus against the services interest is the cause of worry whether it is AFT/ Court rulings, OROP or pay commission anomolies or general's DOB etc.

They are bent upon erroding the well established civil-military relationship that existed prior to 1960's.

They are envious of the standard of living and excellant service conditions / security etc enjoyed by the services. This resentment is clear in all debates that take place in media both electronic as well as magazines/news papers.

Only way they can do harm and down play us is by curtailing our pay/pensions/perks and that is what they are doing, not withstanding the harm they are doing to the country.

 Chetwode Motto is only applicable to men in uniform rather it should be taught in IAS/IPS academies and to the parliamentarians and instill in them the respect and love for their country--they are the people who need the most! only then one would expect them to behave with services in equal footing.

Just a thought

Col VJS Gill

[Mahabir Saunriyal]

All agreed. But what ETHOS.  Persons like CV Thomas and other Babus do not have

ethos. Why do we(Armed Forces) bind ourselves with unbind -ables. Our own self imposed bindings are explored by babus to garner power over armed forces. NO DOUBT IN OUR DEMOCRACY, OF WHICH WE ARE PROUD OF, THE ARMED FORCES ARE 

 UNDER CIVIL GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL. Yet, the bureaucracy, through its deceptive means, have been able to garner paramount control over PERSONNEL POLICIES of the Armed Forces. In fact Personnel Policies like recruitment, training, deputations, promotions(to all ranks except top ones), foreign visits, pay perks(out of sanctioned budget) etc. should have been dealt with by Forces themselves. But above 

certain rank level, all those issues are under Ministry's prerogative. That is where the spine breaks. Petty individual gains dominate and overtake larger interest. There could

have been no need for age issue going out of Army's Personnel domain, had personnel

policies been the sole prerogative of the Force.

 

Mahabir Singh

Advocate

9910387771     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Veterans India <vetera...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Achuthan]

Respected Sirs,

I have been aware of this controversy about COAS VK Singh's DOB for
some time and had the same feelings expressed by many of you here. But
now having got the opportunity to read this editorial and the facts
stated in there, I beg to state that I feel a bit doubtful about my
conviction.

If everything stated in the editorial is true, how could anyone, least
of all us the veterans, defend the COAS in this matter? If Gen V K
Singh has willfully fudged the admission form and got entry into the
Army on a date when he was not eligible for entry, how could he now
claim another date as his DOB? How could anyone blame the government
or anyone else going to the court for the anomaly ?

Pardon my ignorance, if it appears so. But if anyone could clear my
doubt, i would be greatly relieved.


Regards

Achuthan

Sgt (retd)

On Jan 7, 11:46 am, Mahabir Saunriyal

<mahabirsinghsaunri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All agreed. But what ETHOS.  Persons like CV Thomas and other Babus do not
> have
> ethos. Why do we(Armed Forces) bind ourselves with unbind -ables. Our own
> self imposed bindings are explored by babus to garner power over armed
> forces. NO DOUBT IN OUR DEMOCRACY, OF WHICH WE ARE PROUD OF, THE ARMED
> FORCES ARE
>  UNDER CIVIL GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL. Yet, the bureaucracy, through its
> deceptive means, have been able to garner paramount control over PERSONNEL
> POLICIES of the Armed Forces. In fact Personnel Policies like recruitment,
> training, deputations, promotions(to all ranks except top ones), foreign
> visits, pay perks(out of sanctioned budget) etc. should have been dealt
> with by Forces themselves. But above
> certain rank level, all those issues are under Ministry's prerogative. That
> is where the spine breaks. Petty individual gains dominate and overtake
> larger interest. There could
> have been no need for age issue going out of Army's Personnel domain, had
> personnel
> policies been the sole prerogative of the Force.
>
> Mahabir Singh

> Advocate9910387771begin_of_the_skype_highlighting            9910387771

[Kohli]

At that time the entry qualification was Matric and age was lower,
hence age was not fudged.