Real story behind Army Chief Gen VK Singh's age row

34
This ebook is an attempt to bring out the real story behind Army Chief General VK Singh's date of birth controversy. The book is a compilation of some very well- researched and explosive articles written by RSN Singh, a former military intelligence officer who later served in the Research & Analysis Wing. © Canary Trap Click here to download ebook on 2G Scam

description

This ebook is an attempt to bring out the real story behind Army Chief General VK Singh's date of birth controversy. The book is a compilation of some very well-researched and explosive articles written by RSN Singh, a former military intelligence officer who later served in the Research & Analysis Wing. Log on to www.canarytrap.in for more on the issue.

Transcript of Real story behind Army Chief Gen VK Singh's age row

This ebook is an attempt to bring out the real story behind Army Chief General VK Singh's date of birth controversy. The book is a compilation of some very well-researched and explosive articles written by RSN Singh, a former military intelligence officer who later served in the Research & Analysis Wing.

© Canary Trap

Click here to download ebook on 2G Scam

28/08/12 11:20 PMWhy is Gen VK Singh being targetted?

Page 1 of 6http://canarytrap.in/2012/04/06/why-is-gen-vk-singh-being-targetted/

Why is Gen VK Singh being targetted?

BY RSN SINGH

The biggest curse for any Indian today is honesty. Had VK Singh accepted the bribehe would have been darling of the establishment and would have rode to the office ofgovernor of some state.

The revelations by the Army Chief regarding an attempt to bribe him by a Lt Genduring the course of an interview with a national daily was known to this author andinformed people in the journalist fraternity and otherwise. The fact that there existsevidence by way of a taped conversation between the said Lt Gen and the ArmyChief is also not a new input. This author had written about the role of this Lt Gen intrying to bribe the Army Chief at the behest of certain arms supplier in an article,“Who’s trying to fix the Army Chief by raking up his age?” in July 2011. This article waswidely circulated.

This offer of bribery was to push the sale of Tatra Vehicles at an exorbitant price. Aparticular firm was purchasing second-hand Tatra Vehicles and selling it through theBharat Earth Movers Ltd (BEML) at more than double the cost. Reportedly, while thecost of each vehicle off the shelf was around 30-40 lakhs, there was a bid by the armslobby to sell it to the Indian Army for about one crore. The Army Chief refused toput the army and the country to such a massive loss of tax-payers money. It is then

28/08/12 11:20 PMWhy is Gen VK Singh being targetted?

Page 2 of 6http://canarytrap.in/2012/04/06/why-is-gen-vk-singh-being-targetted/

the said Lt Gen allegedly offered a bribe of 14 crores. When the Army Chief did notrelent, the Lt Gen is understood to have pleaded that Army Chiefs before the presentincumbent had all played ball and those who will succeed him would also do so.Tatra vehicles have been procured by the Indian Army since 1986.

Significantly, the Army Chief said that he immediately reported the matter to the De-fence Minister and offered to quit if he was considered a ‘misfit’. This offer to quit ispregnant in import, and its depth and linkages is yet to unravel.

A conscientious and God fearing Defence Minister did acknowledge in Rajya Sabhathat the matter was indeed reported to him and he stated that he sank his head in hishands. Was it because of the conflict between his ‘head and heart’? Or in other words,was it because of the conflict between the Defence Minister’s personal integrity andpolitical integrity or political compulsions?

It is rather well known that the Defence Minister has always held the Army Chief invery high esteem for reasons of personal integrity, something which resonates withhis own personality. Some sources have revealed to this author that Mr Antony hadalmost decided to rule in favour of General VK Singh in respect to the date of birthcontroversy after the first opinion of the Law Ministry, which categorically upheldthe General’s contention. It was then that powers in position superior to Antony com-pelled him to readdress the case to the Law Ministry. It did weigh heavily on his con-science, and there were political offers and assurances to recompense the hurt causedby the deliberate miscarriage of truth and justice in ways more than one.

The General found it hard to buy the bargain on a basic issue that questioned hischaracter. Notwithstanding the efforts of emissaries he did not relent and offered toresign. The political class prodded by megalomaniac bureaucracy for fear of the ‘suc-cession plan’ being upset in deference to the arms lobby, as also the unacceptable ad-verse political fallout for reasons of political funding began to threaten the Generalthat should he choose to offer his resignation it would not be accepted.

The General was thus driven to the Supreme Court.

The establishment, more so powers superior to Antony were unnerved by this devel-opment, as they were acutely conscious that the General’s case was ‘open and shut’.Leave alone experienced lawyers, even a first year law student will vouch for the fact.What happened thereafter is well known. Every institution in India has probably dis-

28/08/12 11:20 PMWhy is Gen VK Singh being targetted?

Page 3 of 6http://canarytrap.in/2012/04/06/why-is-gen-vk-singh-being-targetted/

credited itself in this age row.

It is not that the Army was not confronted earlier with such instances of discrepanciesin date of birth of officers. They are routine and are resolved quickly and appropriate-ly. An exactly similar case was resolved in the late 90s just one day before the retire-ment of one Colonel Ramesh Chandra Dixit. VK Singh was made the first and last ex-ception. Last exception, because the MoD or the Army Headquarters consequent totheir ruling on General VK Singh’s age, cannot legally dare to reiterate that the ArmyList or the MS Branch enjoy primacy over the AG’s Branch with matters pertaining todate of birth of officers.

What was therefore perpetrated on the Army Chief was a fraud. A fraud so outra-geous that it seemingly reduces India to the category of Banana Republics. Who per-petrated this fraud? It was two army chiefs in succession, whose reputations are to-day asunder for their unsavory deeds and involvement in various scams. Imagine anArmy Chief appropriating flats meant for families of Kargil martyrs. Can it getworse? It is no wonder that these army chiefs, who as father figures, should have pro-tected the professional and personal integrity of their subordinates, chose to forceGeneral VK Singh to accept a particular date of birth, failing which there was an im-plied threat that the controversy would be used to derail him. They should have in-stead apologized for the omissions and commissions of a particular branch of theArmy Headquarters. Once the so-called ‘acceptance’ was obtained on the repeatedplea of ‘organizational constraints’, the army chiefs began to breath easy. VK Singh’ssubsequent pleadings to explain the ‘organizational constraints’ fell on deaf ears. Thesigh of relief was because the ‘succession plan’ as desired by the arms lobby was nowin place.

The Indian Army and the army personnel as such are not safe under such chiefs.

The bureaucrats became part of the design only after General VK Singh raked the is-sue of his date of birth as COAS. Four former Chief Justices of India, all of them withimpeccable credentials gave opinions in his favour, did not appeal to the moral senseof the Ministry. That the Law Ministry gave an opinion categorically upholding Gen-eral VK Singh’s stand, did not help. When the General said it was not a question ofadditional few months, but his honour, it did not help. He was ridiculed, not only bythe political and bureaucratic establishment but by some retired generals as well.

These retired generals are now, courtesy television channels, very familiar faces. All

28/08/12 11:20 PMWhy is Gen VK Singh being targetted?

Page 4 of 6http://canarytrap.in/2012/04/06/why-is-gen-vk-singh-being-targetted/

of them have a dubious past. One of them was forced to resign from the Army be-cause of IB reports regarding his indiscriminate womanizing habit. The other isknown to have run away with his senior’s wife, and the third was in the docks forpossessing a false degree. So much for the detractors of General VK Singh!

These characters only testify that the muck in the army has been accumulating overthe years. It was quite evident when some Generals awarded themselves shamelesslyafter the Kargil Conflict.. There was no bravery or operational genius on display ontheir part. It would have been befitting to send some of them packing. The politics ofthe day saved them.

Corruption in the arms procurement process is not a new phenomenon. It startedsoon after independence. There was the Jeep Scandal in VK Krishna Menon’s time.The underpinning of the Tehelka sting operation was also regarding the same corrup-tion. So what is new!

What is alarming and dangerous is the level of influence the arms lobby has acquiredthat it has begun to decide as to who would be the Army Chief and the length of histenure. The tentacles of this lobby have penetrated in every conceivable pillar institu-tion of the State. Reportedly, several crores of rupees have been spent by the armslobby to perpetuate the date of birth fraud on General VK Singh. Such is the depth ofinfluence of the lobby that only a divine intervention can salvage the obvious truththat every ‘straight’ Indian realizes and that is morally and legally General VKSingh’s date of birth is 10 May 1951 and not 10 May 1950 as inflicted by the two armychiefs at the behest of the arms lobby. It is rather depressing to find so many ‘not toostraight’ serving officers in the army.

The arms lobby first contrived to inflict date of birth controversy on the General; thenlaunched a media campaign to make him resign by engineering divide between theGeneral and the Defence Minister, as also civil versus military – in that it extolled theintegrity of the General while stressing the obduracy of the MoD; then there was anattempt to prevent him from going to court by invoking tradition and precedence;then there was campaign to make him withdraw his case from the Supreme Court;then there was psychological pressure being put on him to resign after the SupremeCourt order which says nothing about his date of birth; and when he did not resignthen there were desperate moves to get him sacked.

The fabrication of the story regarding the bugging of the Defence Minister’s office at

28/08/12 11:20 PMWhy is Gen VK Singh being targetted?

Page 5 of 6http://canarytrap.in/2012/04/06/why-is-gen-vk-singh-being-targetted/

the behest of the General should be seen in this backdrop. The story was so poorlyscripted that it fell apart. The writers of this script continue to enjoy impunity. Theletter leak (from General to the Prime Minister) should also be viewed in the samevain. The clamour for the Chief’s head by some bizarre quarters was also at the be-hest of the arms lobby.

A decrepit former diplomat, who messed India’s national security, was pulled out ofthe cobwebs to suggest that the General should be sent on ‘forced leave’, little realiz-ing that there is no such provision in the Army Law. He did not prefer ‘sacking’ prob-ably due to his own vulnerabilities. Another former diplomat with no locus-standiand no knowledge of army functioning has been taking special delight in VK – bash-ing. The man, it is apparent, has more than one motivation in doing so. This diplomatclaimed that the unprecedented media campaign against General VK Singh un-leashed by a daily newspaper published from North was with the tacit approval ofthe Prime Minister. A prime minister getting after his own Army Chief via the media,if true, can happen only in Banana Republics.

A few years ago one Commander Nadeem was mowed by a truck while he was tak-ing his morning jog on the lawns of Shanti Path in New Delhi. He was dealing withacquisition of some sensitive equipment. There was a strong suspicion on the armslobby, which has hardly been dispelled. The recent death of a MoD official, KumarYashkar Sinha and his wife is also intriguing. Initially the police dubbed the case ofbeing murder by strangulation of the wife by husband followed by ‘suicide’ by thelatter by setting himself aflame. The profile of the officer suggests that he was of verystrong character and enjoyed great marital harmony with his wife. It is therefore mostunlikely that he had any suicidal tendencies. The police based on a letter recoveredfrom the scene of the crime is attributing ‘work pressure’ by some superiors of the of-ficial for his alleged suicide. It is bizarre. No person will kill his wife because of hisown work pressure. No person will strangulate his wife and then immolate himself.He could well have hung himself instead of choosing such a painful route to suicide.It now emerges that the official was also dealing with RTI in the MoD. Is the murderof the official and his wife the handiwork of the arms lobby? The possibility cannotbe ruled out.

The machinations of the arms lobby seem to have subverted the top leadership of thearmy considerably. One army chief allegedly initiated the culture of political fundingby linking the army to the arms lobby – bureaucracy – politician nexus for political

28/08/12 11:20 PMWhy is Gen VK Singh being targetted?

Page 6 of 6http://canarytrap.in/2012/04/06/why-is-gen-vk-singh-being-targetted/

funding. The desperation and ruthlessness of the key players and key institutionscould well be motivated by 2014 elections.

It is a matter of grave concern that succession plans in the army are being made at thebehest of the arms lobby. It is not merely a question of subversion of few people atthe top. It has a cascading affect and thus the entire selection system gets vitiated andin the process the entire army gets subverted.

Lord Wavell had predicated the survival of India as one entity on the perseverance ofthe Indian Army as an effective and irreproachable instrument. This instrument is notfraying from the edges but is under threat from the top. If the slide continues, Indiawould unravel. As it is the State is losing its writ at a frightening pace. If the last bas-tion crumbles, India will indeed survive as another Banana Republic.

Let us therefore save the Indian Army and save India.

ALSO READ:

Army Chief’s crusade against corruption deserves recognition

Why Gen VK Singh’s D.O.B is not just a ‘personal’ matter

Why is Antony playing ducks and drakes with the Army?

Who’s trying to fix the Army Chief by raking up his age?

(RSN Singh is a former military intelligence officer who later served in the Re-search & Analysis Wing. The author of two books: Asian Strategic and MilitaryPerspective and Military Factor in Pakistan, he is also a columnist for Canary Trap.This post was first published on Firstpost on April 6, 2012)

28/08/12 11:20 PMArmy Chief’s crusade against corruption deserves recognition

Page 1 of 5http://canarytrap.in/2012/03/28/general-vk-singhs-crusade-against-corruption-deserves-national-recognition/

Army Chief’s crusade against corruption deserves recognition

BY ARUN AGRAWAL

It should be clear by now to every moron who went on defending the government inthe tussle between the Army Chief and the Defence Minister that it was the Generalwho is upright and honest. And that he was made to pay the price for his honesty intrying to clean up the system.

Fighting corruption in the army is not easy. It means war on three different fronts.The politician who is above you, corrupt colleagues who are with you and the mon-eybags of the arms mafia. Fighting your own is very different from fighting the ene-my.

And here we had the most comical situation of an honest General working under anhonest Minister. It is a rarity. However, the clash of two honest personalities can bevery dangerous, more so if one is manipulated by the corrupt.

Relations had not soured between the two when the General reported the bribing in-cident to his Minister. Yet all that the Minister did was beat his forehead (for lack of abetter phrase). Both admit to the reaction. The Minister counseled that such peopleshould be kept out and the General did not want to pursue the matter further.

28/08/12 11:20 PMArmy Chief’s crusade against corruption deserves recognition

Page 2 of 5http://canarytrap.in/2012/03/28/general-vk-singhs-crusade-against-corruption-deserves-national-recognition/

While the General’s reaction in being reluctant to take on senior colleagues is under-standable, the reaction of the Minister is not.

Defence purchase falls within his domain. In the age of internet it was not difficult foranyone to know that Vectra of UK was not the producer of Tatra trucks but was amiddleman. It was also not difficult to know that Tatra was a Czech company, theoriginal manufacturer. It was also not difficult to know the price at which the truckswere being sold by Czeck company Tatra and the price paid by India.

All this information was with the General and that is why he did not sign on the pur-chase order and wanted to purchase the trucks directly. He knew that India had beenprocuring the trucks at more than twice the price sold by the parent company.

The General had done his homework. It may be a conjecture but there is reason to be-lieve that he informed the Minster and the reason for keeping out the supplier wasover invoicing of over 100% which would have compromised their integrity. It wasalso the reason for the Minister beating his forehead!

The scam was not in the bribe offered to the General but in the purchase price ofthe equipment. Could he or his advisers not understand this simple truth.

If a product was being bought at twice the price for which it was available in theopen market then it does not require a genius to derive that bribes had been paid.Not only bribes, but large bribes have been paid to lots of people because each oneknows the quantum of profit being made by the middleman.

However only a small percentage of the bribe (which is large in absolute terms – Rs14 crore in this case) was to be paid to the men in uniform, which the General re-fused. The large chunk of bribe was to be paid to those who were not in uniform.And all these persons were within the jurisdiction of the Minister.

Hence the matter was squarely within the domain of the Minister and it was a majoromission on his part not to order investigation on defence purchase worth thousandsof crores which were procured for twice the market price.

The scam has been going on for a decade and hence the unity of the political partiesdemanding the resignation of General VK Singh.

Contrast the ignorance of the Minister with the discovery made by the author (with

28/08/12 11:20 PMArmy Chief’s crusade against corruption deserves recognition

Page 3 of 5http://canarytrap.in/2012/03/28/general-vk-singhs-crusade-against-corruption-deserves-national-recognition/

no resources or staff) in two hours of net surfing. The following information which isa news report from Czech republic is most damning.

Ravinder Kumar Rishi, the chief scamster in the deal, was not only swindling the In-dian government but also the Czech government. A criminal case was filed againsthim in the country where Tatra trucks were manufactured almost a year back for thesupplies made to India. The article dated 27/4/11 on a Czeck website states:

Tatra faces tunneling and tax evasion allegationsAnonymous plaintiff accuses the major owner and management of Tatra truckmaker of tunneling profits and tax evasion

The management and a major shareholder in the iconic Czech truck producer Tatraface a criminal complaint for allegedly failing to ensure proper oversight of assets.The anonymous plaintiff claims that the sale of truck parts at knock-down prices toIndia via an intermediary British company has damaged the company.

Václav Láska, a former high-ranking police investigator, lawyer and one-time headof the local branch of watchdog Transparency International, has lodged a criminalcomplaint against the management of Tatra trucks and one of the firm’s majorshareholders, Indian businessman Ravinder Kumar Rishi, on behalf of plaintiffswho wish to remain anonymous due to fears of “labor persecution”, the daily Právoreported on Wednesday.

Vectra allegedly profits from Tatra’s loss

Since 2005, Tatra has supplied so-called complete knock-down kits (CKD), contain-ing all the components of haulage Láska claims that between 2005 and 2010 Tatralost profits of around Kč 270 million trucks to the Indian state-owned firm BEML,which then assembles the vehicles in India. The transactions have been conductedthrough British-registered intermediary firm Vectra Limited, which, according tothe charges, has frequently purchased the CKD kits at below production cost, thuscausing losses to the Czech company running into millions of crowns.

“The Tatra company sells kits to the British company Vectra Limited without aprofit margin, and even at prices lower than the cost of manufacturing. All mar-gins from this business, i.e. all profits from these transactions, go only to the ac-counts of the British company,” Láska told Právo. “The fact that the representa-

28/08/12 11:20 PMArmy Chief’s crusade against corruption deserves recognition

Page 4 of 5http://canarytrap.in/2012/03/28/general-vk-singhs-crusade-against-corruption-deserves-national-recognition/

tives of Tatra allow these transactions clearly contradicts the principles of soundeconomic governance.”

Láska claims that between 2005 and 2010 Tatra lost around Kč 270 million in po-tential profit. The calculation is based on a profit margin of 10 percent per kit,which he says the management intentionally forfeited in order to sell the goods toVectra Limited at a knock-down price. Láska also says that through the transac-tions the company also avoided paying tens of millions of crowns in tax.

“By transferring the considerable profits to the British company, the Tatra compa-ny reduced its income tax payments by tens of millions of crowns,” Láska said.

Alleged misuse of information

Ravinder Kumar Rishi, deputy chairman of Tatra’s supervisory board, is also theowner of Vectra Limited and thus de facto represents both Tatra and Vectra inbusiness negotiations — and the transactions in question. According to Láska,Ravinder Kumar Rishi may have misused information in these business relations.

In 2010, Tatra supplied 600 CKD kits to the Indian company Beml — which as-sembles the trucks and has large orders with the Indian army — and according toLáska, Tatra has committed to deliver a further 460 kits this year. “If the criminalcomplaint is deemed to be justified, steps could be taken which will curtail furtherlosses and also stop additional tax evasion,” Láska told Právo.

The question to be answered is this: If a criminal complaint was filed against thecompany and Ravinder Kumar Rishi by the Czech republic for merely causing aloss of 10% on profits foregone due to under invoicing a year back, then what ac-tion did the defence Minister take against Vectra which as a middleman had sup-plied trucks at more than 100% the amount for which Tatra sold in the open mar-ket? This scam was going on for the past ten years.

Rishi cheated Czechs by 10% but the Indians by more than 100%.

I will bet top dollar that the anonymous plaintiff referred to in the article is an In-dian source who had no faith in the Indian system to act and therefore chose to gothrough the head of Transparency International. Could it be the good General or asource close to him? Your guess is as good as mine.

28/08/12 11:20 PMArmy Chief’s crusade against corruption deserves recognition

Page 5 of 5http://canarytrap.in/2012/03/28/general-vk-singhs-crusade-against-corruption-deserves-national-recognition/

It is difficult to believe that the Czech authorities did not correspond with the Indiangovernment within the past one year. They do have an embassy in India. Where arethe records of the correspondence?

The General was made to pay the price for his anti-corruption crusade in the Suknaland scam and the Adarsh Society scam, including the court marshaling of Lt. Gen.Avadesh Prakash, who was Military Secretary under General Deepak Kapoor.

It is time that Mr Antony realizes his mistake. He is surrounded by corrupt peoplewho are using his reputation as a shield.

What is at stake is the loss of faith of the people in honest ministers. ManmohanSingh and then Mr Antony. What good is the virtue of honesty? Is there any hope ofredemption left for the country?

The General will go in a blaze of glory but the Minister will not.

And for those who are aligned with the arms mafia and ask for the reason as to whythe General did not take action on the Tatra scam? Against whom would he take ac-tion? Procurement of defence equipment is not under his charge. Did you expect himto take on the retired generals and ex-Chiefs who were paid off for signing the docu-ment that he refused to sign? Would there be any proof? Where would that get him?Would you take on a ex-defence Minister or a corrupt Minister in the Cabinet? Wasthe issue of Bofors pursued by the Army Chief?

A General is not a General if he is not a good tactician. General VK Singh proved tobe a master tactician in the manner in which he took on the entire system of corrup-tion in the Army and in the Ministry. This General showed that he had earned all hisstars. The nation could give him one more.

In the end the General proved to the nation that even the most honest politician ofour times is not good enough to prevent the huge corruption that infests defencedeals.

(Arun Agrawal is the author of the book Reliance: The Real Natwar. The opinionsexpressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do notreflect the opinions of Canary Trap or any employee thereof)

28/08/12 11:19 PMAn Army wife’s prayer

Page 1 of 2http://canarytrap.in/2012/04/23/an-army-wifes-prayer/

An Army wife’s prayer

You, VK Singh, are a game changer.

You are trying to change the ongoing game thatcertain ethically compromised people, includingsome in uniform and retired ones, have been play-ing for over a decade.

You are trying to ensure that the military Institu-tion is given its due space as a loyal, intensely de-voted organ of the country, while choosing to re-main under civilian control as it should be, in anydemocracy.

You are a cleanser. The nation has failed to clean up even the Ganga, but you arecleaning up the Indian Army from where it needs to be cleansed – at the top level.

You are aware, as are many of us, that the moral fibre, professionalism, patriotismand spirit of the Army lies intact at the levels where these are actually required – ourtroops and junior and middle level officers – who comprise over 90% of the Army.

They spend their professional lives away from Delhi – Thank God.

The grass roots level of the Indian Army, and retired ex-servicemen like us, are withyou.

May you continue to have the strength and courage you have already demonstratedin ample measure. You will need a good supply of both for future threats from thosewho have made India their Jagir. You need the blessings of all of us.

India is not known to honor the brave. Thankfully, now it is learning to do so. The In-ternet and modern technology will help people express their support for you. Most ofthe million plus soldiers and an equal number of ex-servicemen will rally behind you.

The rest of India, sick, tired and angry about the state of the Nation, will also rally be-hind you.

All honest politicians and bureaucrats, cutting across party lines, and hopefully some

28/08/12 11:19 PMAn Army wife’s prayer

Page 2 of 2http://canarytrap.in/2012/04/23/an-army-wifes-prayer/

legal luminaries, will also start speaking up.

The rest are parasitical chameleons who will change their colours accordingly.

Democracy will be better served, the governance of our country will improve and thenation as a whole will gain.

Your clarion call is a historic sign among others for a bright future for India. Civil so-ciety will get a further boost to change the rot in the system. Let things get worse, ifonly to become better.

Did not some ancients predict that 2012 will be the beginning of a tectonic change forthe better?

Rogues, beware! Your time is up! Correct yourselves or go visit dhams in the Hi-malayas.

In fact, stay on there as Himalayan caves are better than jails! India is no longer yoursole property. Once all of you are sorted out, India’s external threats will be easier tohandle.

Do not dare to stand between India’s rot of today and the very bright, glorious future.

(About the author: Chhanda Mukherjee, wife of retired Major General DipakMukherjee, is a proud patriot who likes to voice her opinion on Army issues. Ma-jor General Dipak Mukherjee (retd.) was an Infantry officer who has taken part inthe 1971 war. He also commanded a battalion in Sri Lanka, a brigade in J&K dur-ing the Kargil conflict and a Division of counter terrorist forces. Chhanda has doneMSc in Botany and BEd. She is a teacher.)

09/03/12 10:12 AMWhy Gen VK Singh’s D.O.B is not just a ‘personal’ matter

Page 1 of 6http://canarytrap.in/2012/01/27/why-gen-vk-singhs-d-o-b-is-not-just-a-personal-matter/

Why Gen VK Singh’s D.O.B is not just a ‘personal’ matter

BY RSN SINGH

The controversy over the army chief’s date of birth (d.o.b.) is bizarre and probablysymptomatic of the degradation of value systems at the higher echelons of the army.It is definitely not a sudden development.

Officers of the rank of lieutenant general have gone to the civil courts on matters re-lating to promotions in the past. The only institution which had no need to do so wasthat of the army chief, because that was the end of the hierarchy and the ladder. Butthen there was the allure of post-retirement sinecure and many army chiefs were per-ceived to be bending backwards for it.

Eventually, by a seemingly capillary action, the malaise crept right to the top. Thesystem had acquired such a culture of sleaze and conspiracy over the years that therewas an attempt to even manipulate the duration and succession chain of the institu-tion.

Gen VK Singh’s decision to go to the Supreme Court is a manifestation of this. Thecase otherwise was so simple – or such a non-issue- that its resolution was more a

09/03/12 10:12 AMWhy Gen VK Singh’s D.O.B is not just a ‘personal’ matter

Page 2 of 6http://canarytrap.in/2012/01/27/why-gen-vk-singhs-d-o-b-is-not-just-a-personal-matter/

matter of common sense than judicial intervention.

The case arose from a difference in the records of the Military Secretary’s Branch andthe Adjutant General’s (AG’s) Branch of the army. The latter is the usual record-keep-er.

In Gen Singh’s case, the ministry of defence decided that it will go by the MilitarySecretary’s records – when common sense should have told it to do otherwise. In fact,the MoD has done so in at least one earlier case.

In a strikingly similar case, one Col Ramesh Chander Joshi (IC-16142) received his or-ders for retirement from the MS Branch (vide Letter No. 30004/Sep 96/Tech/MS Re-tirement w.e.f. 30 September 1996) based on the fact that his date of birth was listedas 22 September 1944.

However, the records with the Adjutant General’s branch clearly indicated his date ofbirth as 25 November 1945. The officer communicated this anomaly to the MSBranch. In the absence of reply, on the last day of his retirement, i.e. 30 September1996, the officer had no option but to send a signal directly to the army chief.

Promptly, on the same day, the officer received a message “This HQ letter No30004/Sep/96/Tech/MS Retirement of 13 Sep 1996 regarding retirement of IC 16142Col Ramesh Chander Joshi Engrs of E-in-c’s Branch Army Hq w.e.f. from 30 Sep 96 ishereby cancelled. The claimed date of birth as 25 Nov 45 has been accepted by min-istry of defence (MoD). Officer will continue in service till further orders.”

As in the case of Gen Singh, the date of birth column in the UPSC form in respect ofCol Joshi had been incorrectly filled and was corrected by the UPSC first and subse-quently by the National Defence Academy (NDA) once his Senior Cambridge certifi-cate arrived.

Col Joshi wonders: “If it has happened in my case why not in the case of Gen VKSingh?”

Most army officers are bewildered and question: where is the scope for controversy?

Various military secretaries who had dealt with the case, in keeping with their moralimperative, could have ‘corrected’ their records within a matter of hours.

09/03/12 10:12 AMWhy Gen VK Singh’s D.O.B is not just a ‘personal’ matter

Page 3 of 6http://canarytrap.in/2012/01/27/why-gen-vk-singhs-d-o-b-is-not-just-a-personal-matter/

A simple acknowledgement of the mistake could have done much to establish fair-play, judgment and credibility on the part of the Military Secretary Branch. This ac-knowledgement would otherwise have made no difference to the date of birth of GenSingh, as the Army List has no legal sanctity. An acknowledgement or acceptance ofmistake was desired because it was repeated over more than 36 years. Every year, atthe time of the general’s Annual Confidential Records, his date of birth was men-tioned as 10 May 1951.

There are scores of such cases in the Army List, wherein the date of birth, or IC num-ber or name is wrongly entered. People have retired as lieutenant generals withwrong IC numbers in the Army List. If these military secretaries were ‘men of hon-our’ they should have accepted their ‘omissions’ and tried to clean up the functioningof the MS Branch.

The buzz among army insiders is that these gentlemen entered into a conspiracy withat least two army chiefs and subsequent powers that be in inflicting their mistake oromission (of not correcting the army chief’s d.o.b.) and blackmailing Gen Singh by us-ing the inaccurate and inconsequential document called the ‘Army List’ as tool.

Some 90 percent officers in the army retire without seeing the Army List. There is apopular saying in the army that only crooks and careerists see the Army List.

But what does one make of Gen Singh’s alleged acceptance of his date of birth – anacceptance demanded by the MS Branch before he was made a corps commander?

Gen Singh’s detractors are clutching the straw of ‘acceptance’ in their defence. An ‘ac-ceptance’ of a date of birth cannot get one a driving licence or passport, let alonemake an ‘army chief’. An ‘acceptance’ cannot be construed as ‘self-declaration’. Any‘acceptance’ cannot be in the absence of a ‘demand’ and, in Gen Singh’s case, it waslooked like intimidation or blackmail, which clearly indicates that the higher echelonsare bereft of common decencies.

No civilised officer will use the kind of language that the concerned military secre-taries used with an officer who was to be appointed the next army chief. Imagine theagony of the lower rung! Sample the non-civilised import of language used by the MSin respect of Gen Singh.

In a letter dated 21 June 2008, the military secretary wrote to Gen Singh, “we are con-

09/03/12 10:12 AMWhy Gen VK Singh’s D.O.B is not just a ‘personal’ matter

Page 4 of 6http://canarytrap.in/2012/01/27/why-gen-vk-singhs-d-o-b-is-not-just-a-personal-matter/

strained to maintain your official date of birth as 10 May 1950, and same may kindly be re-flected in all your records and documents. The AG’s branch is accordingly intimated to amendthe records being maintained by them.” (Note: this is nothing but megalomania, as theMS Branch has no authority over the AG’s Branch in matters of personal particularsof an officer; in fact it is otherwise).

In another letter dated 21 January 2008, the MS said: “… we are constrained to maintainyour official date of birth as 10 May 1950, and the same may kindly be reflected in all yourrecords… Please acknowledge and confirm acceptance.”

Then comes the threat. “Request fwd (forward) ack (acknowledgement) and confirm accep-tance of date of birth as given in para 5 (five) of letter dated 21 January 2008… (.) If reply notreceived by 1000 hrs on 25 Jan 08 action deemed appropriate will be taken (.) (from MS toGen Singh dated 24 Jan 2008).

No man of honour will digest such intimidation and blackmail. It is very much hon-ourable to deal with dishonourable men and their vicious agendas from a position ofrelative advantage. This is exactly what the general has done. He has moved incre-mentally by first appealing to the good and moral sense of the powers that be. It is inthis spirit that the legal opinion of four former and honourable Chief Justices of Indiawas solicited.

A guilty man will not do that. A man with a chink in his armour will not go to theSupreme Court of India. Only an honourable man at the end of his career will puteverything on the line. Those who, therefore, are insinuating that the general has tak-en this drastic step for an additional 10 months in office have simply lost their moralbearings. It took almost four months (more than the mandatory period) for the de-fence minister to give his verdict on the statutory complaint filed by his army chief.

And within these days, there were statements from the MoD that the defence minis-ter was not bound by any time stipulation. From the manner of treatment of the statu-tory complaint, it is evident that the whole idea was to buy a few months so that theannouncement of the new chief could be made as per a designed ‘succession plan’.

If the defence minister takes four months to adjudicate on a statutory complaint of hisarmy chief, one can imagine the plight of a jawan of the Indian army. Then there wasplanted propaganda that the general may tender his resignation, thus upsetting the‘succession plan’. Some bureaucrats this author interacted with pompously boasted

09/03/12 10:12 AMWhy Gen VK Singh’s D.O.B is not just a ‘personal’ matter

Page 5 of 6http://canarytrap.in/2012/01/27/why-gen-vk-singhs-d-o-b-is-not-just-a-personal-matter/

that the general would not even be allowed to resign, as he serves at the pleasure ofthe President.

Meanwhile, owing to the role played by certain responsible and patriotic segments ofthe media, the truth gained currency and the government realised that it was morallyand legally very vulnerable. One of the senior ministers admitted in private that theissue was botched up and could have serious political repercussions.

Some ministers expressed their helplessness in deference to the fiat of a caucus of ex-tra-constitutional authorities. It is the same story: all conspiracies and scams in recenttimes smack of a major influence of this extra-constitutional caucus.

The government initially resorted to threats. When that did not work, it sent variousemissaries with allurements of post-retirement sinecures. When that was not bought,it sent mediators for a compromise. The moot question is compromise on what?

Concomitantly, there was an orchestrated media campaign to dissuade Gen Singhfrom going to court and make him resign. Now, a scare is being raised that the hon-ourable Supreme Court will question the maintainability of his petition and ask GenSingh to go to the Armed Forces Tribunal. In fact, for some reason, there is a feverishattempt to create an atmosphere in favour of the Armed Forces Tribunal route.

It is obvious that the issue about the date of birth of Gen Singh is not personal, buthas reached this point by systemic influences. These internal and external influencesneed to be investigated. A conspiracy that seems designed to subvert the Indian armyneeds to be unravelled.

There are insinuations that politics, political funding, the arms lobby, business mafiaand international players are impinging on the course of the crisis. It is quite evidentfrom the bizarre, unprecedented term called ‘succession plan’ that has been givencurrency by the current dispensation. Will someone please stand up to sort out thismess so that our army can serve our polity better?

(RSN Singh is a former military intelligence officer who later served in the Re-search & Analysis Wing. The author of two books: Asian Strategic and MilitaryPerspective and Military Factor in Pakistan, he is also a columnist for Canary Trap.This post was first published on Firstpost on January 27, 2012)

Also Read:

09/03/12 10:12 AMWhy Gen VK Singh’s D.O.B is not just a ‘personal’ matter

Page 6 of 6http://canarytrap.in/2012/01/27/why-gen-vk-singhs-d-o-b-is-not-just-a-personal-matter/

Why is Antony playing ducks and drakes with the Army?Who’s trying to fix the Army Chief by raking up his age?

09/03/12 10:13 AMWhy is Antony playing ducks and drakes with the Army?

Page 1 of 9http://canarytrap.in/2011/09/20/why-is-antony-playing-ducks-and-drakes-with-the-army/

Why is Antony playing ducks and drakes with the Army?

BY RSN SINGH

In reply to a question in parliament, Defence Minister AK Antony stated that thepresent Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), Gen VK Singh, got his last three promotionsofficially predicated on 10 May 1950 as his date of birth. This statement is not in con-sonance with the records held in Army Headquarters (AHQ), which clearly indicateotherwise – 10 May 1951.

The defence minister’s statement may be construed as breach of parliamentary privi-lege . It is sad commentary on the health and vulnerability of our institutions that asimple issue pertaining to the date of birth of the chief of the apolitical Indian Armyis being politicised not only by the government but by certain segments of the mediaas well.

An article in the 19 September issue of India Today is titled “Lies of the General”. It isthe most obnoxious attack on Gen VK Singh, rather the office of the Chief of ArmyStaff of India.

The article claims to be based on documents obtained through RTI. If the article, and

09/03/12 10:13 AMWhy is Antony playing ducks and drakes with the Army?

Page 2 of 9http://canarytrap.in/2011/09/20/why-is-antony-playing-ducks-and-drakes-with-the-army/

more so its title, has any credibility then the government should remove Gen VKSingh immediately, as no army can afford to have a ‘liar’ as its chief. And in case, atsome stage, the article and its title are found to be motivated, then India Today mustcome clean for the sake of its credibility and prestige failing which the army must ini-tiate legal action against the weekly for targeting the office of the COAS.

If, Gen VK Singh did not have incontrovertible and clinching material and evidence,and if there were no ugly dimensions being inflicted on a simple issue of date of birth(DOB), which does not involve ‘change’ but ‘correction’ in the legally insignificantArmy List, four former and very honourable chief justices of India and a former solic-itor general, all with unimpeachable records of personal and judicial probity, wouldnot have given their opinion in favour of Gen VK Singh.

The case is extremely simple and does not require a fantastic judicial mind to unravelthe truth, based both on ‘proof’ and ‘motive’. Unfortunately, various military secre-taries since 2006, goaded by their bosses to adhere to a particular succession plan,first raked up the issue after Gen VK Singh had put in 35 years of service and thengave convoluted and specious arguments to disfavour Gen Singh’s correct date ofbirth: 10 May 1951.

In hindsight, the intention of the concerned authorities in the Army HQs seems to besuspect as they never wanted to accept their mistake and reconcile the DOB in respectof General VK Singh. On 25 January, a Joint Secretary in the MoD, Bimal Julka wroteto the military secretary: “…. a detailed inquiry may be conducted in to the matter to findout the correct date of birth of the officer immediately in consultation with the AG branch”.

But no inquiry was conducted.

Subsequently, in response to an RTI, the AG branch sought the opinion of the legaladvisor to the ministry of defence, who in turn solicited the advice of the law min-istry. Both confirmed that Gen Singh’s date of birth was 10 May 1951.

Curiously, the matter was referred again to the law ministry on the plea that the opin-ion given was by a junior officer. If a joint secretary to the government of India is ju-nior, then one wonders who are ranked senior officers.

Matriculation certificate Vs UPSC form

On 23 May 1965, Gen Singh, who was a minor and had still not appeared for his ma-

09/03/12 10:13 AMWhy is Antony playing ducks and drakes with the Army?

Page 3 of 9http://canarytrap.in/2011/09/20/why-is-antony-playing-ducks-and-drakes-with-the-army/

triculation exam, applied for the NDA. The UPSC form, as in the case of other stu-dents, was filled with the assistance of school staff. They erroneously had the DOB ofGen Singh filled as 10 May 1950 instead of 1951. In the absence of a matriculation cer-tificate, a school leaving certificate from the school (Birla Public School, Pilani) and acertificate from the unit (14 Rajput) of the father of Gen Singh, i.e. Major Jagat Singhduly signed by the commanding officer, was forwarded to the UPSC, which clearlyindicated the DOB of Gen Singh as 10 May 1951.

It was a clear case of erroneous entry and oversight as no sane individual will declarehimself older contradicting what is contained in the documents supporting it. It maybe emphasised that Gen Singh was eligible for NDA with both DOBs – 10 May 1950and 10 May 1951.

According to the India Today article, the Attorney General stresses that the UPSC formis “to be filled in the candidate’s own handwriting, he has to declare …the statements aretrue”. The missing link between the words ‘declare’ and ‘the statements’ is mischievous.The correct sentence is “I hereby declare that the statements made in the application are trueto the best of my knowledge and belief”. The words ‘knowledge and belief’ do cater to in-advertent human errors.

The UPSC form is only an ‘application form’. An application form can only be initial-ly scrutinised. The details filled therein have to be verified by other documentaryrecords, which in case of DOB is the matriculation certificate and is considered unim-peachable and of greatest evidentiary value in the eyes of law.

As per UPSC rules, primacy has to be given to the matriculation certificate for verify-ing the DOB. Had it not been for this the UPSC would not have raised a query to clar-ify the DOB in respect of Gen Singh. An Under Secretary of the UPSC, Sri Krishan,wrote to Gen Singh on 18 June 1966:

“With reference to your application for the above examination, I am directed to say that youhave claimed 10.05.1950 as date of birth in Col. 5 of the application, whereas in the certificatesubmitted by you the date of birth is shown as 10.05.1951. You are required to clarify the dis-crepancy and intimate the correct date of birth”.

Subsequently, the matriculation results were out in June and Gen Singh’s father sentthe ‘Provisional Certificate’ (DOB 10 May 1951) on 24 June 1966 through a special couri-er, which was acknowledged in writing by the UPSC. A copy of the acknowledge-

09/03/12 10:13 AMWhy is Antony playing ducks and drakes with the Army?

Page 4 of 9http://canarytrap.in/2011/09/20/why-is-antony-playing-ducks-and-drakes-with-the-army/

ment letter is available with this author.

The matter was thereafter never raised by the UPSC. Such cases are not rare and theUPSC on receiving provisional certificate allows a candidate to continue on a provi-sional basis till receipt of the original certificate.

Therefore anyone, who, based on the UPSC form, contends that Gen Singh was born on 10May 1950 and not 10 May 1951 is implying that Gen Singh is a liar, his father Major (laterLt Col) Jagat Singh was a liar, and the authorities at the Birla Public School, Pilani, were inconnivance with the father and son, because ‘they could then foresee that a 14-year-old ladwould be the COAS not for two years but three years! ‘This is legally and morally preposter-ous and reprehensible.

Not ‘change’ but ‘rectification’

On commissioning in 1970, Gen Singh was issued the Indian Army Identity Card bythe Indian Military Academy, which endorses his DOB as 10 May 1951. It is obviousthat consequent to the submission of his provisional certificate his DOB in the mainrecord was corrected.

In 1971, when Gen Singh (then second lieutenant) visited his ancestral village aftermany years, as he normally spent his vacations at the place of posting of his father, hefound his original matriculation certificate. The certificate had taken a tortuous jour-ney – i.e. Rajasthan Secondary Board of Education – Birla Public School, Pilani – hisfather’s original unit (14 Rajput) – Rewa Recruiting Office and NCC, Narnaul (thetwo places his father subsequently served) – and finally to his ancestral village.

The certificate had remained unattended, as his father had moved out to Bhiwaniwhere he expired. Gen Singh instantly submitted the original certificate to Army HQsAG Branch through his unit 2 Rajput. If the DOB in the original certificate was at vari-ance with other records, the AG’s Branch would certainly have raised query.

The AG’s Branch has consistently and categorically maintained that all records avail-able with it testify Gen Singh’s DOB at 10 May 1951. The AG’s Branch is the legiti-mate and official record holder of all documents. When a RTI query was raised inFebruary 2011 on Gen Singh’s age record, it was directed to the AG’s Branch and notthe MS Branch.

While Gen Singh was commissioned in 1970, he submitted his original certificate in

09/03/12 10:13 AMWhy is Antony playing ducks and drakes with the Army?

Page 5 of 9http://canarytrap.in/2011/09/20/why-is-antony-playing-ducks-and-drakes-with-the-army/

1971, and the Army List was published in the year 1974-75. Therefore, the consistentstand by concerned Military Secretaries (MS) that as per rules, “no request forchange/correction of date of birth will be entertained after a lapse of two years from date ofcommission” is motivated and mischievous. Motivated, as there was a gap of fouryears between the commissioning of Gen Singh and publication of the Army List.Mischievous, because the word ‘correction’ was ‘inserted’ as Gen Singh had consistent-ly maintained that he has not been asking for ‘change’, but ‘correction’ in one particularplace, i.e. Army List.

Army List has no legal sanctity

Intoxicated by their bureaucratic power, they disdainfully dismissed the fact thatthey had no authority with respect to the DOB of an officer, the real custodian andauthority being the Adjutant General Branch. In a letter dated 21 June 2008, the mili-tary secretary wrote to Gen Singh, “we are constrained to maintain your official date ofbirth as 10 May 1950, and same may kindly be reflected in all your records and documents.The AG’s branch is accordingly intimated to amend the records being maintained by them.”

The above direction is ridiculous. Firstly, the MS branch has no authority to ask theAG’s Branch to change its records, in fact it is otherwise. Secondly, DOB cannot bechanged on a mere direction of a branch of Army HQs. In directing the AG’s Branch,the MS branch, in its ignorant megalomania, did not consider what would happen toGen Singh’s passport, driving licence, insurance, pensions, retirement benefits, etc.

In any case, available information suggests that the MS never asked the AG to do so.

The Army List on which various military secretaries premised their case should findits place in the wastepaper basket as far as DOB and its verification is concerned. Itappears that these officers were acutely aware of the omissions and failings of the MSbranch that they headed and their legal limitations on the issue and therefore resort-ed to intimidation, the implied threat being sabotage of the promotion in case GenSingh did not obey their diktat of accepting the incorrect date of birth that the MSbranch had recorded. Sample these:

“… we are constrained to maintain your official date of birth as 10 May 1950, and the samemay kindly be reflected in all your records… Please acknowledge and confirm acceptance”(letter from MS to Gen VK Singh dated 21 January 2008).

09/03/12 10:13 AMWhy is Antony playing ducks and drakes with the Army?

Page 6 of 9http://canarytrap.in/2011/09/20/why-is-antony-playing-ducks-and-drakes-with-the-army/

“Request fwd (forward) ack (acknowledgement) and confirm acceptance of date of birth as giv-en in para 5 (five) of letter dated 21 January 2008… (.) If reply not received by 1000 hrs on 25Jan 08 action deemed appropriate will be taken (.) (from MS to Gen Singh dated 24 Jan2008).

Once it felt that it had succeeded in its coercion bid, the MS branch, in a rare momentof magnanimity, conceded in January 2008 in a letter dated 25 January 2008 to theministry of defence: “Based on UPSC commissioning documents and MS branch records,Army List indicated the date of birth of IC-24173 Lt Gen VK Singh, AVSM, YSM as 10 May1950. The Officer had indicated his date of birth as 10 May 1951 to AG’s branch based onSSC certificate issued to him in 1971 by Rajasthan Secondary Education Board. The dichoto-my of records between AG’s records and MS records was not reconciled because of lack of co-ordination between the two branches at that point of time. The officer had also been mention-ing 10 May 1951 in all his ACR’s but the MS branch did not seek clarification/reconcile hisdate of birth.”

The bogey of ‘acceptance’

In the present context in the army, wherein the journey from Major General to Gener-al takes only four to five years, any minor impediment, that too motivated, can over-ride the entire life’s toil and derail the future of even the most upright and conscien-tious officer. The stakes are, therefore, very high, which the respective military secre-taries, and their benefactors exploited to the hilt.

Given the vitiated circumstances it is therefore perfectly legitimate for any man ofcharacter to buy conditional reprieve when enjoined upon by his superiors that hetake a temporary undertaking due to inexplicable organisational constraints with apromise of ultimate justice and redemption of honour. That is exactly what GenSingh did. Sample these:

“Whatever decision taken in organizational interest is acceptable to me” (from Gen Singh on24 Jan 2008). Note: This did not satisfy the MS and was followed by a threatening signal.*

“In view of the above constraint and in discussion of date, I will mention the date of birth asdirected”. ( Letter from Gen Singh, dated 13 Jan 2008).

Finally, Gen Singh, then Army Commander, wrote to COAS General Deepak Kapoor, on 01July 2008: “I had no qualms in giving in writing whatever I was asked for despite my reserva-

09/03/12 10:13 AMWhy is Antony playing ducks and drakes with the Army?

Page 7 of 9http://canarytrap.in/2011/09/20/why-is-antony-playing-ducks-and-drakes-with-the-army/

tion… I have deliberated and thought over all aspects of the issue and feel compelled to bring itto an ethical and logical conclusion. At the outset, I would like to know the ‘constraint’ men-tioned by the MS Branch”.

Any ‘acceptance,’ that too under coercion, does not change the moral and legal para-meters. Self-declaration or ‘acceptance’ of DOB cannot even get you a driving licenceor passport, let alone make one a COAS. Moreover, the general did repeatedly appealto the residual moral sense of the concerned powers in the Army HQs, but wasstonewalled by the predetermined and ‘inviolate” succession scheme scripted by thesame people who are in the docks today for various moral violations, including abuseof their high offices.

India Today is, therefore, spot-on to say; ‘’On May 7, then Defence Secretary PradeepKumar noted that the amendment of the army chief’s date of birth would impact thesuccession plan.’’ What alternatives does an army officer have under the circum-stances? Further, the India Today article, right at the outset, says: “Army Chief GeneralVK Singh said he was born in 1950…”

Further the India Today article says, “…it got him three promotions…”. This is com-plete misrepresentation of facts and truth. A document dated 01 July 2011 signed bythe present Military Secretary Lt Gen GM Nair categorically states:

“On scrutiny of past records pertaining to selection boards, it has been observed that theMDSs pertaining to IC-24173 Gen VK Singh, PVSM, AVSM, YSM, ADC, which weredrawn up at the time of his consideration by various selection boards for promotion to selectranks, reflect the date of birth of general officer as 10 May 1951.

Gen Singh never ‘said’ or ‘admitted’ but was ‘alternatively coerced and made to feelobligated to accept the directions of his seniors in the plea of organisational interests’,and was placated by assurances of redeeming his position.Gen Singh should have re-

09/03/12 10:13 AMWhy is Antony playing ducks and drakes with the Army?

Page 8 of 9http://canarytrap.in/2011/09/20/why-is-antony-playing-ducks-and-drakes-with-the-army/

alised that these same forces could have settled the matter in a few days if, on the di-rection of MOD, they had conducted an inquiry and reconciled the DOB based on theevidentiary and supporting documents held with the AG’S Branch, the legitimatecustodian. But that was never the intention!

Notes to Table 2:* The India Todayarticle has quoted the Attorney General: “policeverification in 1966 also shows date of birth as 1950”. The documents available withthis author speak otherwise. These documents are: verification done by DIG CID IBRajasthan vide his letter No. CIL/SB/VR-G/ (V-8) 64/66/4465 Jaipur dated22/06/1966, Serial 6 of IAFF(P)-14, and verification by SHO Bhiwani, SP Hissar, Dis-trict Magistrate, Hissar, and authenticated by DIG CID Punjab signed by DIG(CID)Punjab Sarwant Singh letter No. 1295/MA/ date 22 July 66. It may be noted thatHaryana had not separated from Punjab then. These letters categorically give GeneralVK Singh’s DOB as 10 May 1951.** On 30 March 2011, MD Paliath, IDAS, PrincipalController, wrote to Lt Gen VK Chaturvedi, Director General of Manpower Planning,AG’s Branch : “I find from records maintained here (copy of Form-A at the time of commis-sion enclosed) that the date of birth of the COAS Gen VK Singh is already shown as 10 May1951”.*** The date of birth (10 May 1950) entered in the UPSC form was not backedby any documentary proof. It was questioned and a clarification was sought by UPSCitself. Gen VK Singh promptly had submitted documents, which supported his con-

09/03/12 10:13 AMWhy is Antony playing ducks and drakes with the Army?

Page 9 of 9http://canarytrap.in/2011/09/20/why-is-antony-playing-ducks-and-drakes-with-the-army/

tention that the entry in the application form was erroneous and his date of birth was10 May 1951.

**** The DOB in the Army List was mere perpetuation by the concerned branch ofthe erroneous entry filled in the UPSC form, which UPSC had rectified long ago.

Conclusion

09/03/12 10:13 AMWho’s trying to fix the Army Chief by raking up his age?

Page 1 of 5http://canarytrap.in/2011/07/15/who’s-trying-to-fix-the-army-chief-by-raking-up-his-age/

Who’s trying to fix the Army Chief by raking up his age?

BY RSN SINGH

The SSC, Higher Secondary or 12th Standard boardcertificates usually serve as unimpeachable recordsconfirming one’s date of birth (DOB). The SupremeCourt, too, has ruled so in unambiguous terms.

But some vested interests inside and outside thecountry are desperately trying to turn this simplereality upside down in the case of the presentArmy Chief, Gen VK Singh. They have, for verylong, been engaged in subverting the very institu-tion of the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) by engi-

neering a controversy about the age of the present incumbent, possibly with the ideaof supplanting him with a convenient and pliable officer.

All through his career, till he became Lt Gen, VK Singh’s DOB (10 May 1951), as re-flected in his matriculation certificate, was taken as true and valid. However, verylate in his career, when he appeared on the scene as the strongest contender for thepost of army chief, someone fabricated a controversy by claiming he was a year older,and that his date of birth was 10 May 1950, based on legally untenable arguments.

It is common knowledge in army circles that but for a specific succession plan initiat-ed some years ago by a previous incumbent, the ‘age’ controversy in respect of GenSingh would never have surfaced. Why did these vested interests place such a premi-um on their succession plan? Why did they try to prevent Gen Singh from becomingCOAS?

The age controversy poses some very serious questions. Why is the discomfort levelwith Gen Singh so high in certain quarters? Is he being targeted for being non-pliable,upright and intolerant of corruption? Is there a design to weaken the professionalmoorings of the Indian army by manipulating and attacking its moral and social fab-ric?

Here is the inside dope.

09/03/12 10:13 AMWho’s trying to fix the Army Chief by raking up his age?

Page 2 of 5http://canarytrap.in/2011/07/15/who’s-trying-to-fix-the-army-chief-by-raking-up-his-age/

It is about succession: The controversy is not merely about the age and tenure of thepresent chief. More importantly, it is about a succession plan scripted a few yearsback (in 2006) by none other than the then army chief. The succession script naturallyattracted vested interests in the form of politicians, arms merchants, businessmen andother ambitious army officers. The controversy needs to be, therefore, understood inits entirety.

It is a moral issue: The controversy raises questions about the state of health of theIndian Army, denting its very edifice. Senior officers, depending on their career cal-culations, are divided over the issue. The lower rank-and-file members of the armyperceive the controversy in the manner they are fed by the rival camps. The overallconsequence is that the image of the army and the honour and moral authority of itschief has never been attacked so viciously by insiders and vested interests for non-operational reasons.

The Pakistani press is speculating about the issue, and has been raising doubts aboutthe health of the Indian Army and its unity. When an army chief vouches for a simpledetail like his date of birth, it should be accepted as such, unless there are huge rea-sons to doubt that person’s truthfulness. The point is, the psychological integrity ofthe army has been fraying over the years. Gen Singh’s ‘age’ controversy should thusnot be viewed in isolation. It is actually a manifestation of the deterioration, misuseand subversion of the office of the COAS for nearly a decade.

Who created the controversy? An impression is being sought to be conveyed by GenSingh’s detractors that he fudged his age just to ‘enjoy’ the office of COAS for an ad-ditional year. This is a travesty of truth. The fact is his age was never an issuethroughout his career. Nor was the issue ever raked up by Army HQ or even the de-fence ministry as he rose to the rank of Lt Gen with his date of birth showing 10 May1951. The issue was first raised in 2006, when the army chief prepared a successionplan going downwards several levels. It is well-known that he raked up the issue toensure the passage of one of his favourites, apparently on sectarian considerations, tothe office of COAS. In this case, he had planned for succession three interventions be-low.

The legal and financial implications: When preparing this particular successionplan, the said army chief went by the Army List, which gives Gen Singh’s date ofbirth as 10 May 1950. The Army List is prepared by the military secretary (MS)

09/03/12 10:13 AMWho’s trying to fix the Army Chief by raking up his age?

Page 3 of 5http://canarytrap.in/2011/07/15/who’s-trying-to-fix-the-army-chief-by-raking-up-his-age/

branch and contains minimal details. The branch otherwise deals with postings, pro-motions, deputations, and retirement, and is not the legal repository or otherwise ofpersonal and family details of an officer. Right from the time an officer enters thetraining academy till he retires and even after, all records are maintained by the adju-tant general (AG) branch. The AG branch clearly puts Gen Singh’s age as 10 May1951.

It may also be pointed out that Gen Singh rose to the rank of Lt Gen after appearingbefore several promotion boards – all of which accepted his May 1951 date of birth.The boards which cleared his promotion from brigadier to major-general to lieu-tenant general were endorsed by the prime minister himself. If the contention of themilitary secretary branch is that Gen Singh was born in 1950, then all his promotionswere illegal and have huge financial implications. In fact, the legality of his entire ca-reer comes under question.

On 14 December 2007, the defence ministry had queried the MS branch for recordingGen Singh’s date of birth as 10 May 1950, and asked for reconciliation with the previ-ously accepted date of birth. The noting on the file was, however, found to have said:“Enquiry not to be conducted.” This indicates that vested interests were trying to set-tle the age issue without an enquiry.

Building up the controversy: The said army chief, in order to effect his own succes-sion plan, activated his military secretary to handicap Gen Singh’s chances by gener-ating the age controversy. With the same dubious intention, an explanation wassought. It is worth pointing out that even without the age controversy, Gen Singh’sclaims to the post of COAS were not affected. It was the fate of Gen Singh’s successorwhich depended on these dates. The said army chief’s protégé would have made it toCOAS only if Gen Singh’s age was pushed back by a year.

Matters got murkier when it was found that the army had given a no-objection certifi-cate in the Sukna land scam, whereby a private party was given the right to set up aneducational institution on government land. Since the army had a key corps stationednear Sukna, its NOC was vital to this project. The person who allegedly played a keyrole in the scam was the military secretary himself. He, along with many others, isfacing trial by the judiciary. Reportedly, the same lobby has been joined by theAdarsh Society scam lobby to dislodge Gen Singh.

The arms lobby may also be at work. There are insinuations that one retired Lt Gen,

09/03/12 10:13 AMWho’s trying to fix the Army Chief by raking up his age?

Page 4 of 5http://canarytrap.in/2011/07/15/who’s-trying-to-fix-the-army-chief-by-raking-up-his-age/

who is dabbling in the arms business, has been active in the bid to supply Tatra vehi-cles, manufactured abroad, through an Indian public sector company, Bharat EarthMovers Ltd, at nearly double the cost of what is available off the shelf. Reportedly,the army chief has turned it down, inviting the wrath of this supplier and many oth-ers of his ilk.

Gen Singh took over as COAS when the army was bedevilled by scams, and he tookit upon himself to arrest this decline in its image. This is one reason why oppositionto him may be building. One senior officer, who stands to benefit the most if Singh ismade to retire a year earlier, is said to be blatantly playing the sectarian card and wassaid to be lobbying indirectly with the law ministry. The ministry made a suddenvolte face and threw its weight behind the 1950 birth date. Not to be left behind, oneTV channel even claimed Gen Singh’s real birth date was in 1949 – but faced with li-bel action, the channel hastily backtracked.

How the birthdate confusion arose: Here’s how the date differences arose. GenSingh entered Birla Public School with his date of birth (DOB) showing as 10 May1951. His provisional matriculation certificate also carries the same date. The datechange controversy originated with one of his teachers, BS Bhatnagar, who was keenon sending the maximum number of students to the National Defence Academy(NDA). The forms with the wrong birth date were filled by him. Bhatnagar went onto become principal of Lawrence School, Lovedale, and has since admitted that theerror was his.

Gen Singh’s DOB in his medical examination form as an air force candidate beforejoining the NDA also reflects the correct date in 1951. When he passed the NDAexam, the anomaly between the forms filled by Bhatnagar and his provisional matric-ulation certificate was noticed at the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC), butthis anomaly was rectified and the right DOB shows up in his NDA graduation andIndian Military Academy entry records.

But clerical oversight ensured that even after he entered the IMA, the covering enve-lope (from the NDA) mentioned 1950 as his DOB. It is this covering envelope, whichhas no legal sanctity, that Gen Singh’s detractors are using to put his DOB into ques-tion. In every subsequent document, barring the Army List dished out by the militarysecretary branch, the right DOB appears.

Singh’s options: Under the circumstances, what can a chief do? The option of resign-

09/03/12 10:13 AMWho’s trying to fix the Army Chief by raking up his age?

Page 5 of 5http://canarytrap.in/2011/07/15/who’s-trying-to-fix-the-army-chief-by-raking-up-his-age/

ing in disgust was ruled out as it would sound like an admission of defeat or evenguilt. Going to court would also have set a bad precedent. Instead, the AG branchsent the papers to four retired chief justices of India for their opinion. All of themunanimously agreed that the 1951 date was the correct one.

The question is this: who benefits from this controversy? Apart from the officers whomay expect to step into his shoes, it is only the country’s enemies, since a controversyat the top can only demoralise the armed forces. Moreover, even assuming Gen Singhwas a year older, what should a government do? Get rid of him, or take up the matterafter he retires in a quiet and unobtrusive way?

(RSN Singh is a former military intelligence officer who later served in the Re-search & Analysis Wing. The author of two books: Asian Strategic and MilitaryPerspective and Military Factor in Pakistan, he is also a columnist for Canary Trap.This post was first published on Firstpost on July 13, 2011)