Print Email to Friend| From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 9, Issue 034 Dated 28 Jan 2012

CURRENT AFFAIRS   COAS VS GOVT

What’s in a Birth Date? An embarrassment for both sides

As Army chief General VK Singh puts his honour at stake, the government has tied itself up in knots, reports Brijesh Pandey

Going slow Antony (left) has faced flak for not resolving the issue Photo: AFP

IT’S THE season of controversy for the Indian Army. After being plagued with corruption cases like the Sukhna land scam and the Adarsh housing scam, which saw top generals like Avdhesh Prakash being court-martialled, the army is now in the throes of a strange, unprecedented crisis. For the first time in the history of independent India, a serving army chief has taken the government to court. The issue at hand is seemingly personal but has wider implications for the service and civilian-military relations: What is the date of birth of General VK Singh?

At your service Three ex-CJIs have backed Singh’s case Photo: Indian Photo Agency ALSO READ At Ease With Grease Dear General, Please Stay Out Of Politics A few good men can win this battle of morality

In the petition filed before the Supreme Court, the army chief has challenged Defence Minister AK Antony’s order to consider his date of birth (DOB) as 10 May 1950. Gen Singh maintains that the year is 1951, as verified by the police at the time of his joining the service. It is also written on his matriculation certificate, which is usually considered sacrosanct and this has to be treated as conclusive proof.

In a swift move, the government filed a caveat before the SC and went into a huddle to figure out the next course of action.

While the army chief ’s action is unprecedented and has generated a whole lot of debate, the apparent insensitivity of the government has also come in for a lot of flak. The government says that the army chief had written three letters, between 2008 and 2009, accepting that his date of birth is 10 May 1950. The government’s argument is that the promotion of Gen Singh first as army commander in 2008 and then as army chief in 2010 was done on the basis of these letters. They say it’s too late for him to rake up this issue now.

One of the major problems the government is hinting at is that if they accept Gen Singh’s contention now, it will upset the chain of succession within the army. The government is also banking heavily on the three opinions given by the Attorney General, all against a change of date. Based on these opinions, the defence ministry had rejected the statutory complaint filed by Gen Singh.

So the questions that arise now are: What led the General to write these letters, and is he now backtracking?

According to Maj Gen (retd) GD Bakshi, “The tragedy is that not many people are aware of the way the army functions. I have seen most of the correspondence. When you see that, he did it with reservations and has put it on paper. He said, ‘I am obeying the orders.’ In the army, if you don’t obey orders you (the junior ranking officers) can straightaway be put into military prison. So, when you are told in writing to comply with the orders or face the consequences, then you first obey and then put in your protest. He did precisely that. Apparently, when Bimal Julka was the joint secretary in the defence ministry, and saw the tone and tenor of the letter, he felt, ‘He has not accepted this without reservation. He is just obeying orders.”

Bakshi further adds, “When you write something like, ‘Anything that is required do be done in the larger interests of the organisation may be undertaken by the Army Headquarters,’ it means only one thing: ‘I have no option but to accept what you are saying but I am doing it under protest’. Pat came the reply from the MS (Military Secretary) branch: ‘This response is not in conformity with response asked.’ He was told to accept 1950 as his date of birth or action deemed appropriate would be taken. You would be a fool of the highest order not to know what that means.”

One senior serving army officer says, “Till the day the chief became Lt General, the Adjutant branch had 10 May 1951 as his date of birth. His records, promotions up to the rank of Lt General say he is born in 1951. Mind you, the Adjutant branch is the official record-keeper of the Indian Army and MS branch is for promotion. So you tell me, what makes more sense? Rectifying the error of MS branch or making your chief out to be a liar. It seems that for the Government of India, the MS branch is more important than the institution of the army chief.”

Interestingly, no less than three former Chief Justices of India are backing the army chief. According to former Chief Justice of India (retd) VN Khare, defence service regulations specify that the matriculation certificate alone will decide the DOB. Any discrepancy must be reconciled with the date in the matriculation certificate. Former CJI RC Lahoti had also opined that Gen Singh has been consistent over 10 May 1951 as his date of birth from the very beginning and all the records and reports relating to him have the same DOB. Former CJI JS Varma also opined in favour of Gen Singh.

But will this confrontation between the army chief and the defence ministry affect the morale of the force? TEHELKA spoke to serving as well as retired officers to gauge the mood of the armed forces over this issue. While serving officers refused to say anything on record, they maintained that while the morale of the force was intact and will not be impacted, there is a sense of hurt that the sanctity of the chief’s post has been sullied by the ministry’s insensitive handling of the issue.

According to Lt Gen (retd) Raj Kadyan, “There are two things. One is the army’s morale and the other is the image. The morale has a bearing on the effectiveness. Yes, certainly it will dent the image of the army not just in India but world over. But as far as its morale and effectiveness are concerned, it will have no bearing.”

Agrees Col (retd) Ajai Shukla, “For most people in the Indian Army, who are more or less occupied with operational matters on the ground, this is hardly likely to have an effect. However, it is certainly going to reinforce the feeling across the army that the defence ministry is not treating the army fairly. This is a feeling that has been reflected in the increase in litigation against the ministry by many soldiers, juniors, midranking officers on a variety of issues.”

THOUGH MOST of the serving brass in the army is silent on the issue, the fight has not gone down well with most of them. “Everything is alright with our morale,” says an officer, “but our image has unnecessarily been sullied.”

Several retired generals are also upset at the comparisons being drawn between this case and the infamous sacking of Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat in 1998. Lt Gen (retd) Kadyan says, “There have been some ill-informed comments about (Gen Singh) in the media comparing him to Vishnu Bhagwat and their talking of sacking and all. There is no equation. Vishnu Bhagwat clearly said that the government orders given to him are not implementable. That is defiance of the civil authority, which in our Constitution should not be accepted. But Gen Singh hasn’t defied any authority. He hasn’t countered any government policy. He hasn’t done anything illegal. There is no comparison between the two.”

The showdown has also brought the defence ministry and Antony into the spotlight. There is a general consensus that Antony, known for his probity in public life and a stickler for rules, didn’t handle the situation with the seriousness it deserved. A senior Congress party functionary, on condition of anonymity, says, “For the past one year, Gen Singh has been openly articulating his views. However, instead of tackling it with a certain degree of sagacity, it’s become a mess. Now the government is in a Catch-22 situation.”

Though there is a section of retired generals who believe that Gen Singh should have abided by the honour code of the army and should have first retired and then taken on the government, there is near unanimity that the issue has been handled very badly by the defence ministry.

According to Maj Gen (retd) Satbir Singh, “It is a self-goal by the defence ministry and the government. It should have been resolved much earlier. An unnecessary controversy has been created. When the army chief has said so many times that all he wants is the correction of the birth date and he won’t stay a day beyond his tenure, then why does the government not trust him?” Agrees Major Gen (retd) GD Bakshi, “It has been tragically mishandled and because of that, the first casualty is the national synergy process where all the organs of the state have to function together as an orchestra. The resonance it has generated is unfortunate.”

So has Gen Singh done the right thing by taking the government to the Supreme Court? “The question is: Why has Gen Singh done this?” says Kadyan. “It is difficult for a man who hasn’t donned a uniform to understand the value of honour. A soldier will do anything, and I’m emphasising the word ‘anything’, to preserve his honour and integrity. That is the army’s strength and that is why it is unique.”

While the government has several options up its sleeve, what makes this job tricky is that in less than a fortnight, five states will go to polls and the government at this stage cannot be seen as victimising the army chief. Out of the five states, Punjab and Uttarakhand have a large population of ex-servicemen and any adverse action might have a negative political reaction. This is the reason why former Punjab chief minister and Congress leader Capt Amarinder Singh was quick to dash off a letter to the Centre supporting the army chief. Now the government, caught between the polls and a defiant army chief, is treading very carefully.

With inputs from Prakhar Jain

Brijesh Pandey is a Special Correspondent with Tehelka.
brijesh@tehelka.com