If Parliament symbolises democratic India, a Service Chief is the symbol of the Military. If Government doubted integrity of General V.K. Singh, why was he appointed Chief?

As Government rejected the statutory complaint of the Army Chief, TV debates went live. A bureaucrat talked of 30 to 40 years of good civil-military relations forgetting 1962 and the manner in which Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw was treated when alive and post demise. Speakers harped on ethics and values – one who still serving went to court and fought pettily for the post of presidentshipship of the Delhi Gymkhana Club, while the other’s bank account remains sealed under a Citibank fraud. This case is legally watertight in favour of the Army Chief. Impression created of him recently craving for an additional year is grossly untrue. Mischief originated in the Military Secretary’s (MS) Branch (which is no authority for age) 36 years after commissioning and he has been representing for ‘reconciliation’ of his birth date ever since. The Adjutant General’s (AG) Branch (sole authority for age of officers) has throughout maintained his birth date as May 1951. What more proof of mischief is required when the Ministry of Defence (MoD) directs MS Branch to undertake an inquiry into the issue in conjunction AG’s Branch, the inquiry is not held and MoD rejects the petition for ‘reconciliation of age’, describing it a petition for ‘change of date of birth’, citing findings of the inquiry that was never held.

The government knows it has done a wrong, advertent or inadvertent, but is scared to admit it. The bureaucratic role stands obfuscated as the issue portrayed is Army Chief versus the Defence Minister. The political interlocutor kept singing lullabies, exhorting patience till December 29, when courts shut down for the year. Next day, the statutory complaint is rejected, the Attorney General having changed recommendations twice. The Law Minister says rules are rules – that ‘change of date of birth’ can only be taken up within three years of service without clarifying how this applies to the Army Chief who has never asked for change of date of birth. Should the case go to court, efforts can be expected to delay the verdict beyond May 31, 2012 – MoD purported date of his retirement. On first hearing of PIL filed on the same issue, judge heading the bench says he knows the Army Chief and needs to be taken off. The next hearing scheduled January 20 may find a similar reason or even not admit the PIL on plea it has no bearing on “public interest”, ignoring the military, veterans and public at large waiting for a just ending. Not admitting the PIL will be another shameful day for India.

If Parliament symbolises democratic India, a Service Chief is the symbol of the military. If government doubted integrity of General V.K. Singh, why was he appointed Chief? Where Supreme Court has to direct Delhi citizens to wear seat belts and helmets, it would only be appropriate for the esteemed court to take suo moto notice of this case, summon both parties and give expeditious verdict. It must intervene, noting the attack being mounted on the military that will have far-reaching repercussions. Concerned Military Secretary should be summoned along with concerned MoD official and asked to produce the report of the inquiry ordered by MoD on the issue. ETV investigators have gone public in unveiling murky dealings including influence of contractors, land and arms mafias – something that had also emerged when Lt General H.S. Panag (another impeccably upright officer) was unceremoniously shunted out from Northern Command in 2008. Some say General V.K. Singh going to court will set precedence. Conversely, if he does not, then too he sets precedence of accepting deceitful political skullduggery as a Service Chief. This is not a case of an apolitical military going political but deliberate politicisation of an apolitical military. General V.K. Singh clarifies the issue all along has been of honour and integrity. The Home Minister brought on TV (who has nothing to do with the issue) skirts these and talks of not knowing any vested interests. Can the Supreme Court avert this shame to the nation?

The views expressed herein are the personal views of the author.