Monday, July 25, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] Incorrect records = lame-duck Army Chief



I am really apalled by the vicarious pleasure so many offrs are getting from this debate. The good name of the ARMY & its head , the COAS, seems to be of the least concern to one & all who are participating in this debate. It is a cerebral exercise which is not going to take us any where. The grandoise statement that the Govt can not keep the truth & the manner in which two dates came on records, hidden from the public, is bereft of any moral stand. Most writers are are only enjoying the predicament of the personalities involved .They pretend to be so knowledgeable & erudite but are essentially pandering to their base instincts- enjoy the discomfiture of others, especailly if others happen to be higher in rank & stature!
A word about this balderdash of all of us becoming ASC Hav, never heard about it & I spoke to many . Why ASC, pray, tell me !! No one knows this funny business !! I suppose we must have been enrolled as L NKs in NDA.
Has anyone considered the fact that the COAS might actually have been born in 1951 as per the Matriculation Cert & that the UPSC form filled by the School auth were signed by a 15 year old boy on the dotted line without reading ? This becomes his DOB in AG Branch Records. It is possible & happens often.This youngman, knowing his birth year as 1951, there after continues to reflect it on his ACR forms , which incidentally explains his DOB in MS Branch Records.
Was he eligible to appear for NDA when he did if his DOB was 1951? If Yes, this should settle the controversy !
Who benefits & who is harmed, who started it & why was it put in motion are grist to the yellow -mill & must be put an end to soon. We must respect the RM's decision & not keep the ambers burning !!.
Finally & sincerely , I hope that the matter rests here & no one goes to the Court for then we, the ARMYMEN, will surely become the laughing stock & the good reputation of the ARMY will take some more beating.
with warm regards,
Lt Gen ( Retd ) D P Singh
Go to Previous message | Go to Next message | Back to Messages
| Full Headers
Reply Reply All Forward Forward
Reply Reply All Forward Forward
 
 
digvijay


--- On Sat, 23/7/11, Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Incorrect records = lame-duck Army Chief
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Saturday, 23 July, 2011, 4:32 AM

Now the picture is getting clear. Was  VK Singh eligible for enrolment
as ASC Haw if his date of birth shown as 10-5-1951? No. It seems he
was shown his date of birth 10-5-1950 to facilitate his enrolment in
the ASC as Hav if the enrolment story is correct. IThis  practice was
not in practice when I joined IMA as Gentlemen Cadet. If this story is
correct that may be a routine practice in all cases where the GCs are
underaged for enrolment. If someone bother to check, the fact will
emerge. If that be sok the issue is serious.

On 22/07/2011, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sir
>
> You are correct that nobody seems to have considered AA sec 44.
>
> A detailed analysis of how these DoBs entered various files has been
> attempted by one Col P.K.Das (Retd) in a letter published in Hindustan Times
> [http://www.publishaletter.com/readletter.jsp?plid=28489]
>
> Such incidents betray an appalling lack of intra-service communication /
> record keeping and convey that politics and manipulation continue to ride
> rampant in our fighting forces - perpetuated by politicians and babus..
>
> Sarbajit Roy
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 9:50 PM, vinay singh <vinay4299@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No body has considered the implications of Army Act Section 44 (False
>> answers on enrolment)
>>
>> While Gen VK Singh's DOB may have been mistakenly written as 10 May
>> 1950 in the UPSC form, the same cannot be said for the enrolment form
>> he filled when he joined IMA. As you may be knowing, gentleman cadets
>> are enrolled as Havildars in ASC when they join IMA, in order to bring
>> them under the Army Act. This form is signed by the GC himslef. A
>> false answer in this form is punishable with upto five years
>> imprisonment.
>>
>> It would be best if 10 May 1950 is accepted as the correct DOB, to
>> avoid the embarrasment of possible prosecution under AA Section 44.
>>
>> Maj Gen VK Sngh (Retd)
>>
>> On 22 July 2011 18:55, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I think that CoAS has always maintained his DoB as 10 May 1951. It is
>> only
>> > in the UPSC where his DoB is shown as 1950. Some of the correspondence
>> > is
>> at
>> > this link.
>> >
>> http://indianmilitarynews.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/army-chiefs-age-row-pits-general-vs-general/
>> >
>> > "So even as the force and the Defence Ministry grapples with another
>> > controversy regarding its top officer, it is important to note that
>> > these
>> > flurry of letters were running parallel to investigations in the Sukhna
>> land
>> > scam, where then Eastern Army Commander, Lieutenant General VK Singh had
>> > ordered a Court of Inquiry that was to later reach the top, to the
>> Military
>> > Secretary Lieutenant General Avadesh Prakash and the Chief, General
>> Deepak
>> > Kapoor."
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Col NR Kurup <colnrkurup@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> If the COAS goes to Court, he will have it. One can't be selective in
>> >> this case. He can't claim to reckon his DoB as 1950 when 1950 suited
>> >> him and  1951  when 1951 suited him. If someone dig into the case he
>> >> has to answer for the benefits he availed by counting his DoB as 1950
>> >> and 1951.If he is wise, I think he is will not press the case as he
>> >> hardly get any gain other than one more year's service. He should
>> >> honourably vacate the post in 2012 to enable his junior to become
>> >> CoAS. in 2012
>> >>
>> >> On 22/07/2011, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/army-chiefs-age-controversy-battle-not-over-warn-experts-121262
>> >> >
>> >> > The government's decision on the date of birth of the man who heads
>> the
>> >> > Indian Army may not provide the closure many have been hoping for.
>> >> > Experts
>> >> > say a complicated and lengthy legal battle could follow in the next
>> few
>> >> > months.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yesterday, the Defence Minister said that the government had accepted
>> >> > 1950
>> >> > as the year in which General VK Singh was born. The Army Chief has
>> been
>> >> > arguing that he was born a year later. The problem is that Army
>> records
>> >> > reflect both.
>> >> >
>> >> > The biggest implication is the year in which the Army Chief will
>> retire
>> >> > -
>> >> > 2012, according to the government's decision. If it had accepted Mr
>> >> > Singh's
>> >> > date of birth, his tenure would have extended to 2013.
>> >> >
>> >> > Several legal experts, including three retired Chief Justices, have
>> said
>> >> > that Mr Singh has a strong case against the government, should he
>> decide
>> >> > to
>> >> > go to court.
>> >> >
>> >> > The Defence Ministry has asked the official record-keeper of the Army
>> -
>> >> > the
>> >> > Adjutant General's branch - to change Mr Singh's date of birth in its
>> >> > records from May 10, 1950 to May 10, 1951. But defence regulations
>> state
>> >> > that service records cannot be altered - a fact that the Adjutant
>> >> > General is
>> >> > likely to stress today to the government.
>> >> >
>> >> > This is the first time that the age of a military chief has become a
>> >> > matter
>> >> > of national concern and debate. Former Army chiefs state that the
>> >> > government's decision could inadvertently turn General Singh into a
>> >> > lame-duck Army Chief.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Read more at:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/army-chiefs-age-controversy-battle-not-over-warn-experts-121262&cp
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>

No comments:

Post a Comment