Age Storm In Court
By Poonam I Kaushish
How old would you be if you didn’t know how old you are? This tongue twister has triggered a raging controversy between the civil-military establishments over the age of the Army Chief Gen VK Singh, leading to an unprecedented unpleasant situation of Singh moving the Supreme Court to protect his “honour and integrity”. This has left in its wake a sputtering red-faced Government with egg on its visage!
Significantly, the dispute has arisen after two dates of birth —10 May 1950 and 10 May 1951 — were detected in the Chief’s service records. Whereby, Singh’s matriculation certificate with the Adjutant General’s branch gives 1951 as his birth year but his UPSC application form with the Military Secretary’s branch records 1950. Should one dismiss this as a storm in a tea cup or is there more to it than meets the eye? Arguably, was the exercise of civilian authority judicious? Could not Singh’s age controversy be settled across the table quietly? Did the UPA exhaust all avenues to resolve the problem?
The issue is not whether the Supreme Court adjudicates in Singh favour or the Government backs off. Bluntly, it is not Singh’s age per se which is the crux of the controversy to seal his tenure; his age will also be the clincher on when and who will succeed him as the next Army Chief. Simply, the next Chief’s appointment hinges on when Singh retires. Three years, or when he attains 62 years of age? If Gen Singh was born in 1950 then he will retire this May and be succeeded by Lt Gen Bikram Singh and if 1951 is his birth year then he would retire next year on completing 62 years and handover charge to Lt Gen K T Parnaik.
Undoubtedly, it is a sad commentary on the health and vulnerability of our venerated defence institutions that a simple issue pertaining to the date of birth of the ‘apolitical’ Army Chief is being politicised by one and all. Making matters worse, the Government has jumped in feet first without thinking of the wider ramifications. Not only for the Army but the Government and country as a whole. This is not all. The controversy has snowballed into a corrosive civil-military face-off about the hierarchy and command and control between the military and civilian leadership. The Government feels the military must bow down to its wishes in every scenario.
Said a former Defence Minister, “The Army’s command and control rests on the sacrosanct principle that every soldier must obey orders. If the Army Chief takes us to court, then the rank and file of the Armed Forces can drag their superiors to court for every order.” Added a senior bureaucrat, “The question is can a senior commander be allowed to use his headquarters to pursue his personal case against the higher authorities? Should a General be retained to serve as a Chief if he has any complaint against the Government? Think. The Chief has risen to the top in a service administered by well-regulated orders and rules. It is ironic that having become Chief he has now chosen to project his grievances against the system.”
Countered a retired General, “You can’t call the Chief of 1.3 million Army a liar. The Chief is not an individual, he is an institution. Ideally this issue should have been resolved before making Singh the Chief. Why didn’t the Defence Minister take the Law Ministry’s opinion then? Why is the Government ignoring the fact that four former Chief Justices of India have upheld Singh’s contention?”
Making matters worse, an anguished Chief remarked, “I’m being treated like the Chief of the Pakistan Army”. Wondering, why the Government had chosen to “change” his birth date after he had spent 36 years in service and “promoted on that bases throughout the career.” Exposing as never before, the abject failure of statecraft by the Government. Whereby, this sensitive matter ought to have been handled internally given that it has been festering since 2006 when the age discrepancy came to light and resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, instead of allowing it to come in public domain and resultant court proceedings.
True, in a democracy, civilian control over the armed forces is an undisputed fact. It is the Union Cabinet’s responsibility to ensure that our Armed Forces function effectively, objectively and with their traditional neutrality within the democratic set-up. If there is even a semblance of defiance, it should be quelled quickly and firmly. There is no place for insubordinate men. Nevertheless, in this broad fabric, one can not justify every action of the civilian authority vis-à-vis the Armed Forces or the manner in which action was taken. Surely, national security would not have been jeopardized if the Defence Ministry had concurred with Singh on his birth year. After all, isn’t the Chief the best person to know when he was born?
Clearly, the powers that be have a lot to answer. Indeed not a few in the Defence Establishment believe that the Government has misused the unexceptionable principle of civilian control to encroach on turf that is acknowledged worldwide as the preserve of the military. Many ask why the Generals meekly accept even improper instructions from the Government as in 1962 Indo-China war.
Old timers recall the angst when Nehru tamed General Thimayya and Vajpayee sacked Admiral Bhagwat in 1999 leaving the Defence Establishment upset that a Government could ram any decision, howsoever perverse, down a General’s throat. Underscoring, the love-hate civil-military ties.
What next? The Government owes it the nation to be transparently honest instead of deliberately obfuscating facts. The people have every right to know who acted arbitrarily and without any sense of maintaining the tradition, ethos, discipline and equilibrium between the civil and military forces. The Government has to restore its own credibility to maintain the morale of the Armed Forces.
This apart, the Government will have to work overtime to undertake corrective measures. Over the years the civilian-military chasm has been widening. Defence sources aver to an excessive dose of bureaucratization, with babus playing up to their political master resulting in needless squabbles.
It is high time the Government dusted the Arun Singh report on improving the country’s defence mechanism. Its main recommendations was the integration of the Services and the Ministry into one composite head, with an integrated approach. Also the UPA needs to take fast measures to reassure the Service Chiefs and the nation.
Time is far gone to hide behind opaque transparency. After all, clarity needs no mirror to project truth. But both sides must realise that there will be no winners in a fight to the finish. The ball is in the Government’s court; if our leaders are wise they will cut a deal with Gen Singh, salvaging the Government’s long-term relationship with its widely-respected military.
The UPA should show magnanimity and paper over the cracks in this dangerous face-off that holds out ominous portends. It needs to recall William Wordsworth’s wise saying: The mind that is wise mourns less for what age takes away; than what it leaves behind. What gives? —— INFA