Certainly, India’s army already has plenty to keep it busy. To the northeast lies China, which is quietly but rapidly expanding its military presence along the border. To the northwest lies nuclear-armed Pakistan, which has already fought three wars with India and is now wobbling with political instability.
Yet for weeks, the Indian Army has been embroiled in an achingly public dispute not about national security but about the birth date of its chief. In a drama that has set off emotional sparring on television talk shows and condemnation in newspaper editorials, the army chief, Gen. Vijay Kumar Singh, has insisted that he was born on May 10, 1951. But India’s government has insisted that, no, he was born on May 10, 1950.
The answer to the dispute could determine whether General Singh retires in May or 10 months later, as military regulations stipulate that the army chief must step down after three years on the job or upon his 62nd birthday, whichever comes first.
The controversy, which has direct bearing on the succession schedule of India’s military command, peaked on Monday when General Singh unexpectedly took the matter to India’s Supreme Court. He filed a petition asking the justices to decide a seemingly simple question: When was he born?
“This is about his pride, integrity and honor,” said Puneet Bali, one of the lawyers involved in the general’s petition.
It is a tale of pride and paperwork, of honor and hubris (and clerical typos) that has become an embarrassment to India’s Ministry of Defense and the country’s 1.3 million-member army. Some critics have blamed the ministry for badly mishandling the issue, while others have blamed General Singh for pursuing the matter as a way to extend his tenure in the top job.
The situation has created the uncomfortable appearance of India’s military leadership squaring off against its civilian leaders. It has also created some awkward political spectacles: On Sunday, General Singh played host to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Defense Minister A. K. Antony to celebrate the country’s 64th Army Day. The next day, he sued the government in the Supreme Court.
“There was an element of surprise,” said Ashok Mehta, a retired general who has been critical of General Singh’s actions. “One of the principles of war is deception. I think he let people believe he wasn’t actually going to court.”
The practical impact of the case concerns the schedule for leadership changes within the Indian Army. General Singh, who served with distinction in the 1971 war against Pakistan, assumed the army’s top job on March 31, 2010. By this timetable, General Singh is scheduled to step down in May, based on the 1950 birth date cited by the government.
However, General Singh’s contention that he is actually younger, if upheld, could make him eligible to remain on the job and complete a full three-year term.
In his few public comments, General Singh has dismissed accusations that he is trying to cling to his position and has denied that he is fighting with the Defense Ministry. “It is not something for personal gains, so far as I’m concerned,” General Singh recently told the news channel NDTV.
For all the juicy media appeal of the country’s top general suing the government he is sworn to defend, the case is also about one of the banes of Indian life: the mountains of paperwork required by the country’s bureaucracy. It is not definitively clear how, when or why the conflicting dates began to appear, but as the general began to rise through the ranks, he had two birthdays registered in the army’s clerical system. The adjutant general’s branch listed his birth year as 1951. The military secretary’s branch put the year as 1950. Somewhere, a typo occurred.
The general himself seemingly accepted the 1950 birth date at critical moments in his career. In his last three promotions, culminating in his 2010 appointment as army chief, his birth year was listed as 1950 on official records. But General Singh has argued that he was pressured to accept that false date, according to Indian media accounts. Last year, the general filed an administrative complaint, seeking to have the date changed to 1951; the complaint wended through the system until the Defense Ministry issued a final rejection.
As the controversy percolated in recent months, India’s political leaders tried to reassure the public that the situation was not undermining the country’s military readiness. Mr. Antony, the defense minister, publicly endorsed General Singh as a military leader. Other government ministers have said they do not think that General Singh is trying to misrepresent his birth date. Yet they said that India’s cabinet, in appointing him army chief, did so based on records indicating he was born in 1950, which meant he was not expected to serve in the job for a full three years.
“Rules are rules,” Salman Khurshid, the law minister, told the Indian media.
The Supreme Court could choose not to accept General Singh’s petition, thus neither ruling nor interfering in the matter. Or it could hold a full-blown hearing in which the general would be allowed to present evidence supporting his claims to a 1951 birth date.
For many retired military leaders, the whole messy spectacle has been disheartening. Many have blamed both the army and the Ministry of Defense for not correcting the problem years ago. Criticism against General Singh has also been harsh, as some have blamed him for failing to heed the military credo that an officer should always put service before self.
“He may be right, in terms of procedure,” said Uday Bhaskar, a retired Indian Navy commodore. “But what this has done is diminish the institution and tarnish the individual, no matter how unwarranted it may be.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment