Chief of Army Staff General V.K. Singh, a third-generation Army officer, was selected for the 45th course of the National Defence Academy (NDA) and after three years followed by another year at the Indian Military Academy (IMA), he was commissioned in June 1970.
General Singh’s Class 10 certificate records May 10, 1951, as his date of birth. This is the main document, besides the birth certificate (which may or may not be available in those days as everyone was not born in a certified medical establishment and usually at home) on which the government ascertains an individual’s age.
Class 10 or higher class certificates were not always available to candidates at the time of joining the training academy. In Gen. Singh’s case, it reportedly came in 1971, almost four years after his joining the NDA, about one year after he was commissioned.
So, at the time of being commissioned, the only document that the IMA had was the UPSC application form, which was reportedly not filled by Gen. Singh personally, but in which his date of birth is recorded erroneously as May 10, 1950. Since then, this is the date of birth which is reportedly filled in all relevant documents. As per the rules, any change of date of birth should be effected within two years of joining the service.
On commissioning, the Record of Service of every Army officer is forwarded by the IMA or the Officers Training Academy (OTA-for short service commission officers) to the manpower planning directorate (MP 5/6) of the Adjutant General’s branch. MP 5/6 thereafter records all occurrences about the officer, including promotion exams, qualifications, promotions, war/operational service, decorations and medals, hospital admissions, leave, Part II orders from the officer’s parent unit etc. Part I pertains to personal particulars of the officer, which include date of birth as recorded in the UPSC or in the sheet roll.
Having received the Class 10 certificate, albeit four years late, Gen. Singh is reported to have tried to have his date of birth amended a number of times while maintaining it as May 10, 1951, in his confidential reports and service record.
In May 2006, the matter emerged again when the then military secretary’s (MS) branch detected two different dates of birth of Gen. Singh in its official records.
The then military secretary, Lt. Gen. Richard Khare, is reported to have asked Gen. Singh in a letter dated May 3, 2006, “to reflect the correct date of birth, which is May 10, 1950” in his records.
The MS branch informed Gen. Singh in August 2006 that the Army rules did not allow any corrections after two years of joining service and his case could not be processed at such a belated stage.
Gen. Singh is reported to have raised the issue again in 2007, but again to no avail.
The then military secretary Lt. Gen. P.R. Gangadharan, reportedly stated in a confidential letter dated December 20, 2007, that “as per available records, the officer (Gen. Singh) had not taken up any case for correction of his DoB prior to intimation by the MS branch in May 2006.”
Like his predecessor Gen. Khare, Gen. Gangadharan also recommended that Gen. Singh’s date of birth should be considered as May 10, 1950, for the purpose of promotion and retirement. He argued that any correction will be legally unsustainable and will give rise to similar claims by others.
In January 2008, a letter from the additional director-general manpower planning and personnel clarified that Gen. Singh’s date of birth from recorded endorsements in his documents was May 10, 1951 and that since the time of commissioning, the officer had in every instance endorsed his date of birth as May 10, 1951.
Later in 2008, the case was closed reportedly following a “written commitment” made by Gen. Singh to his predecessor chief accepting the 1950 date. Gen. Singh, however, kept seeking clarification on the same issue from the MS branch in 2009 until he was reminded of his commitment, which he promised to “honour”.
While this issue did come up in public domain during 2008-2009, when Gen. Singh was GOC-in-C, Eastern Command, once he took over as the Army Chief, it died down.
Then, interestingly, a Right to Information (RTI) query came up, on which the defence ministry sought the law ministry’s opinion. The law ministry, after deliberation, stated that Gen. Singh’s Class 10 certificate, that records his date of birth as May 10, 1951, is a bonafide document. It was only after this was reported in the media that the issue took a different turn. Most newspapers and networks reported on the issue in favour of the Army Chief, but one daily and one news network decided to take the matter to the town. Now, there remained no doubt about well-orchestrated, selective and motivated leaks, which include documents of security classification “personal-confidential” from the MS branch.
In view of all that was reported and some of the comments of the dailies, which played up the issue, some questions and observations which need conclusions are:
(a) Why did the MS branch in 2006 did not carry in-depth investigation into the matter and what stopped it from referring it for legal opinion as the defence ministry did recently? Rules are made for organisations and individuals who serve in them and not the other way around. At times, the Army tends to be far more bureaucratic than the bureaucrats themselves. The matter about Gen. Singh’s correct DoB could well have been resolved with a positive approach and with the totally rigid approach about rules (the time limit of two years to correct the DoB), which, through proper channel, can well be changed.
(b) Gen. Singh repeatedly kept requesting to resolve the issue about disparity in his DoB. Why did the MS branch, which takes care of careers of officers in terms of promotions and postings, not initiate fact-finding despite these repeated requests?
(c) The “written commitment”, referred to by one daily, is what is reportedly mentioned in a demi-official letter written by Gen. Singh before he took over as the chief from his predecessor. How did this daily come about to interpret that this “commitment” refers to the matter of Gen. Singh’s age?
(d) While the daily claims that most of Gen. Singh’s documents have the 1950 date, highly-placed sources confirm that it is not so; in fact it is the opposite, only the UPSC form has the 1950 date.
(e) The same daily’s claim that the UPSC application was filled personally by Gen. Singh is contravened by another daily quoting the teacher who has admitted to the date erroneously being recorded as 1950.
(f) The source of the leaks seems to have become quite obvious. As has been widely reported, the former military secretary is facing disciplinary proceedings post retirement, which the present Army Chief during his previous tenure as GOC-in-C, Eastern Command, had ordered in the court of inquiry pertaining to irregularities in dealing with land in Sukhna. How else could letters of “personal-confidential” security classification reach the media? In fact, the leakage of such a document itself warrants an investigation.
The final decision will be taken by the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) on the recommendation of the defence ministry. According to the terms of his appointment as the Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Singh will serve for two years or till he is 62, whichever is earlier. If the ACC accepts his year of birth as 1951, he may get an extension or else he retires in June 2012.
All this could have been avoided on the simple principle of a stitch in time saves nine.
Anil Bhat is a defence and security analyst based in New Delhi