The Army Chief, Gen. V.K. Singh, has graciously declared that the controversy in the media over his date of birth did not concern civil-military relations, and that he had not considered approaching the Supreme Court following the rejection of his statutory complaint by the government in the matter of his age. He has also indicated that he would serve his term, thus ruling out the advice to put in his papers prematurely in order to register his protest. The Army Chief has sought to underline that the difference in perception between him and the government over his age only concerns him as an individual.
Gen. Singh’s balanced approach sits in stark contrast with the cussedness displayed by the civilian authorities. What led the defence ministry and minister A.K. Antony, otherwise a sober personality, to adopt an ostrich-like stand is inexplicable. It can only be assumed that the government — by holding on to what appears an untenable position — merely desired to underline yet again that the Indian Army is under civilian control. This is so obvious a proposition that it needs no restating. The Army Chief has also reiterated that this position, deriving from the Constitution, has served the country well. Indeed, there was never any fear of reversal of the existing arrangement.
Gen. Singh has maintained that he was born on May 10, 1951, and not a year earlier, as the government suggests. The officer’s view is sustained by the records of the Poona military hospital where he was born, his school-leaving certificate, his passport, his PAN card, and the entry in the books of the Army’s own adjutant-general branch, the institutional record-keepers for the purpose — in short, all his records as an Indian citizen and as an officer. It is the military secretary branch of the Army alone which has stubbornly held that the general was born in May 1950, and not when he says. This establishment typically deals with matters relating to transfers and postings, and not with issues having a bearing on age and other biographical metrics. So why has the government sought exclusive reliance on the MS branch records? It is incumbent on it to explain as the unseemly controversy has remained in the public domain for too long.
Gen. Singh has proved himself an exemplary leader. His term as Chief has been marked by his insistence on probity and fair play. He rightly deserves to serve until May next year, and not be asked to retire in May 2012, going simply by the MS branch papers. There have been gaps between the government and the Army Chief on policy issues in the past, and the government has rightly prevailed. This is not one of those cases.