opinion COMMENTS
When he was a lieutenant general, V.K. Singh gave it in writing that he had faith in his army chief. This cannot be construed as ‘acceptance’ of a wrong DoB.

Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
If you wish your letter to be considered for publication in the print magazine, we request you to use a proper name, with full postal address - you could still maintain your anonymity, but please desist from using unpublishable sobriquets and handles
Must See
Daily Mail
Mar 12, 2012
No JAG Lag Here

Apropos the imputations made by Mrinalini Singh in her article How Can Great Oaks Sway With the Wind? (Feb 27), I wish to point out that as the judge advocate general, I’d opine on a matter only when specifically called upon to do so. I do not recall having been asked to opine on the then major-general (or was it lieutenant general?) V.K. Singh’s date of birth. While I have no doubt about the integrity of the army chief, I maintain he was ill-advised to rake up the matter before the Supreme Court.

Maj Gen Nilendra Kumar (retd), Noida

You don’t get it, Mrinalini Singh. If the general had to fix the date-of-birth controversy, he should have done it before the promotions. It’s not about right or wrong. It’s called professional judgement. If he couldn’t take a call then, what will he do in an hour of crisis?

J, on e-mail

When the infantry goes into battle, it is expected to fight to the last man, last bullet. An army chief who gallantly entered a court battle should have fought it out till it was decided either way.

Lt Col S.P. Karir (retd), on e-mail

Feb 18, 2012
12:52 PM

This is the first time the origins of the date issue have been clearly detailed in print. If these facts are true (which personally I think they are) then it definitely seems as if its not something which the general has raked up recently to stay on as army chief. the very fact that the general tried to get it corrected right at the start of his career (he could not have known then that he will become the chief of the army) gives a lot of credibility to his case that this issue has been created by vested interests within the army supported by a callous government! At least we know we have an army chief who has the nerve to take on moral issues which needs far more courage than fighting a battle.

Rajesh Chary
Mumbai, India
Feb 18, 2012
01:25 PM

A truly brave soldier - as well reported by his daughter ( from Arundhati down, authoresses seem to have all the gift of the gab in the media ). While all the government ever dreams off about the army probably, is to have females replace the brave armymen.

Male Unblocked
Chennai, India
Feb 19, 2012
12:31 PM


1. Shouting from the roof top that I am ready to die for the country is old way, the Gen next says, that you should make sure that the enemey dies for his country.

2. This gentleman(?) has agreed  1951 as his his DoB and taken previous promotions, his DoB  certificate ( again issued by army Hospital ) says  his DoB as 1950. But  when the retirement comes , he claims 1951 as DoB. This is not so much of Gentleman act. May be rubbing shoulders with the politicans has  made this effect. At the end of the day, he has lost the intergrity and the chance for an after retirement  ( plum)posting

Erode, India
Feb 19, 2012
01:29 PM


his DoB certificate ( again issued by army Hospital ) says his DoB as 1950

WRONG. His birth certificate issued by MH Pune says May 1951.

This gentleman(?) has agreed 1951 as his his DoB and taken previous promotions, his DoB certificate ( again issued by army Hospital ) says his DoB as 1950. But when the retirement comes , he claims 1951 as DoB

Do you realise how stupid your statement is?  The media refrain is that Gen VK Singh used 1950 as his DOB when it suited him for promotion, but is now using 1951 to delay his retirement. While selling this line, which according to KC Singh former Foreign Secretary has the approval of the PM no one has bothered to explain in what way a DOB (especially one which shows you as older than you are) has any bearing on an individual's promotion. There is no rule which stipulates you must be a certain min age in order to be promoted.

the Gen next says, that you should make sure that the enemey dies for his country

Nothing Gen next about this. This statement is attributed to Gen George S Patton who is quoted as saying that "No SOB ever one a war by dying for his country. He wins it by making the other poor SOB die for his country".

I don't know your background, but please refrain from being judgemental on matters which you have clearly demonstrated you know nothing about.

Chennai, India
Feb 20, 2012
10:47 AM

I think detailed genetic or biological tests can accurately determine a person's age. Why dont they do that.

Oat Meal
Mbosa Mbosa, Uganda
Feb 20, 2012
11:43 AM

For god's sake,the issue before the court was not the actual/real DOB.No body ever disputed the fact that the general was born in 1951. The issue was whether he is now eligble to endorse this 1951 year in to his Army records for purposes of promtion,retirement etc. The answer was known to every one who have a rudimentory knowledge of army rules. Words of retd Justices are immaterial here, as in all probability, full facts of the case were not presented to them for securing the opinion ! The media just confused the poor public of India by saying the injustice was done to a person who was honest and upright among crooks. The fact is that the general became COAS, despite the presence of those most corrupt ! I feel the system was not that bad even for Gen VKS ! I shudder at the thought what would happen,if the likes of G.fernandes was Defence Minister  now !

Tvm, India
Feb 20, 2012
01:39 PM

 Notwithstanding withdrawing of petition by Gen VK Singh, withdrawing of 30 Dec 2011 order by the GoI and consequently order passed by the honourable SC, the DOB issue needs thorough investigation by an independent agency to get into the root cause of this controversy.  The term of reference for the investigation should be based on following major issues:-

1.  Why  the matter was not investigated on getting instructions from MOD ? Who is responsible for this ?

2.  What is actual DOB as per records maintained by AG's branch and why it differs that is maintained with MS branch.

3.   Why then COAS didn't ask his MS to check records from AG's branch, instead asking the affected officer to accept the wrong DOB which was inadvertantly filled in his UPSC form ? What was his interest behind this or was it done in some one's behest ?

4.  Under what circumstances the present COAS has given the so called acceptance of his DOB as 1950.

5.   Why MoD issued orders for change of DoB, is it justified on the part of MoD to issue such orders which is against natural justice ? 

In my opinion, MoD should have accepted the actual DoB ie. 1951 and as for as tenure of COAS is concerned, it is prerogative of the Govt to decide. 

Lt Col(Retd) R S Dasila
New Delhi, India
Feb 20, 2012
07:33 PM

Now here is another spin from another media: it says the affidavit filed by the AG on behalf of the GoI says that only that part of the order dismissing the statutory complaint stood withdrawn and the dob would continue to be 1950! Incidently I have tried to get a copy of the court order from the website of the apex court but it was not available!

Major P M Ravindran (Retired)
Palakkad, India
Feb 20, 2012
08:07 PM

I hereby give in writing that now my DOB is 27-02-1991 .

Please give me appointment in Govt Service as I am professionally qualified for Top Posts.
I hereby give solemn Undertaking that I will retire on attaining the superannuation age in 2052 and will not contest the Feb 1991 DOB though my real age is 71 yrs + !

a k ghai
mumbai, India
Feb 21, 2012
02:52 AM


If we did that he would have retired 5 years ago.

toronto, canada
Feb 21, 2012
02:59 AM

 Like Father and daughter. You don't get it. If he had to fix it he should have done it before the promotion. It is not the question right or wrong. It is called professional judgement. If he couldn't make the call what will he do in the hour of need. 

toronto, canada
Feb 21, 2012
01:20 PM

Whether Gen.Singh was right or wrong in going to court should not be decided by any one, but by himself.The case brings in public domain the red tapism,inability to take proper decision when required and cornering someone who is upright to give a lesson to other lessor mortals not to interfere with the powers that be.

ajay singh chauhan
New Delhi, India
Feb 21, 2012
03:10 PM

 Very well said. I always thought  that injustice may have been done to Gen VK Singh in the matter of his date of birth and the above article fully confirms my belief by giving out the details of the issue. Sadly, the real culprits have escaped. What a pity.

RK Singh
Gurgaon, India
Feb 21, 2012
05:15 PM
Comment removed for violation of Website Policy
sujatha parmeshwar
delhi, India
Feb 22, 2012
06:47 AM

If the general could not sort out his DOB before getting the top job then that proves he is either incompetent or greedy. Do you doubt that ??

toronto, canada
Feb 22, 2012
08:35 AM

 The issue is indeed a delicate one and shouldn't have happened in the first place. But once the wrong was done, it needed to be righted. And that's exactly the reason why the General went to the Supreme Court. The clarification coming from his daughter is rather welcome because it places the whole issue in its perspective.

It’s important to disabuse few wrong impressions colonizing the public mind. General VK Singh’s date of birth (DOB) controversy is not a civilian-military issue; it was entirely intra-army. And coupled with this, let it be said upfront here that the fight was not merely about the honour and dignity of the Chief of Army Staff (COAS). More importantly for the nation, it concerned larger issues: the issue of a game of shenanigans and sordid deeds that happened – to arm-twist him to accept 1951 as his DOB in 2006, and yet again in 2008, when he was at his most vulnerable.

Now that the issue been settled by the Supreme Court, it’s time to unwrap, untangle and unspool the lie (or a series of them!) to get to the bottom of the truth – the story of confusion right from the moment he arrived on earth on May 10, either on 1950 or 1951. My analysis and views are based strictly on the basis of information available in public domain. The inferences and conclusions, as a responsible citizen, though are entirely mine.

As reports have it, the General’s father was an officer in the Indian army when he was born and, like any government servant, had duly conveyed his superiors about being blessed with a new-born son. General Singh’s DOB was recorded as May 10, 1951 in his father’s service records. Plus he was born in the Military Hospital, Poona (as it was then called) and can be borne out from the record of the hospital, if available. His matriculation certificate too carries the same day.

The only record that shows he was born in 1950 is in the UPSC form. This was due to an error committed by his teacher who filled in his form and he had signed the same as a fourteen-year old minor. As per my knowledge “All candidates called for interview must carry their original matriculation certificate or equivalent examination certificate to the Services Selection Board (SSB). Originals will have to be produced by the candidates who qualify at the SSB interview soon after the interview. The originals will be returned after verification”. This is what the latest advertisement for the NDA exams carried in the UPSC website says. I’m sure the same practice was in vogue even in 1966 – the year the COAS wrote the NDA exams.

If this were the case, how and why did the SSB not look into this discrepancy and correct the mistake? And if this mistake was indeed corrected (so it appears), this information containing his DOB as 10.05.1951 must have been conveyed to the NDA, then subsequently to the IMA, and later, of course, to the AG Branch of the army headquarters. As per information available in the public domain, it was indeed done. The Record of Service (IAFZ-2041) of every officer on commissioning is forwarded by Indian Military Academy (IMA) to AG Branch of Army Headquarters. It includes all occurrences during officer’s service with Part-I (Personal Particulars) of this document filled by IMA to the extent applicable at the time of commissioning. Here too the Part-I of the document records General Singh’s “Date of Birth” (as recorded by UPSC or in Sheet Roll) as May 10, 1951.

From the foregoing, it would appear that the correction was indeed made. And that is how he continued to get all his promotions right from the level of Second Lieutenant to a Major General till 2006 with 1951 as his DOB. This must have been on the basis of the records maintained by the record-keeper of the army headquarters – the Adjutant General’s branch. Even DOB recorded in all Annual and other Medical Examination Boards is 10 MAY 1951.

Come 2006 and the anomaly on the officer’s DOB is dredged up by the then Military Secretary on 3rd May 2006, which is when it appears the issue of another DOB seems to have surfaced making him older than he biologically and officially was – based on the records of the Military Secretary’s office and claiming that he was born in 1950 and not 1951. And without checking and confirming detailed record of service from the AG’s Branch of the Army HQ who are the official record-keeper and authority on all such personal matters, the Military Secretary Branch erroneously (even mischievously) got the Army List published reflecting the DOB of General Singh as May 10, 1950, instead of 1951.

We need to go into the reason why the issue surfaced for the first time in 2006 on the eve of his promotion as corp commander and continued to remain on the boil in 2008 when he was due to become an army commander. What prompted the Military Secretary to pull the rabbit out of the hat and say that 1950 must be accepted by him as his DOB for his imminent promotion then and for all future promotions? To an outsider like me, it is clear that a non-issue was made an issue and he was coerced to agree when on the verge of promotion to accept a preposterous date as his DOB. The army headquarters in its anxiety to carry out its coup forgot a small basic fact of life: that you can change your name because it is prospective, but you can’t change your date of birth because it is applicable retrospectively and because you can’t apply the same retroactively!

Subsequent happenings unfolding thereafter – Sukhna land scam (where General Singh took a strong stand letting the smoking putrescence billow as GOC-in-C, Eastern Command), Adarsh scam (where he let the muck smoke out apologies without the cloak of secrecy attending it), and the now-developing Pune land scam (comments reserved because it is premature to do so now) – are likely to speak more about the reasons than what we are facilely made to see on the surface that there were forces who didn’t wish General Singh a longer tenure as the Chief!

It must be said to that the Hon’ble Supreme Court brought the curtains down on the issue most graciously and with a maturity that indeed behoves the highest court of the land. The operative part of the judgment reads thus: “As a matter of fact, the question before us in the writ petition is not about the determination of actual date of birth of the petitioner, but it concerns the recognition of a particular date of birth of the petitioner by the respondent (Union of India) in the official service record. In view of the statement made by Goolam Vahanvati, Attorney-General, and the limited controversy in the writ petition, counsel for the petitioner does not wish to press the matter further and he seeks withdrawal of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.” (Emphasis added in italics are mine)

To me – an ardent admirer of the Indian army, wishing it upholds the baton of honesty high – it appears there were greater, if invisible, forces at work to ensure that he didn’t have a longer tenure as the Chief of the Army Staff. The reason I say this is because the implication goes much beyond his personal honour and dignity; it concerns national interest which, as we stand in the cusp of history, we can only ignore at our own peril. Let’s sincerely hope the subterranean impulses at work denying General Singh his rightful due soon tumbles out of the closet. Obfuscation or partial and selective trickling down of information onto public domain in times of transparency is an anathema.

We can no more hide behind high walls of secrecy and opacity. The truth must come out. The sooner the better. The nation has a right to know the whole truth about this dirty game played out by some characters at the highest level of our revered armed forces. The lie must be nailed. Once and for all. That's the lesson we can learn for the future where Derelict India Entrenched is given a rude shake-up and Surging India Transparent takes over the reins of the nation.

Priyanka Mohanty
Bangalore, India
Feb 22, 2012
11:33 AM
Comment removed for violation of Website Policy
Delhi, India
Feb 22, 2012
03:42 PM
Comment removed for violation of Website Policy
sujatha parmeshwar
delhi, India
Feb 22, 2012
08:26 PM

Without getting carried away by the previous comments, I'd like to place certain impressions for Ms Mrinalini Singh to consider: - 1. Lt Gen VK Singh was senior enough in the Army to know that if he did not agree to change in year of birth, the chain would not have been held up. Army had the scheme where once a Maj Gen (or any other officer) was cleared for promotion by a Promotion Board (PB), he just waited till he was promoted. In the Air Force (where I served as a C-in-C), the PB lapsed on 31st March and any one not promoted went into the panel for consideration the next year. 2. I am not an admirer of JJ Singh nor of Deepak Kapoor but VK Singh had the chance to exercise :moral courage:, a trait reflected and assessed in ACR, to refuse to do as he was bid because there is also a Section of the Regulations that an officer/other rank can refuse to obey an unlawful command and put that in writing. Then the refusal travels all the way up the chain till resolved. 3. If the tantalising carrot of GOC 2 Corps, the premier Strike Corps was too tempting, then VK Singh had the chance not to accept and still he would have got a Corps, maybe 21 or 4, and his izzat et al would have been intact. 4. SC gave him a chance to clearly state his stand and also to state his case. He should have taken it because for izzat, one would have sacrificed his life especially when one receives an expeditious hearing from the Apex Court. 


S Y Savur
Bangalore, India
Feb 22, 2012
11:15 PM

It is unfortunate that this squabble between the military and the civilian government is receiving such an an open public airing. The subservience of the military to the civilian government has to be complete, both in fact as well as in appearance. The general has set a bad example by taking the government to court. The matter should have been settled privately, and if the general could not prrevail, he should have licked his wound privately. In any case it is best to close this sorry chapter now.

Dallas, United States
Feb 23, 2012
02:14 AM

 Being a retired Chief's son i find it extremely painful to watch such a private albiet sensitive Defence issue turn into  a media circus. We've always taken pride in our uniformed Heroes and to watch them used as pawns much like the common politician by the Media is sad indeed.

While i am sure ( based on his daughter's letter here) that Gen VK Singh has been wronged, to me the honorable thing to do as the COAS would be, to have resigned and then carried on the personal battle to the courts and beyond, for something he so strongly believes in. This way the Institution of the Defence Services would have come out unscathed and the General would have upheld his honor and respect in the eyes of the common man, befitting of a soldier. 

I quite understand the aggrievement that his daughter rightfully feels, but washing such dirty linen in public, with altercations as seen in this comment section is not only disgusting but unbecoming of us Defence folks. This is not who we are.

DC, United States
Feb 23, 2012
07:06 AM

mrinalini singh's comments were an eye-opener,especially when she mentioned the involvement of major general nilender kumar,JAG,about whom, the less said the better,as he was involved in several scandals while in service, and was under investigation several times for  corrupt practices,that were reported in the media.the fact that such a person could rise to the post of JAG shows the deep rot within the Army,and it is not surprising that Gen.V.K.Singh had to face such avoidable problems in the end.

suvarna sanyal
mumbai, India
Feb 23, 2012
09:14 AM
Comment removed for violation of Website Policy
sujatha parmeshwar
delhi, India
Feb 23, 2012
09:43 AM
Comment removed for violation of Website Policy
Delhi, India
Feb 23, 2012
10:37 AM

Things are quite straight and simple. Every one in the Army knows the reality about the personalities involved. On one hand is General Vk Singh, an upright and honest officer and othe other side are the manipulators par-execellence.

Kanu singh
Hyderabad, India
Feb 23, 2012
11:58 AM

This daughter of the Army Chief says that her father had been fighting to correct his date of birth since the time he joined the army , rather even a few days before joining it. I don't believe it just like any other human being would not on the face of this earth.

If at all it were true, that he had been relentlessly struggling against his wrong date of birth and yet it was not corrected because , as his daughter believes , there had been conspiracy aggravated by jealousy of his peers and colleagues and his immediate superiors , we must develop serious doubts about the very functioning of Army as an institution.

If we were to believe that , Mr.V.K.Singh's requests had been rejected or overlooked for convinience by his superiors to benefit the Government !!! ( or to cause harm to Mr.Singh ) all along, hold your breath, for 43 years or more !!. because I think the right age to join NDA is 17 or 18 years.

Another fact is that his original date of birth should not matter now simply because  all through his career  whatever date had been considered , that same date should continue now for all purposes..

Even if the Govt. or the Army as an institution has been wrong, the Chief must accept now, whatever had been the date , with which he had joined the army,took inter service exams from the rank of Lt.Colnel upwards..

bowenpalle venuraja gopal rao.
warangal, india
Feb 23, 2012
02:25 PM

 I would like to highlight that the issue is not of the actual date of birth, but what is the advantage that can be derived from it. In this connection I would like to highlight the current eligibility norms for admission to NDA.

As per the exam notice dated Dec 31, 2011 (check out this link http://www.nda.nic.in/html/upsc%20nda-na-I%202012.pdf), the age limits for admission in 2012 are as follows:


Only unmarried male candidates born not earlier than 2nd January, 1994 and not
later than 1st July, 1996 are eligible.


Assuming that the same conditions prevailed in 1966 when Gen Singh took admission into NDA (on which I invite comments from the Commenters on this page who are from the defence services), then it is clear that only by giving the date of birth as 1950 could the Honourable General have taken admission that year. Else he would have to take admission only in 1967 thus setting his career back by 1 year.

The point I am making is that being born in 1950 (as per his own NDA application) has already given Gen Singh an advantage of joining the Services 1year earlier. This advantage came to him in 1966. If the date of birth had been corrected in 1965/66 as 1951, he should have joined NDA only in 1967.

In case the birth year had been changed subsequent to his joining the Services, then he would have gotten another advantage of being in service for 1 year more. Probably this is why the above mentioned NDA notice states 


Note 1 : Candidates should note that onlythe Date of Birth as recorded in the
Matriculation/Higher Secondary Examination Certificate available or an
equivalent certificate on the date of
submission of applications will be
accepted by the Commission and no
subsequent request for its change will
be considered or granted.
Note 2 : Candidates should also note that
once a Date of Birth has been claimed by
them and entered in the records of the
Commission for the purpose of admission
to an Examination, no change will be
allowed subsequently or at any
subsequent examination on any ground
Note 3 : The candidates should exercise
due care while entering their date of birth
in the respective column of the online
Application Form for the Examination. If
on verification at any subsequent stage
any variation is found in their date of birth
from the one  entered in their
Matriculation or equivalent Examination
certificate, disciplinary action will be
taken against them by the Commission
under the Rules.


P Ravi
Navi Mumbai, India
Feb 23, 2012
09:37 PM
Comment removed for violation of Website Policy
sujatha parmeshwar
delhi, India
Feb 24, 2012
07:01 AM

>>>As per the exam notice dated Dec 31, 2011 --------------eligibility norms for admission to NDA.<<<  

In 50's, 60's and even 70's the entry to NDA could be after passing 11th Class and  NOT 10+2 as applicable presently. 10+2 became applicable much later in India. Could be checked by Mr RAVI even now.

Charan dewry
Guwahati, India
Feb 24, 2012
07:43 AM

Ravi (#27)

In 1966, the min edn qualification for NDA was Matriculation (i.e 10th class). The age limits were 15 to 17 1/2. Siince Gen Vk Singh joined 36th Course in Jul 1966, the min age would have been 01 Jul 1951 (and max 02 Jan 49). As a matter of interest, the present CNS, Admiral Verma is one course senior and six months older (DOB Nov 1950). The age of entry was raised when the min ed qualification changed from 10th to 12th.

BVG Rao (#26),

Your facts and therefore, your assumptions are wrong. Till 2006 there was no controversy regarding Gen VK Singh's DOB. Both the MS Branch and the AGs Branch had 1951. Why should someone fix something that ain't broke. Ask yourself, what changed in 2006 to have someone dredge up an old handwritten document and insist that all records (supported by incontrovertible documentary evidence) be changed.

Sujatha Parmeshwar,

I am astounded by the vituperative posts by a lady claiming to be an army officer's wife. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" - William Congreve.

Chennai, India
Feb 24, 2012
08:21 AM

 It is from various media source that I have come to know that Gen VK Singh had given some vague undertaking to say that any decision taken in organizational interest were acceptable to him or words to that affect. But later as we all know that the General was prevailed upon to give an undertaking that he will accept that his date of birth was 10 May 1950. Much is being made by the media and your readers of this particular letter. Though the first thing that came to my mind then was how he could write this false undertaking. How could he have interfered with an act of nature? He was being asked to do something that even God couldn’t have done. Even God couldn’t have changed his date of birth after he was born.  There was no doubt that he was coerced to write this letter. Much is also being made about statement made by one of the honourable judges “wise people are those who move with the wind”. What does it actually imply? Is it not a politically and not legally significant statement? But then did the General not move with the wind in 2008? He did, he accepted it but remained vague, Ashwatthama Hata, Hato Naro Va Kunjaro, Yudhishir was also vague when he had to serve the overall organizational aim of Pandava Army of killing Drona? So, was it not a tactical move that the General made in 2008 and now that he was on a much firmer wicket he had decided to face the wind. What is wrong in that? We should appreciate it. Don’t you expect your COAS to stand up to what is right? There is one agency that checks and verifies the dates of birth of all officers of armed forces. In the case of army it is the CDA. Has CDA also verified the date of birth filled by Cadet VK Singh in the date of birth column filled by him in the UPSC form and in academy thereafter. Lastly, and it is very important question that I am raising. Assuming that Lt Gen VK Singh had not given the undertaking and therefore he did not become the COAS, then what? Is it possible that in such an event some one else with a tenure much beyond 2013 who would have become the Chief. Would it then not have put spanner in the works and spoilt the game of the Government? Would it, therefore, have been in the interest of the Government to have some one with such a long tenure? Isn’t the Government therefore seen to be playing politics? Any fool should therefore have seen that it was not only in interest of General VK Singh but mainly in the interest of the Government that he takes over as the Chief albeit for a shorter duration which was thus effectively manipulated. 

Indore, India
Feb 24, 2012
10:20 AM
Comment removed for violation of Website Policy
Delhi, India
Feb 25, 2012
08:34 PM

When this case had gone to the Court and after the first hearing I had envisaged four possible outcomes. First, General VK Singh was right and with available evidences he was proved right and won the case; Second, General was right but with available evidence he was not able to convince the court and he lost; Third, General was wrong and with available evidence the Court was also convinced of it and he lost; and Fourth, and most unlikely outcome, would have been that General was wrong but with available evidence he won. I was more specific to say while First and Third could be seen as most logical, and just conclusion with no contradictions, the Second and Fourth though it could be legally tenable at least one or may be two of contenders would have unjustly benefited. If General was right and lost then the person who becomes Chief would have benefited. If General was wrong and he had won then the General and his successor would have unjustly benefited. Under such circumstances that person would forever have remained indebted to those who have helped him reach the pinnacle and the circumstances of promotion of the next Chief, at least in the eyes of public, would forever have remained in the shadow of doubt, . An unhappy state of affairs that the army could easily have averted.

Indore, India
Apr 04, 2012
08:45 PM

The General should have first resigned before taking the government to court the age row was really about honour, dignity and self respect. The common people of India today wish that this General is sacked as he has made the institution of the Army a laughing stock in the eyes of the world and our neighbours. Instead of fighting the goverment over issues of modernisation and welfare of our soldiers, this general has squandered a major part of his tenure on petty personal issues which has only brought shame and disgust to a majority of Indians

Nolin Chitnis
Mumbai, India
Apr 22, 2012
01:43 PM

Have read this article atleast 10 times and the poem of Gen VK Singh atleast 20-25 times. All I can say is our full support is with Gen VK Singh. As an institution, I have immense respect for army but as for any big institution, it has its wrongs. Gen should know that people of this country, however naive they may appear, can see through what is wrong and what is right. 

Gen VK singh is on the right side and he should not budge from his position and fight for the right. Title has summed it up very nicely: Great Oaks cant sway with the wind.

In today's time, nation needs role models like Gen V K Singh. Inspite of all ills, our system keeps throwing good men like General and I am very hopeful, these good men would seize the opportunity (inspite of all roadblocks) and lead this nation to brighter tomorrow.

Jai Hind!

Cotonou, Benin


OUTLOOK TOPICS:    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   
Or just type in a few initial letters of a topic: