Saturday, February 11, 2012

Re: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief-This man needs our support

Now the actual drama will start when the Govt will try to supersede TWO LT GENs to make their own stooge the Chief! Govt always has the upper hand to say that "it is Govts prerogative to select the Chief - all the Army Comdrs are eligible". But the fact will be something else!!

The complete game plan should be exposed IF Gen VK resigns!

I feel that such important appointments of National Security should not be decided by the ruling Party unilaterally but the way the CVC is approved? 
Also to remove any Chief (Army, Navy or AF) from his position should also be a process wherein group of ministers across the political leadership / Leader of Opposition decide. The Govt need to put the facts before them to justify the changes. Any thoughts?

rgds
rahul


From: Pradeep <pradeepbajaj7@gmail.com>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, 12 February 2012 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief-This man needs our support

Veekay stood up to have correction made, when it all appeared that there was a well planned campaign, never mind the result, there shall always be people seeking justice

There have been implications and need to be addressed.

Pradeep Bajaj
Director Education
Premierskills

 '

On Feb 8, 2012, at 12:01 PM, sn datt <captsndatt@gmail.com> wrote:

Like many others. I too am proud of Gen VK Singh for taking on the vested interests. However we all need to think of the legal costs. While it is easy for the government to hire likes of Narimans by paying them lacs of public money, the poor petotioner is left to fend for himself. Many times financial burden may cause the defender to quit.

Gen Sigh is an honest man and is unlikely to have unlimited resources. If the fight drags on we should think of chipping in to meet the legal expenses.

Regards

Sqn Ldr SN Datt Retd

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:14 PM, SPS Rekhi <rekhi@cain.in> wrote:
I fuuly agree with Rahul.
However,if Govt does not yeild to the point of Gen VKS,He may finally make a conditional exit to get OROP and other related issues resolved to restore his military reputation.
He would have in any case done it with his determination if his DOB was accepted.


     
<cain_logo.jpg> Col SPS Rekhi,VSM
Director-BD
rekhi@cain.in
www.cain.in
Mobile:+91-9818389089
Tel:+91-120-4644052
Warm Regards,
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief-This man needs our support

To be frank and honest - Gen VK SINGH has elated and brought back the prestige and honour to the forces.

We are all very proud of him that he is fighting the forces which is like David and the Goliath!

May he get success in his en-devour - even bigger ones which he has in mind - surely!

rgds
rahul


From: Hirak Nag <hiraknag@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 4 February 2012 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief-This man needs our support

I support General VK Singh's stand to save the Indian Armed Forces, the only section of the Indian Government which does and upholds the moto 'Satyamaev e Jayate'-----Cdr. HK Nag. Retd.

From: john philipose <gigijohn8263@googlemail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com; sriram1iyer@yahoo.co.in
Sent: Saturday, 4 February 2012 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief-This man needs our support

Dear Sriramji, that was a very unkind statement, bereft of facts! This is purely a fight between the corrupt bureaucrats(IAS) and one Army person who has had the courage to stand by his convictions. By the way, he is NOT asking to stay on for one more year! He is merely correcting a wrong that happened inadvertently, when he joined service. He has been trying to do it for the last 30 years!

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM, sriram iyer <sriram1iyer@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Friends,,
 
Why now he is getting checked this date of birth , he likes to stay more in the office is it not - pl do not canvass for this person , he has brought down the Indian Army - he is not fighting for interest of the nation but for the SELF - i request you not to misguide the pepul.
 
There are many unconfirmed cases against many self interested persons.  
 
Regards
Sriram
Ex- Servicemen
Mobile - 98499 87946
 


--- On Thu, 2/2/12, Janardan Sharma <contactjps@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Janardan Sharma <contactjps@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief-This man needs our support
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, 2 February, 2012, 2:20 PM

Quite some time back I had brought out that it is a very deep rooted and sinister campaign to ease out Gen VK Singh who is perhaps the first COAS to have taken very concerted and sustained measures to cleanse the army of  the menace of proliferating corruption particularly against those involved in mega scams and gross misdeamenours. No doubt these people who have the patronage and support of people in high places are moving heaven and earth to remove him from the scene before they all get roped in.

I can say with confidence that Gen kapoor and Lt Gen Avadesh Kumar are the mail culprits and guilty of deep rooted conspiracy in this shoddy cospiracy planned over a long period.This is no less than a coup d'tat happening in Pakistan; the difference being that it is intra service.

It is a great that an IAS officer has been able to see through the consiparacy and chosen to air his impartial views,even though I suspect the IAS officers in the MOD and the Govt  are also equally involved . Army officers are by and large  too meek and gullible to take a stand even if their chief is meted out injustice and humiliation of the worst kind.

We need to take a united stand to support this valiant and distinguished General in this hour of crisis facing the Indian army as a whole.


Col JP Sharma

So there is a need to  
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Devasahayam MG <mgd@airtelmail.in> wrote:



Today's article of mine will bring some clarity on the issue. All I would like to add is that this is not a mere clerical or bureaucratic error, but part of a larger and sinister agenda.
M.G.Devasahayam
______________________________________________________________________
THE STATESMAN
Special Article
O1 February  2012
President and the Army
Must Intervene And Save The Institution
By MG Devasahayam

THE President made a profound statement while addressing the nation on the eve of the 63rd Republic Day: "While bringing about reforms and improving institutions, we have to be cautious that while shaking the tree to remove the bad fruit, we do not bring down the tree itself." But, under her nose an institution called the Indian Army is being rudely shaken and being brought down by the very government she is presiding over. Despite being the Supreme Commander of India's armed forces she has not even lifted a small finger to stop that.

Republic Day is an occasion of joy and celebration because on that day in 1950, "We, the People of India, gave ourselves a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic anchored on Justice, social, economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity and to promote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation".

Sixty-two years have passed and every year we go through the ritual of celebrations and parades with the armed forces in general and Army in particular in the vanguard. It is the members of these forces who have defended and protected our democracy through their valour, sacrifice and total sense of patriotism, bereft of any political ambitions as in our neighbouring countries. It is largely because of them that India stands tall as a sovereign Republic.

Among the armed forces, the Army is the largest and the most visible face. The chief of that force has a special status in the nation's affairs, irrespective of his place in the order of precedence. The present government at the Centre has lost the faith of a vast majority of the people because of colossal failures almost on all fronts, except mortgaging the nation's assets and resources to MNCs. Now the Chief of the Army Staff himself has lost faith in this government and has knocked the doors of the Supreme Court seeking justice.

Instead of resolving the matter amicably by rendering substantial justice to the General, worthies of the kleptocratic state have the cheek to display indulgence. They claim that even if the apex court order goes against the Army chief,  the government will not summarily sack him. What morbid magnificence after treating General VK Singh in the shabbiest manner possible!
The controversy is supposed to have arisen due to different sets of records maintained on the General's Date of Birth (DoB) in the Adjutant General (AG) and Military Secretary (MS) branches of the Army headquarters. There are facts in the public domain suggesting availability of several records and documents in the AG Branch ~ school register, matriculation certificate, father's record of service in the Rajput Regiment, form No. IAFZ-2041 filled up in IMA ~ establishing the General's DoB as 10 May 1951.

The MS Branch is stated to have an application form for the written entrance exam to the National Defence Academy signed by a 14/15-year-old boy and some assorted papers mentioning Singh's DoB as 10 May 1950. The two branches have not reconciled the documents for over four decades.
The Attorney General and the MoD are sticking to the MS Branch records in determining the General's DoB as 10 May 1950 because it is this branch which is responsible for the promotion and posting of senior army officers. This is the spin that is going around.
But a confidential communication dated 01 Jul 2011 (A/4501/01/GEN/MS(1)) from Lt.-Gen. GM Nair, Military Secretary to Defence Secretary, tells a totally different tale. On four occasions:
-No: 2 Selection Board, Sept 1996 ~ Fresh case 1970 batch for promotion to the acting rank of Brigadier;
-No: 1 Selection Board, 25 Oct 2001 ~ Fresh case 1970 batch for promotion to the acting rank of Maj. Gen;
-No: 1 Selection Board, 18/19 Sept 2003 ~ Special Review (Fresh) Case 1970 Batch for promotion to the acting rank of Maj. Gen; and
-Special Selection Board, 30 Sept 2005 ~ Fresh case 1970 Batch for promotion to the acting rank of Lt. Gen.
The date of birth of the General Officer (VK Singh) put up by the MS Branch and considered by the Selection Boards was 10 May 1951.

This means that the MS Branch had accepted, adopted and documented 10 May 1951 as the DoB for empanelling Gen. Singh for promotion and posting as Brigadier, Maj.-Gen. and Lt.-Gen. in 1996, 2001, 2003 and 2005 respectively. Where then was the dispute and the occasion for the former Amy Chiefs to talk to VK Singh in 2008 and 2009 and make him 'accept' 10 May 1950 as his DoB? On what grounds was the 'statutory complaint' of the Army Chief rejected, reportedly without the knowledge of the Prime Minister, forcing the General to go to the Supreme Court? The government owes an explanation to the people.

Looking at the state of the Republic one tends to lament and despair in the manner of Marcellus in Hamlet, having just seen the ghost of Hamlet's father, the late king of Denmark: "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

Considering the way things are being handled even by an otherwise god-fearing man like AK Antony, there seem to be ghosts looming in New Delhi. One is the MNC lobby that is incensed with General Singh's principled opposition to the deployment of the Army to decimate the tribal population of Dandakaranya forests to hand it over to mining interests. The General had said: "We cannot do this on our own people. Naxalism is not a secessionist movement.''
Former Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat saw another, even mightier ghost, when he said: "Former Chief  Justice of India JS Verma has said Singh had brought in probity and honesty. He is being moved out just when large arms deals are going to be signed. This means that the arms lobby and a few people who are going to be affected are behind this."

To this could be added the 'victims' of the tough stand taken by General Singh on corruption, particularly former Generals involved in the Sukna land scam and Adarsh Housing Society scandal.

This is probably why a specious and non-existent theory of 'line of succession' was dug out and touted about for rejecting the army chief's statutory complaint. The 'line of succession' is a concept which is anti-democratic and related to royalty and monarchy. Why then is the Attorney General repeating this ad nauseam? Obviously in support of the MoD's sinister agenda.

VK Singh belongs to a family that boasts a martial tradition. He hails from Bapora village in Haryana's Bhiwani district, a district that I had the privilege of raising and building up as its first Commissioner when it was established in December 1972. This village, hardly a couple of miles from Bhiwani, had a large number of serving soldiers and ex-servicemen. Being an ex-soldier myself, I had closely interacted with the simple folk of this village.

Men of General Singh's ilk serve and die by the Army's standards of integrity and honesty. When men like him and the Army he commands are impaled, it is the people who bleed. Pray, does not the President, who swears by institutions, have a duty to effectively intervene and save this institution from further damage? The nation awaits an answer.

The writer is a retired IAS officer


 

 
 











Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Reality check on SC pronouncement

"5(1) Every public authority shall, within one hundred days of the
enactment of this Act, designate as many officers as the Central
Public Information Officers or State Public Information Officers, as
the case may be, in all administrative units or offices under it as
may be necessary to provide information to persons requesting for the
information under this Act.

r/w

5(3) Every Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, shall deal with requests from
persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the
persons seeking such information."

in 5(4) the Act also says that CPIO can "seek assistance" of any
"other officer" to discharge his duties.

Sarbajit


On Feb 11, 8:39 am, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Sararbji ji,
>
> I request to inform the section of the RTI Act which states that only a designated PIO can "deal with" an information request.  This information is required because many times, we receive reply from other officers though we address application to the PIO.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> To: Ravindran Major <majorr...@gmail.com>; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 10 February 2012 6:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [.RTI.] [HumJanenge] Re: Reality check on SC pronouncement
>
> Dear Major Ravi
>
> Under the RTI Act only "officers" can be designated as PIOs.
> Under the RTI Act only a designated PIO can "deal with" an information requests.
>
> If somebody is not following the law laid down it does not mean that
> the law itself is bad. This is exactly the sort of specious logic you
> and the IC concerned habitually indulge in.
>
> Using KGB as an example is yet another (bad) instance of specious
> logic. Either we scrap the Constitution, or we put up with the
> occasional aberrations. Frankly I cant recall the last honest AND
> competent CJI we had - hope somebody can assist me out here [and its
> not this man. ...http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/8-chief-justices-of-india-corrupt-s...
> ]
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 2/10/12, Ravindran Major <majorr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am sorry Mr Roy, Mr Shailesh Gandhi is on more firm grounds. Just because
> > a person is designated as Public Information Officer it does not mean all
> > the persons handling RTI applications are 'officers'. In smaller offices we
> > have even head clerks doing the job of PIOs. In the o/o the District
> > Colelctor here all junior superintendents (head clerks!) of various
> > sections are PIOs! Then again the PIO doesn't have to run around collecting
> > info- the person who is holding the info-usually the dealing clerk- is also
> > the deemed PIO!
>
> > And there is nothing to go ga-ga about taking on the supreme court. They
> > are not infallible at all and just look at K G Balakrishnan's case- pure
> > abuse of office and treason at that!
>
> > ravi
>
> > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Dear Members
>
> >> A sitting Central Information Commissioner (whose legal knowledge is
> >> legendary .. he is also an "eminent person" ) has seen fit to take on
> >> the Supreme Court.
>
> >> As usual this extremely confused individual applies his fallacious
> >> logic (the same logic we see in his confused orders) to arrive at the
> >> conclusion that only 0.208% of time is spent by Govt "employees" for
> >> responding to RTI applications.
>
> >> The Ld. IC has missed that the SC order refers to "staff" spending
> >> their time in RTI and not "employees". He also fails to realise that
> >> only "officers" are supposed to be attending to RTI work (as per the
> >> Act). I wonder if.the Ld. IC can rework his calculations (and dubious
> >> assumptions) to incorporate my points.
>
> >> Sarbajit
>
> >> > from:  shailesh gandhi shailesh...@gmail.com
> >> > date:  Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:49 PM
> >> > subject:      Reality check on SC pronouncement
>
> >> > The Supreme Court in a RTI judgement* on August 9, 2011 made an
> >> observation
> >> > which is affecting the minds of many Ministers and senior officials. The
> >> > observation was, "The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the
> >> staff
> >> > of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and
> >> furnishing
> >> > information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties.
> >> The
> >> > threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the
> >> > authorities
> >> > under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities
> >> > prioritising information furnishing, at the cost of their normal and
> >> regular
> >> > duties."
>
> >> > If 75% staff spend 75% of their time, it would mean 56% (0.75x0.75) of
> >> the
> >> > total time would be spent on giving information. If this possibility
> >> > ever
> >> > comes about it would be scary and undesirable.
>
> >> > I decided to do a reality check.
>
> >> > According to the most optimistic estimate not more than 1 crore RTI
> >> > applications are likely to be received in 2012 in all the public
> >> authorities
> >> > in the States and Central Government together.
>
> >> > The average time to attend each RTI application would be less than 3
> >> hours.
>
> >> > This means no more than 3 crore hours spent by all officers.
>
> >> > If we assume that an average government employee works for just 6 hours
> >> > a
> >> > day for 200 days a year, it would mean he would work for a total of 1200
> >> > hours in a year.
>
> >> > 3 crore hours divided by 1200 hours is 25000 which means 25000 employees
> >> > would be required full time.
>
> >> > The Central Government and all State Governments have about 1.2 crore
> >> > employees totally. This means that the total time spent by Government
> >> > employees would be 0.208%.
> >> > (25000 divided by 12000000=0.208%).
>
> >> > To put this in the idiom of the Supreme Court's observation, no more
> >> > than
> >> > 4.6% officials are spending 4.6% of their time presently on giving
> >> > information. The Supreme Court's observation has no connection with
> >> reality.
>
> >> > *  Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011 CBSE vs. ADITYA BANDOPADHYAY & ORS.
>
> > --
> >  Veteran Major P M Ravindran
> >http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com
>
> > You may also like to visit:
> > 'Judiciary Watch' atwww.vigilonline.com
> >http://www.judicialreforms.org/
> >http://www.roguepolice.com
> >http://milapchoraria.tripod.com
> >  <http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com/>

Re: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief-This man needs our support

Veekay stood up to have correction made, when it all appeared that there was a well planned campaign, never mind the result, there shall always be people seeking justice

There have been implications and need to be addressed.

Pradeep Bajaj
Director Education
Premierskills

 '

On Feb 8, 2012, at 12:01 PM, sn datt <captsndatt@gmail.com> wrote:

Like many others. I too am proud of Gen VK Singh for taking on the vested interests. However we all need to think of the legal costs. While it is easy for the government to hire likes of Narimans by paying them lacs of public money, the poor petotioner is left to fend for himself. Many times financial burden may cause the defender to quit.

Gen Sigh is an honest man and is unlikely to have unlimited resources. If the fight drags on we should think of chipping in to meet the legal expenses.

Regards

Sqn Ldr SN Datt Retd

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:14 PM, SPS Rekhi <rekhi@cain.in> wrote:
I fuuly agree with Rahul.
However,if Govt does not yeild to the point of Gen VKS,He may finally make a conditional exit to get OROP and other related issues resolved to restore his military reputation.
He would have in any case done it with his determination if his DOB was accepted.


     
<cain_logo.jpg> Col SPS Rekhi,VSM
Director-BD
rekhi@cain.in
www.cain.in
Mobile:+91-9818389089
Tel:+91-120-4644052
Warm Regards,
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief-This man needs our support

To be frank and honest - Gen VK SINGH has elated and brought back the prestige and honour to the forces.

We are all very proud of him that he is fighting the forces which is like David and the Goliath!

May he get success in his en-devour - even bigger ones which he has in mind - surely!

rgds
rahul


From: Hirak Nag <hiraknag@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 4 February 2012 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief-This man needs our support

I support General VK Singh's stand to save the Indian Armed Forces, the only section of the Indian Government which does and upholds the moto 'Satyamaev e Jayate'-----Cdr. HK Nag. Retd.

From: john philipose <gigijohn8263@googlemail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com; sriram1iyer@yahoo.co.in
Sent: Saturday, 4 February 2012 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief-This man needs our support

Dear Sriramji, that was a very unkind statement, bereft of facts! This is purely a fight between the corrupt bureaucrats(IAS) and one Army person who has had the courage to stand by his convictions. By the way, he is NOT asking to stay on for one more year! He is merely correcting a wrong that happened inadvertently, when he joined service. He has been trying to do it for the last 30 years!

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM, sriram iyer <sriram1iyer@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Friends,,
 
Why now he is getting checked this date of birth , he likes to stay more in the office is it not - pl do not canvass for this person , he has brought down the Indian Army - he is not fighting for interest of the nation but for the SELF - i request you not to misguide the pepul.
 
There are many unconfirmed cases against many self interested persons.  
 
Regards
Sriram
Ex- Servicemen
Mobile - 98499 87946
 


--- On Thu, 2/2/12, Janardan Sharma <contactjps@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Janardan Sharma <contactjps@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief-This man needs our support
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, 2 February, 2012, 2:20 PM

Quite some time back I had brought out that it is a very deep rooted and sinister campaign to ease out Gen VK Singh who is perhaps the first COAS to have taken very concerted and sustained measures to cleanse the army of  the menace of proliferating corruption particularly against those involved in mega scams and gross misdeamenours. No doubt these people who have the patronage and support of people in high places are moving heaven and earth to remove him from the scene before they all get roped in.

I can say with confidence that Gen kapoor and Lt Gen Avadesh Kumar are the mail culprits and guilty of deep rooted conspiracy in this shoddy cospiracy planned over a long period.This is no less than a coup d'tat happening in Pakistan; the difference being that it is intra service.

It is a great that an IAS officer has been able to see through the consiparacy and chosen to air his impartial views,even though I suspect the IAS officers in the MOD and the Govt  are also equally involved . Army officers are by and large  too meek and gullible to take a stand even if their chief is meted out injustice and humiliation of the worst kind.

We need to take a united stand to support this valiant and distinguished General in this hour of crisis facing the Indian army as a whole.


Col JP Sharma

So there is a need to  
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Devasahayam MG <mgd@airtelmail.in> wrote:



Today's article of mine will bring some clarity on the issue. All I would like to add is that this is not a mere clerical or bureaucratic error, but part of a larger and sinister agenda.
M.G.Devasahayam
______________________________________________________________________
THE STATESMAN
Special Article
O1 February  2012
President and the Army
Must Intervene And Save The Institution
By MG Devasahayam

THE President made a profound statement while addressing the nation on the eve of the 63rd Republic Day: "While bringing about reforms and improving institutions, we have to be cautious that while shaking the tree to remove the bad fruit, we do not bring down the tree itself." But, under her nose an institution called the Indian Army is being rudely shaken and being brought down by the very government she is presiding over. Despite being the Supreme Commander of India's armed forces she has not even lifted a small finger to stop that.

Republic Day is an occasion of joy and celebration because on that day in 1950, "We, the People of India, gave ourselves a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic anchored on Justice, social, economic and political; Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; Equality of status and of opportunity and to promote among them all Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation".

Sixty-two years have passed and every year we go through the ritual of celebrations and parades with the armed forces in general and Army in particular in the vanguard. It is the members of these forces who have defended and protected our democracy through their valour, sacrifice and total sense of patriotism, bereft of any political ambitions as in our neighbouring countries. It is largely because of them that India stands tall as a sovereign Republic.

Among the armed forces, the Army is the largest and the most visible face. The chief of that force has a special status in the nation's affairs, irrespective of his place in the order of precedence. The present government at the Centre has lost the faith of a vast majority of the people because of colossal failures almost on all fronts, except mortgaging the nation's assets and resources to MNCs. Now the Chief of the Army Staff himself has lost faith in this government and has knocked the doors of the Supreme Court seeking justice.

Instead of resolving the matter amicably by rendering substantial justice to the General, worthies of the kleptocratic state have the cheek to display indulgence. They claim that even if the apex court order goes against the Army chief,  the government will not summarily sack him. What morbid magnificence after treating General VK Singh in the shabbiest manner possible!
The controversy is supposed to have arisen due to different sets of records maintained on the General's Date of Birth (DoB) in the Adjutant General (AG) and Military Secretary (MS) branches of the Army headquarters. There are facts in the public domain suggesting availability of several records and documents in the AG Branch ~ school register, matriculation certificate, father's record of service in the Rajput Regiment, form No. IAFZ-2041 filled up in IMA ~ establishing the General's DoB as 10 May 1951.

The MS Branch is stated to have an application form for the written entrance exam to the National Defence Academy signed by a 14/15-year-old boy and some assorted papers mentioning Singh's DoB as 10 May 1950. The two branches have not reconciled the documents for over four decades.
The Attorney General and the MoD are sticking to the MS Branch records in determining the General's DoB as 10 May 1950 because it is this branch which is responsible for the promotion and posting of senior army officers. This is the spin that is going around.
But a confidential communication dated 01 Jul 2011 (A/4501/01/GEN/MS(1)) from Lt.-Gen. GM Nair, Military Secretary to Defence Secretary, tells a totally different tale. On four occasions:
-No: 2 Selection Board, Sept 1996 ~ Fresh case 1970 batch for promotion to the acting rank of Brigadier;
-No: 1 Selection Board, 25 Oct 2001 ~ Fresh case 1970 batch for promotion to the acting rank of Maj. Gen;
-No: 1 Selection Board, 18/19 Sept 2003 ~ Special Review (Fresh) Case 1970 Batch for promotion to the acting rank of Maj. Gen; and
-Special Selection Board, 30 Sept 2005 ~ Fresh case 1970 Batch for promotion to the acting rank of Lt. Gen.
The date of birth of the General Officer (VK Singh) put up by the MS Branch and considered by the Selection Boards was 10 May 1951.

This means that the MS Branch had accepted, adopted and documented 10 May 1951 as the DoB for empanelling Gen. Singh for promotion and posting as Brigadier, Maj.-Gen. and Lt.-Gen. in 1996, 2001, 2003 and 2005 respectively. Where then was the dispute and the occasion for the former Amy Chiefs to talk to VK Singh in 2008 and 2009 and make him 'accept' 10 May 1950 as his DoB? On what grounds was the 'statutory complaint' of the Army Chief rejected, reportedly without the knowledge of the Prime Minister, forcing the General to go to the Supreme Court? The government owes an explanation to the people.

Looking at the state of the Republic one tends to lament and despair in the manner of Marcellus in Hamlet, having just seen the ghost of Hamlet's father, the late king of Denmark: "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

Considering the way things are being handled even by an otherwise god-fearing man like AK Antony, there seem to be ghosts looming in New Delhi. One is the MNC lobby that is incensed with General Singh's principled opposition to the deployment of the Army to decimate the tribal population of Dandakaranya forests to hand it over to mining interests. The General had said: "We cannot do this on our own people. Naxalism is not a secessionist movement.''
Former Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat saw another, even mightier ghost, when he said: "Former Chief  Justice of India JS Verma has said Singh had brought in probity and honesty. He is being moved out just when large arms deals are going to be signed. This means that the arms lobby and a few people who are going to be affected are behind this."

To this could be added the 'victims' of the tough stand taken by General Singh on corruption, particularly former Generals involved in the Sukna land scam and Adarsh Housing Society scandal.

This is probably why a specious and non-existent theory of 'line of succession' was dug out and touted about for rejecting the army chief's statutory complaint. The 'line of succession' is a concept which is anti-democratic and related to royalty and monarchy. Why then is the Attorney General repeating this ad nauseam? Obviously in support of the MoD's sinister agenda.

VK Singh belongs to a family that boasts a martial tradition. He hails from Bapora village in Haryana's Bhiwani district, a district that I had the privilege of raising and building up as its first Commissioner when it was established in December 1972. This village, hardly a couple of miles from Bhiwani, had a large number of serving soldiers and ex-servicemen. Being an ex-soldier myself, I had closely interacted with the simple folk of this village.

Men of General Singh's ilk serve and die by the Army's standards of integrity and honesty. When men like him and the Army he commands are impaled, it is the people who bleed. Pray, does not the President, who swears by institutions, have a duty to effectively intervene and save this institution from further damage? The nation awaits an answer.

The writer is a retired IAS officer


 

 
 









Re: [rti4empowerment] Injustice to Army Chief

Dear Mr. Rangarajan,

There is no major blow to any body. But Gen V. K. Singh has brought disgrace to the
highest post he is holding by going to the Court near his retirement and that too on
such a minor issue.

Hari Goyal
11.02.2012 

--- On Fri, 10/2/12, Mathre Rangarajan <rangajan@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Mathre Rangarajan <rangajan@yahoo.com>
Subject: [rti4empowerment] Injustice to Army Chief
To: "Y Humjanenge - google" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>, "Y Humjanenge - yahoo" <humjanenge@yahoogroups.co.in>, "Y Dil-Se-Desi Group" <dilsedesigroup@yahoogroups.com>, "Y Rti$empoerrment - google" <rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com>, "Y Thekirti Karnataka Intiative RTI" <thekirti@yahoogroups.com>, "Y rti4empowerment - yahoo" <rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com>, "Y rti_india" <rti_india@googlegroups.com>
Date: Friday, 10 February, 2012, 5:02 PM

Supreme Court nixes army chief age plea

IANS India Private Limited – 1 hour 55 minutes ago
 
 
New Delhi: In a major blow to Indian Army chief General V.K. Singh, the Supreme Court Friday refused to entertain his plea challenging a government order setting his birth date as May 10, 1950 and said it will be forced to dump it if he did not withdraw it.

The court order has left Gen. Singh with little option over his dragging contention that he was actually born on May 10, 1951 – not 1950 – and that the issue concerned his "honour and integrity".

Hearing his petition at the admission stage, the apex court also asked the army chief to honour his letters of 2008 and 2009 accepting 1950 as his birth year.

It noted that the government order recognising his birth year as 1950 does not suffer from perversity and was not grossly erroneous.

It pointed out that some "threshold" documents Gen. Singh had submitted to the government too maintained that he was born in 1950.

The documents relate to the records of the Union Public Service Commission, the National Defence Academy
and the Indian Military Academy .

The court said there was no prejudice vis-a-vis Gen. Singh and that the government had full faith in him.

Earlier in the day, the government told the court that it had withdrawn a Dec 30, 2011 order rejecting Gen. Singh's plea to reconcile his birth date to May 10, 1950 — which prompted him to move the court.

Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati told the court that the government had acted in response to a Feb 3 apex court querry whether it was willing to withdraw the order.

The court had then said that the Dec 30, 2011 order was "vitiated" by opinion given by Vahanvati in July 2011 that led the government to reject the army chief's request on his age.

While the army chief maintains that he was born in 1951, the government insists he was born a year earlier.

The discrepancy was pointed out by the Military Secretary's branch in 2006 when Gen. Singh was being considered for promotion as corps commander.

Since then, all his promotions, including as army commander in 2008 and army chief in 2010, were made on the basis that he was born in 1950.

If 1950 is taken as Gen. Singh's year of birth, he would have to retire in May. If the year is taken as 1951, he would retire in March 2013.

RE: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief


--- Dear Col. Dharma,

 Good idea. I am happy that this fruitless discussion would see the end of it on delivering the verdict by the Supreme Court as many people (social activists) don't value the point in discussion but go on for days together wasting time on other points that distantly relate to the individual. 

Dr. Hari Dev Goyal
Director, RTI and Consumer Protection Centre-Dwarka
rtidwarka@yahoo.co.in


On Fri, 10/2/12, KRANTIKUMAR DHARMADHIKARY <krdharma@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: KRANTIKUMAR DHARMADHIKARY <krdharma@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief
To: "Humjanege" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>, humjanenge@yahoogroups.co.in, dilsedesigroup@yahoogroups.com, rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com, thekirti@yahoogroups.com, rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com, rti_india@googlegroups.com
Date: Friday, 10 February, 2012, 10:20 PM

Pl think over.

Col Dharma

 

LAW AND JUSTICE

Many people come out of the court complaining that it does not dispense justice. They  feel bitter because though they were morally right , the court did not recognize their uprightness .

Much of the understanding about law and justice would be cleared if one understood the difference between the two. Justice according to law is different

from moral or natural justice. Natural justice is the ideal which legal justice tries to attain. Oliver Windell  Holems once admonished a youth thus: " This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice!"



Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:02:54 +0530
From: rangajan@yahoo.com
Subject: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com; humjanenge@yahoogroups.co.in; dilsedesigroup@yahoogroups.com; rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com; thekirti@yahoogroups.com; rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com; rti_india@googlegroups.com

Supreme Court nixes army chief age plea

IANS India Private Limited – 1 hour 55 minutes ago
 
 
New Delhi: In a major blow to Indian Army chief General V.K. Singh, the Supreme Court Friday refused to entertain his plea challenging a government order setting his birth date as May 10, 1950 and said it will be forced to dump it if he did not withdraw it.

The court order has left Gen. Singh with little option over his dragging contention that he was actually born on May 10, 1951 – not 1950 – and that the issue concerned his "honour and integrity".

Hearing his petition at the admission stage, the apex court also asked the army chief to honour his letters of 2008 and 2009 accepting 1950 as his birth year.

It noted that the government order recognising his birth year as 1950 does not suffer from perversity and was not grossly erroneous.

It pointed out that some "threshold" documents Gen. Singh had submitted to the government too maintained that he was born in 1950.

The documents relate to the records of the Union Public Service Commission, the National Defence Academy
and the Indian Military Academy.

The court said there was no prejudice vis-a-vis Gen. Singh and that the government had full faith in him.

Earlier in the day, the government told the court that it had withdrawn a Dec 30, 2011 order rejecting Gen. Singh's plea to reconcile his birth date to May 10, 1950 — which prompted him to move the court.

Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati told the court that the government had acted in response to a Feb 3 apex court querry whether it was willing to withdraw the order.

The court had then said that the Dec 30, 2011 order was "vitiated" by opinion given by Vahanvati in July 2011 that led the government to reject the army chief's request on his age.

While the army chief maintains that he was born in 1951, the government insists he was born a year earlier.

The discrepancy was pointed out by the Military Secretary's branch in 2006 when Gen. Singh was being considered for promotion as corps commander.

Since then, all his promotions, including as army commander in 2008 and army chief in 2010, were made on the basis that he was born in 1950.

If 1950 is taken as Gen. Singh's year of birth, he would have to retire in May. If the year is taken as 1951, he would retire in March 2013.

Re: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief

The Petition has been withdrawn by Gen Singh.The Govt.,as reported ,has withdrawn the order dt.30 Dec.2011.The issue that was raised is not decided Judicially.This order of the S.C. can not be quoted as a precedent.The S.C. has acted to keep the prestige of both the parties.As per petition Gen Singh never wanted to serve beyound 31st May 2012.He simply wanted that his actual date of birth be accepted as May.1951 instead of May 1950.
A view could have been taken that the Petition is not directly maintainable before S.C.
It is not the status of the person to choose jurisdiction.Both parties should feel in win-win position.
D.C.V.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM, KRANTIKUMAR DHARMADHIKARY <krdharma@hotmail.com> wrote:

Pl think over.

Col Dharma

 

LAW AND JUSTICE

Many people come out of the court complaining that it does not dispense justice. They  feel bitter because though they were morally right , the court did not recognize their uprightness .

Much of the understanding about law and justice would be cleared if one understood the difference between the two. Justice according to law is different

from moral or natural justice. Natural justice is the ideal which legal justice tries to attain. Oliver Windell  Holems once admonished a youth thus: " This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice!"



Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:02:54 +0530
From: rangajan@yahoo.com
Subject: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com; humjanenge@yahoogroups.co.in; dilsedesigroup@yahoogroups.com; rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com; thekirti@yahoogroups.com; rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com; rti_india@googlegroups.com


Supreme Court nixes army chief age plea

IANS India Private Limited1 hour 55 minutes ago
 
 
New Delhi: In a major blow to Indian Army chief General V.K. Singh, the Supreme Court Friday refused to entertain his plea challenging a government order setting his birth date as May 10, 1950 and said it will be forced to dump it if he did not withdraw it.

The court order has left Gen. Singh with little option over his dragging contention that he was actually born on May 10, 1951 – not 1950 – and that the issue concerned his "honour and integrity".

Hearing his petition at the admission stage, the apex court also asked the army chief to honour his letters of 2008 and 2009 accepting 1950 as his birth year.

It noted that the government order recognising his birth year as 1950 does not suffer from perversity and was not grossly erroneous.

It pointed out that some "threshold" documents Gen. Singh had submitted to the government too maintained that he was born in 1950.

The documents relate to the records of the Union Public Service Commission, the National Defence Academy
and the Indian Military Academy.

The court said there was no prejudice vis-a-vis Gen. Singh and that the government had full faith in him.

Earlier in the day, the government told the court that it had withdrawn a Dec 30, 2011 order rejecting Gen. Singh's plea to reconcile his birth date to May 10, 1950 — which prompted him to move the court.

Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati told the court that the government had acted in response to a Feb 3 apex court querry whether it was willing to withdraw the order.

The court had then said that the Dec 30, 2011 order was "vitiated" by opinion given by Vahanvati in July 2011 that led the government to reject the army chief's request on his age.

While the army chief maintains that he was born in 1951, the government insists he was born a year earlier.

The discrepancy was pointed out by the Military Secretary's branch in 2006 when Gen. Singh was being considered for promotion as corps commander.

Since then, all his promotions, including as army commander in 2008 and army chief in 2010, were made on the basis that he was born in 1950.

If 1950 is taken as Gen. Singh's year of birth, he would have to retire in May. If the year is taken as 1951, he would retire in March 2013.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Re: [.RTI.] [HumJanenge] Re: Reality check on SC pronouncement

Sararbji ji,
 
I request to inform the section of the RTI Act which states that only a designated PIO can "deal with" an information request.  This information is required because many times, we receive reply from other officers though we address application to the PIO. 

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: Ravindran Major <majorravi@gmail.com>; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 10 February 2012 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [.RTI.] [HumJanenge] Re: Reality check on SC pronouncement

Dear Major Ravi

Under the RTI Act only "officers" can be designated as PIOs.
Under the RTI Act only a designated PIO can "deal with" an information requests.

If somebody is not following the law laid down it does not mean that
the law itself is bad. This is exactly the sort of specious logic you
and the IC concerned habitually indulge in.

Using KGB as an example is yet another (bad) instance of specious
logic. Either we scrap the Constitution, or we put up with the
occasional aberrations. Frankly I cant recall the last honest AND
competent CJI we had - hope somebody can assist me out here [and its
not this man. ...
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/8-chief-justices-of-india-corrupt-says-former-law-minister-52586
]

Sarbajit

On 2/10/12, Ravindran Major <majorravi@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am sorry Mr Roy, Mr Shailesh Gandhi is on more firm grounds. Just because
> a person is designated as Public Information Officer it does not mean all
> the persons handling RTI applications are 'officers'. In smaller offices we
> have even head clerks doing the job of PIOs. In the o/o the District
> Colelctor here all junior superintendents (head clerks!) of various
> sections are PIOs! Then again the PIO doesn't have to run around collecting
> info- the person who is holding the info-usually the dealing clerk- is also
> the deemed PIO!
>
> And there is nothing to go ga-ga about taking on the supreme court. They
> are not infallible at all and just look at K G Balakrishnan's case- pure
> abuse of office and treason at that!
>
> ravi
>
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Members
>>
>> A sitting Central Information Commissioner (whose legal knowledge is
>> legendary .. he is also an "eminent person" ) has seen fit to take on
>> the Supreme Court.
>>
>> As usual this extremely confused individual applies his fallacious
>> logic (the same logic we see in his confused orders) to arrive at the
>> conclusion that only 0.208% of time is spent by Govt "employees" for
>> responding to RTI applications.
>>
>> The Ld. IC has missed that the SC order refers to "staff" spending
>> their time in RTI and not "employees". He also fails to realise that
>> only "officers" are supposed to be attending to RTI work (as per the
>> Act). I wonder if.the Ld. IC can rework his calculations (and dubious
>> assumptions) to incorporate my points.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> > from:  shailesh gandhi shaileshgan@gmail.com
>> > date:  Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:49 PM
>> > subject:      Reality check on SC pronouncement
>> >
>> > The Supreme Court in a RTI judgement* on August 9, 2011 made an
>> observation
>> > which is affecting the minds of many Ministers and senior officials. The
>> > observation was, "The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the
>> staff
>> > of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and
>> furnishing
>> > information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties.
>> The
>> > threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the
>> > authorities
>> > under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities
>> > prioritising information furnishing, at the cost of their normal and
>> regular
>> > duties."
>> >
>> > If 75% staff spend 75% of their time, it would mean 56% (0.75x0.75) of
>> the
>> > total time would be spent on giving information. If this possibility
>> > ever
>> > comes about it would be scary and undesirable.
>> >
>> > I decided to do a reality check.
>> >
>> > According to the most optimistic estimate not more than 1 crore RTI
>> > applications are likely to be received in 2012 in all the public
>> authorities
>> > in the States and Central Government together.
>> >
>> > The average time to attend each RTI application would be less than 3
>> hours.
>> >
>> > This means no more than 3 crore hours spent by all officers.
>> >
>> > If we assume that an average government employee works for just 6 hours
>> > a
>> > day for 200 days a year, it would mean he would work for a total of 1200
>> > hours in a year.
>> >
>> > 3 crore hours divided by 1200 hours is 25000 which means 25000 employees
>> > would be required full time.
>> >
>> > The Central Government and all State Governments have about 1.2 crore
>> > employees totally. This means that the total time spent by Government
>> > employees would be 0.208%.
>> > (25000 divided by 12000000=0.208%).
>> >
>> >
>> > To put this in the idiom of the Supreme Court's observation, no more
>> > than
>> > 4.6% officials are spending 4.6% of their time presently on giving
>> > information. The Supreme Court's observation has no connection with
>> reality.
>> >
>> > *  Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011 CBSE vs. ADITYA BANDOPADHYAY & ORS.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
>  Veteran Major P M Ravindran
> http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com
>
> You may also like to visit:
> 'Judiciary Watch' at www.vigilonline.com
> http://www.judicialreforms.org/
> http://www.roguepolice.com
> http://milapchoraria.tripod.com
>  <http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com/>
>


RE: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief

Pl think over.

Col Dharma

 

LAW AND JUSTICE

Many people come out of the court complaining that it does not dispense justice. They  feel bitter because though they were morally right , the court did not recognize their uprightness .

Much of the understanding about law and justice would be cleared if one understood the difference between the two. Justice according to law is different

from moral or natural justice. Natural justice is the ideal which legal justice tries to attain. Oliver Windell  Holems once admonished a youth thus: " This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice!"



Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:02:54 +0530
From: rangajan@yahoo.com
Subject: [HumJanenge] Injustice to Army Chief
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com; humjanenge@yahoogroups.co.in; dilsedesigroup@yahoogroups.com; rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com; thekirti@yahoogroups.com; rti4empowerment@yahoogroups.com; rti_india@googlegroups.com

Supreme Court nixes army chief age plea

IANS India Private Limited1 hour 55 minutes ago
 
 
New Delhi: In a major blow to Indian Army chief General V.K. Singh, the Supreme Court Friday refused to entertain his plea challenging a government order setting his birth date as May 10, 1950 and said it will be forced to dump it if he did not withdraw it.

The court order has left Gen. Singh with little option over his dragging contention that he was actually born on May 10, 1951 – not 1950 – and that the issue concerned his "honour and integrity".

Hearing his petition at the admission stage, the apex court also asked the army chief to honour his letters of 2008 and 2009 accepting 1950 as his birth year.

It noted that the government order recognising his birth year as 1950 does not suffer from perversity and was not grossly erroneous.

It pointed out that some "threshold" documents Gen. Singh had submitted to the government too maintained that he was born in 1950.

The documents relate to the records of the Union Public Service Commission, the National Defence Academy
and the Indian Military Academy.

The court said there was no prejudice vis-a-vis Gen. Singh and that the government had full faith in him.

Earlier in the day, the government told the court that it had withdrawn a Dec 30, 2011 order rejecting Gen. Singh's plea to reconcile his birth date to May 10, 1950 — which prompted him to move the court.

Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati told the court that the government had acted in response to a Feb 3 apex court querry whether it was willing to withdraw the order.

The court had then said that the Dec 30, 2011 order was "vitiated" by opinion given by Vahanvati in July 2011 that led the government to reject the army chief's request on his age.

While the army chief maintains that he was born in 1951, the government insists he was born a year earlier.

The discrepancy was pointed out by the Military Secretary's branch in 2006 when Gen. Singh was being considered for promotion as corps commander.

Since then, all his promotions, including as army commander in 2008 and army chief in 2010, were made on the basis that he was born in 1950.

If 1950 is taken as Gen. Singh's year of birth, he would have to retire in May. If the year is taken as 1951, he would retire in March 2013.