<p>The ongoing controversy surrounding the serving Army chief Gen V K Singh gets murkier by the day. Never before in the history of independent India has the office of the Chief of Army Staff been subject to such adverse public scrutiny. It all began when Gen VK Singh made a sensational claim to the media of being offered a huge bribe of Rs 14 crore by a retired officer Lt Gen Tejinder Singh. <br /><br /></p>.<p>Apparently the purpose of the bribe was to clear the purchase of sub-standard military vehicles. This incident apparently took place over 18 months ago, which begs the question: why was Gen V K Singh silent for so long?<br /><br />Even before the impact of these revelations registered in the public consciousness, another controversy emerged. The contents of a letter written by Gen Singh to the prime minister on the level of preparedness of the Indian Army were leaked to the media. The Army chief may be an honest man who wants to clean up the system, however the timing of this leak raises a lot of doubts.<br /><br />Extent of corruption<br /><br />He was embroiled in an ‘age-row’ controversy when he claimed that his date of birth was 1951 and not 1950 as the government claimed. He even took the government to the Supreme Court on this issue. This move was unprecedented in the history of civil-military relations in India. The question is, should the Army chief be sacked? He has exposed the failings of the system and the extent of corruption that has eroded it.<br /><br />Differences between military chiefs and the defence ministers are not new. In the 1950s Gen K S Thimayya and the defence minister Krishna Menon clashed over appointments /promotions and over the threat response from China. Thimayya sent his resignation to prime minister Nehru who persuaded him to withdraw it.<br /><br /> However Nehru made a speech in Parliament on this matter. He told the House that the issues involved related to temperamental differences and should not be exaggerated. He asserted that the ‘supremacy of civilian authority’ was non-negotiable while accepting the fact that ‘expert’ advice had to be given its due. This has been the credo of civil-military relations in India, where civilian control over the armed forces is absolute.<br /><br />The other incident was the sacking of the chief of Naval Staff Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat. He had refused to implement the government order appointing Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh as Deputy Chief of Naval Staff. He said the appointment violated the Navy Act wherein the consent of the Navy chief was required for such appointments. Many defence experts like Admiral Raja Menon believed that Bhagwat was detested by the civilian bureaucracy because he wanted radical reforms, especially when it came to procurements and financial matters. Since Independence, the civilian bureaucracy has had a tight control on defence spending. They certainly did not want this Admiral to rock the boat. There is an eerie sense of deja-vu when one compares this case to the issue of Gen V K Singh raising the bogey of corruption in the Tatra trucks deal. How does one view his decision to publicise these revelations?<br /><br />Corruption in defence procurement deals is more or less an open secret in our country. However the fact that a serving army chief has confirmed it, must make us sit up and take note. The general’s timing may be a little suspect, in that he waited for so long to reveal this. He may have even been a little frustrated over the Supreme Court ruling against him on the age issue. Granting him that degree of subjectivity, one cannot ignore the fact that the man has displayed tremendous courage in standing up to his superiors and for all the right reasons. <br /><br />The time has come for a thorough clean up of the defence establishment and its procurement procedures. Perhaps the parliamentary standing committee on defence should have raised these allegations of corruption to account for its existence. The Army chief has pointed out a number of flaws in the system. This in itself is highly commendable and is something that will further the cause of national interest.<br /><br /><em> (The writer is a faculty member at the Christ University, Bangalore)</em></p>
<p>The ongoing controversy surrounding the serving Army chief Gen V K Singh gets murkier by the day. Never before in the history of independent India has the office of the Chief of Army Staff been subject to such adverse public scrutiny. It all began when Gen VK Singh made a sensational claim to the media of being offered a huge bribe of Rs 14 crore by a retired officer Lt Gen Tejinder Singh. <br /><br /></p>.<p>Apparently the purpose of the bribe was to clear the purchase of sub-standard military vehicles. This incident apparently took place over 18 months ago, which begs the question: why was Gen V K Singh silent for so long?<br /><br />Even before the impact of these revelations registered in the public consciousness, another controversy emerged. The contents of a letter written by Gen Singh to the prime minister on the level of preparedness of the Indian Army were leaked to the media. The Army chief may be an honest man who wants to clean up the system, however the timing of this leak raises a lot of doubts.<br /><br />Extent of corruption<br /><br />He was embroiled in an ‘age-row’ controversy when he claimed that his date of birth was 1951 and not 1950 as the government claimed. He even took the government to the Supreme Court on this issue. This move was unprecedented in the history of civil-military relations in India. The question is, should the Army chief be sacked? He has exposed the failings of the system and the extent of corruption that has eroded it.<br /><br />Differences between military chiefs and the defence ministers are not new. In the 1950s Gen K S Thimayya and the defence minister Krishna Menon clashed over appointments /promotions and over the threat response from China. Thimayya sent his resignation to prime minister Nehru who persuaded him to withdraw it.<br /><br /> However Nehru made a speech in Parliament on this matter. He told the House that the issues involved related to temperamental differences and should not be exaggerated. He asserted that the ‘supremacy of civilian authority’ was non-negotiable while accepting the fact that ‘expert’ advice had to be given its due. This has been the credo of civil-military relations in India, where civilian control over the armed forces is absolute.<br /><br />The other incident was the sacking of the chief of Naval Staff Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat. He had refused to implement the government order appointing Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh as Deputy Chief of Naval Staff. He said the appointment violated the Navy Act wherein the consent of the Navy chief was required for such appointments. Many defence experts like Admiral Raja Menon believed that Bhagwat was detested by the civilian bureaucracy because he wanted radical reforms, especially when it came to procurements and financial matters. Since Independence, the civilian bureaucracy has had a tight control on defence spending. They certainly did not want this Admiral to rock the boat. There is an eerie sense of deja-vu when one compares this case to the issue of Gen V K Singh raising the bogey of corruption in the Tatra trucks deal. How does one view his decision to publicise these revelations?<br /><br />Corruption in defence procurement deals is more or less an open secret in our country. However the fact that a serving army chief has confirmed it, must make us sit up and take note. The general’s timing may be a little suspect, in that he waited for so long to reveal this. He may have even been a little frustrated over the Supreme Court ruling against him on the age issue. Granting him that degree of subjectivity, one cannot ignore the fact that the man has displayed tremendous courage in standing up to his superiors and for all the right reasons. <br /><br />The time has come for a thorough clean up of the defence establishment and its procurement procedures. Perhaps the parliamentary standing committee on defence should have raised these allegations of corruption to account for its existence. The Army chief has pointed out a number of flaws in the system. This in itself is highly commendable and is something that will further the cause of national interest.<br /><br /><em> (The writer is a faculty member at the Christ University, Bangalore)</em></p>
