1. The Modi government could do well without this controversy that has erupted. VK Singh, one of its ministers, has tweeted his unhappiness over the government's clearance of Lt General DS Suhag's appointment as the next Army chief. VK Singh's reaction goes against the tenet of collective responsibility of the members of a cabinet.
2. As an impartial observer, I'd like to go into the factors that have played towards the present ugly scenario:-
(a) VK Singh was unhappy over the succession chain of the COAS which he says was cobbled up
by one of his predecessors, Gen JJ Singh, to get 'his men' into the spotlight. His lost battle in
the issue of his age prevented him from getting the extra tenure as chief which he felt was rightfully
his.
(b) The then government had ensured that Gen Bikram Singh became the Army chief, after him, despite
his observation that he was under a cloud on two of his tenures, the first in Jammu & Kashmir and
the second as the head of an Indian peacekeeping mission abroad.
(c) His transition to politics and his subsequent battle at the hustings on a BJP ticket, played up an idea -
the perpetrator/(s) is anybody's guess - which was that if elected, he'd become the minister of defence
and in turn, set right(?) whatever was wrong meaning, shorn of all the niceties, he'd ensure that Lt Gen
Suhag would not be allowed to take over as the next Army chief. That the previous government should
have let the new government to decide on the appointment of the COAS - a thought expressed by
a wide section of the thinkers on the subject - was overlooked and the appointment was announced
giving the impression that Suhag was being inducted through the backdoor because of his
besmirched(?) past, strengthened the argument.
(d) Notwithstanding VK Singh's reservations, the defence minister had categorically stated in Parliament
that the government stood by Suhag's appointment as Army chief.
(e) The affidavit filed during the transition period between the two governments, by the Ministry of Defence, under the previous Solicitor General, Mohan Parasaran, was worded in a manner that
showed the then Army chief, Gen VK Singh in poor light for slapping a 'discipline and vigilance
ban' on Suhag, days prior to handing over his duties. This, incidentally, seems to be the main cause
of his unhappiness!
3. From the aforesaid, I've the following queries - in the order of chronology - to all the concerned parties:-
(a) Why did the Manmohan Singh government take the decision to appoint the new chief, which should
have been rightfully left to the succeeding government?
(b) Wasn't Mohan Parasaran, the previous SG, ethically and morally bound to take clearance, from the
new dispensation, for the affidavit being filed in the Supreme Court or was that a deliberate mischief
egged on by his loyalty to his masters to cause heartburn to the new incumbents?
(c) Doesn't VK Singh, now that he's a minister in the government, come under the code of collective
responsibility to accept the decision without his personal thoughts and prejudices coming in the way?
(d) And General Suhag, what would you like to tell your men whom you're gonna command a few
weeks from now who might go by the age old maxim that 'there's no smoke without fire' to clear
your own personal honour?
Tailpiece.
An ugly situation that we could have done without but does that mean that we should sweep the muck beneath the carpet? And yes, it's a case of small men with big egos!
2. As an impartial observer, I'd like to go into the factors that have played towards the present ugly scenario:-
(a) VK Singh was unhappy over the succession chain of the COAS which he says was cobbled up
by one of his predecessors, Gen JJ Singh, to get 'his men' into the spotlight. His lost battle in
the issue of his age prevented him from getting the extra tenure as chief which he felt was rightfully
his.
(b) The then government had ensured that Gen Bikram Singh became the Army chief, after him, despite
his observation that he was under a cloud on two of his tenures, the first in Jammu & Kashmir and
the second as the head of an Indian peacekeeping mission abroad.
(c) His transition to politics and his subsequent battle at the hustings on a BJP ticket, played up an idea -
the perpetrator/(s) is anybody's guess - which was that if elected, he'd become the minister of defence
and in turn, set right(?) whatever was wrong meaning, shorn of all the niceties, he'd ensure that Lt Gen
Suhag would not be allowed to take over as the next Army chief. That the previous government should
have let the new government to decide on the appointment of the COAS - a thought expressed by
a wide section of the thinkers on the subject - was overlooked and the appointment was announced
giving the impression that Suhag was being inducted through the backdoor because of his
besmirched(?) past, strengthened the argument.
(d) Notwithstanding VK Singh's reservations, the defence minister had categorically stated in Parliament
that the government stood by Suhag's appointment as Army chief.
(e) The affidavit filed during the transition period between the two governments, by the Ministry of Defence, under the previous Solicitor General, Mohan Parasaran, was worded in a manner that
showed the then Army chief, Gen VK Singh in poor light for slapping a 'discipline and vigilance
ban' on Suhag, days prior to handing over his duties. This, incidentally, seems to be the main cause
of his unhappiness!
3. From the aforesaid, I've the following queries - in the order of chronology - to all the concerned parties:-
(a) Why did the Manmohan Singh government take the decision to appoint the new chief, which should
have been rightfully left to the succeeding government?
(b) Wasn't Mohan Parasaran, the previous SG, ethically and morally bound to take clearance, from the
new dispensation, for the affidavit being filed in the Supreme Court or was that a deliberate mischief
egged on by his loyalty to his masters to cause heartburn to the new incumbents?
(c) Doesn't VK Singh, now that he's a minister in the government, come under the code of collective
responsibility to accept the decision without his personal thoughts and prejudices coming in the way?
(d) And General Suhag, what would you like to tell your men whom you're gonna command a few
weeks from now who might go by the age old maxim that 'there's no smoke without fire' to clear
your own personal honour?
Tailpiece.
An ugly situation that we could have done without but does that mean that we should sweep the muck beneath the carpet? And yes, it's a case of small men with big egos!
No comments:
Post a Comment