Sunday, February 12, 2012

TEAM VK AND THE CULT OF VICTIMHOOD









In one of the animated discussions on the net - related to army chief’s age controversy -  a veteran based in USA – cited the applicability of Queen vs Dudley and Stephens (1884) to prove the culpability of former army chiefs and the military secretary in making Gen VK Singh sign a document that reflected his date as 1950. The Queen vs Dudley is the famous English case involving four men stranded in a lifeboat without food or water. Faced with the prospect of death the men decide to murder their weakest comrade, a seventeen year old orphan working as a cabin boy in their boat. The three men enjoy the boy’s meat till they meet a ship that saves them and takes them back to their mother land. After a few years, one of the survivors of the ship wreck writes his memoirs, where he mentions how they enjoyed the murdered cabin boy as breakfast. This revelation leads them to court that after a prolonged trial pronounces them as murderers. In the court, the three shipmates defend themselves by stating that it was their circumstances that led them to kill the boy – had they not taken that action their families’ would have suffered after their death. The court, however bases its verdict on the fact that the boy had not threated to kill his shipmates nor did he offer any resistance. Furthermore, the murdered cabin boy was absolutely unaware that he was  being sacrificed - nor did he volunteer to be the scapegoat. 

Using the above  case, the veteran conflated the situation of the cabin boy to that of Gen VK Singh. My submission was that it was a flawed argument that the army chiefs' in 2006 and then again in 2008 and 2010 had fudged the documents to victimize General VK Singh – equivalent of the hara-kiri that had been perpetrated against the cabin boy. What was conveniently forgotten by those desperately trying to prove Gen VK Singh's integrity  was that- in 2006, 2008 and 2010, it was not General VK Singh but his date of birth that was murdered – and he was party to the alleged crime and had enjoyed the ‘breakfast” that served him a smooth ride to the pinnacle of his career. While it was General VK Singh who had denied himself his correct date of birth, the blame was deftly passed on to the government. 


The entire argument in defence of the General VK Singh was woven to portray him as a victim –whose actual date of birth had been snatched away from him by his conniving predecessors in the army – using the bogey of ‘organizational interests”. The second imagined culprit was the government – the chief conspirator that wanted to deny General VK Singh an additional year in office – allegedly to have a more pliable general to clear some dubious defence deals. The third of course – as always - was the media that had contrived with the Babus’ to malign General’s reputation by calling him a soldier who put ‘self before service’.

The victimhood theory was carefully constructed to gather sympathy and rally all those who held any grievance against the bureaucracy and government. Many within and outside the army went on to believe the ‘manufactured truth’ – a lie - that was blurted out by a few select veterans on the television channels. One odd old veteran who dared to oppose the victimhood logic was castigated for the sins committed by his distant relative. Some even went to the extent of comparing the general’s crusade to Anna Hazare’s campaign to cleanse the corrupt system.

The campaign was moving as per the plan -  gaining momentum - and team VK was gung ho about prospects of their victory - till of course, six well researched articles in the Tribune took the wind out of their sail – exposing the games that were being played in army headquarters to change the general’s date of birth, keeping the ministry of defence in the dark. Despite the setback, team VK launched a frontal attack and stated that the articles were planted directly by the PMO – needless to mention, they did succeed in convincing many. However, by now, the divisions  within the media on the issue were discernable. Some sections of the media were blatant in making the general a hero even assisting the general in designing a media campaign to counter the opponents and project the image of a decorated commando tortured and tormented by the government.

Some of the most bizarre arguments were put forward in Gen VK’s favour - "Why was it that such certificates are not routinely taken from all officers about to be promoted, if it was a normal process step." The obvious answer to such a query was - other officer’s have no discrepancy in their DOB records, therefore they are not subjected to signing another document. Another frustrated argument that was witnessed on the internet forums and TV discussions –“why can’t the government just accept 1951 as the date of birth and close the matter”?

When asked as to why General VK Singh accepted his date of birth as 1950 at the time of promotion to senior ranks – team VK retorted -"people do all sorts of things for promotions , what the general had indulged in was nothing. Some even went on to suggest, “At least the Chief Gen VK Singh had the moral courage to admit that he did not have the moral courage to stand up to the "duress". But when questioned as to what the ‘duress’ was - did somebody threaten to murder him if he did not change his DOB?- did somebody threaten to attach his property?– none of the erudite members of team VK could offer a plausible reply. Sadly, team VK forgot that courage and honour are a function of time and space – you cannot piss in thin air to brandish your valour.

21 comments:

  1. That means you presuppose that his career advancement was smoothened by his accepting a wrong DOB. If so then it clearly indicates that there were ulterior motives on the part of his superiors for doing so, because if he was born in 1950, he does not become a good officer and if he was born in 1951 did not make him professionally a bad officer. So the previous chiefs had an ulterior motive for doing so and are therefore culpable. QED.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That is exactly I have said, if the previous chiefs' were blameworthy so is the current chief for being a party to that alleged crime- I am not saying that an conspiracy was hatched - in fact, the entire victim hood story is based on conspiracy to change his date - if there was no conspiracy then where is the victimhood

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In essence what you are saying that the previous chiefs role was above board. I fail to be convinced in that.

      In case they are complicit in an illegal action, despite whatever may be Gen VK's fault, truth has NOT prevailed. If Satyamev Jayate is our national motto, then somewhere we the citizens of India have failed to live upto it.

      Delete
  3. Dear Mr Bhardwaj,
    I do not disagree that the Army Chief having accepted a incorrect DOB earlier should be held accountable, but I disagree with your conclusions because:
    1.There is no disagreement that his actual DOB is 1951.This is what is recorded in the AG Branch, which is actually supposed to keep official records. MS Branch does not hold these records, therefore on this anamoly coming out it should have corrected its records.Why did the MS Branch not do so?
    2. Not doing so obviously was not impacting the present Chief as even with 1950 as DOB he was still eligible to become a Corps/Army Cdr.But it obviously helped the agenda of somebody influential looking to the future.It obviously could not have been allowed to happen without Gen JJ Singh's personal intervention as he was Chief at that time. The fact that Gen Kapoor also did not intervene when he was Chief also makes him complict in the affair.
    3. All of this must have come to the knowledge of the MOD which should then have brought up the matter to the attention of the Minister and corrected the anamoly.The fact that it did not, makes its motive suspicious as well.
    4. In my view Gen VK Singh did not rock the boat as he was already getting to eat his cake. The fact that he subsequently wanted his cake as well is no doubt deplorable, but can atleast be looked at as a normal human failing of ambition or whatever and was in actual fact based on a singular truth that he was actually born in 1951. The actions of Gens JJ Singh, Kapoor and the Defence Secretary (MOD) however were wilful and motivated and condemnable. They have let the service down by their actions and have much to answer for and must be held to account. After all, they have held many of their subordinates to account for violations less than theirs. I also believe the Supreme Court by its actions did a disservice to itself and reminds us that it is of little relevance if it does not give justice.

    ReplyDelete
  4. you are a wise man atul coz in the words of justice lodha, " wise men move with the wind" and you are moving in the right direction, a direction that will get you closer to the government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for considering me wise. few credit me with wisdom!

      Delete
  5. The Supreme Court did not give a decision. The case was closed on technicalities, resulting the suggestion and its acceptance that the petition be withdrawn. It would actually have been difficult-er- impossible for Supreme Court to decide one way or other. Its not its job. Its to review and hence the need to have progressed the case from District/ High Court/ Tribunal on. The Apex court does not go around examining documents to verify et al.
    Second issue that needs pointing out, more with Veteran Atul's response to a feed back above, is that there are numerous cases of internal adjustments at MS branch, of DOB issues, to which the Officer concerned is not even a party or any agreement sought. IT happens as routine. This here is definitely a weird case of the issue being brought up/ unraveled at a very late stage. It DOES arouse suspicion. Yet, despite being correct, I believe the Chief approach to the Supreme Court looked upon certain limitations on part of the latter. That is the reason for the suggestion and action to withdraw the petition. Not the merits.
    Lastly, its often been wondered what duress the Chief may have been under in accepting the wrong DOB. Well, having come and being within shooting distance of a Top position, if your name gets dropped from an MDS put up to the promotion board with a remark that there is an aberration in your DOB requiring reconciliation, most if not all of us would accept to whatever the 'organization interests' are. More so if it is advocated that failure to 'accept' was holding up other promotions!!
    Promissory Estoppel as applied in this case I believe should have been countered by arguing that the concept of 'unconscionable bargain' was more applicable in the instant case. The 'agreement'given by Gen VKS was consequence of a commitment extracted by a unequal and superior party totally by unfair means.
    ITs over now. The Pro VK lobby as you call it, seems to have quietened down, in tune with the person who they supported. The same is not unfortunately true for the other side that must get down to gloating and further carving of the corpse of the case.... withdrawn as it is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chaturvedi Sir, I have nothing against our chief, all i have tired to do is argue on the merits of the case. Many people are confused as to how could the SC ignore the validity of matriculation certificate - but the bigger question in front of the court was how could they not take cognizance of the document signed by a person of the rank of a Lt Gen- how could the court upturn the normative as well as coded structure under which the contracts are carried out in the society. It is a simple case Gen VK Singh traded off his date of birth to be the chief. He should have stood up for his rights then - it was just too late in the day!

      Delete
  6. Deepk, I have written in my previous blog - There were two options before the general in 2008, when he was asked to accept 1950 as the date of birth. The first one was to accept the lower DOB, 1950 and have a hassle free journey towards being a four star general. And the second option was harder, it would have led the General to contest the DOB and go through the procedure of board of inquiry, thereby reducing the probability of becoming the chief. General VK Singh consciously went in for the first option and ensured a smooth transition from a three star to four star rank – and in the process closed his options to settle his date of birth issue within the army.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Atul, agree with you there, but like I said we are all human and for all we know he may have been looking to an extended tenure. The fact is that by going to court he has exposed the other players.Their reputations are now mud, not that Gen Kapoor has anything called a reputation left after the Adarsh scam, but should the Government not be thinking of putting Gen JJ Singh out to pasture and what about the heirarchy within the MOD who made the Government look silly.Offcourse with a senile PM and an incompetent Defence Minister it is unlikely any action will be taken, but I am an optimist and look forward to being surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No one has answered as to why a person at the threshold of a board for next rank, should be made to confront such an option. Should those that placed the option before him be answering any of the questions.

    Whichever way you think, the very question of avoiding to answer the DoB, shows that addressing it may embarrass many

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pradeep Sir, You would appreciate, the competition at that level is particularly stiff - people are looking for non payment of mess bills to pull down their course mates - then how could such a glaring anomaly in the record be glossed over. Suppose the army HQ had accepted 1951 as DOB in 2006 - what is the guaranty that it would have gone unchallenged. To be very precise the system was kind to Gen VK Singh - they sorted the matter out internally and promoted him.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Its honor lost and the organization suffered. Its cascading ramifications will be apparent after a few years unless the system wakes up to rectify two perceptions, viz, the chiefs can connive to work out the succession and ineptness of ministry in managing the issue

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir is not promotion a matter of subjective judgement of an individual? Whether as the initiating, reviewing or senior reviewing authority. Or for that matter as the Promotion Board itself? The more predictable and transparent the system gets the easier it will be for a motivated superior to sculpt his idea of future hierarchy. A major difference can be made/ will be made hereafter once senior officers see the system.

      Delete
  11. Atul, Enjoyed the exchanges thoroughly as an unemployed. BZ

    Since you have done so much dilligence can you tell me what was the End Result Gen VK was looking for. He has 1951 in all his cards. Extension till 2013 ? or prove he was 'done in' and he sacrificed his honour twice in 2008 and 2009 and resiled as a Chief. As GOCinC East he make SUKHNA a mighty issue. I heard he wanted to change succession for Gen Parnaik and then a Gen AK Singh. All Chiefs try this as seniormost become Chiefs by DOB not merit and therein lies the Key to avoiding a repeat. Chiefs get plots too, out of turn and Gen VK got one and wanted a better bigger corner one in Panchkula if media is to be believed ......DO COMMENT RR

    ReplyDelete
  12. Was date really the issue? it was buried in 2008 - there was no reason for it to have surfaced again. Probably, the chief wanted to be the 21st century Thimmaya, Carriapa and Manekshaw combined - an upright general who could show the 'dhoti' clad corrupt politicians and the bureaucrats their place and get the army the space within the polity it deserves. His ambitions were spotted by some political outfits - he was pumped up by the veterans to take on the govt for mistreating him - just as Thimmaya had complained against Krishna Menon. In the end, i would say, he again got used!

    ReplyDelete
  13. The entire age controversy has in fact exposed the faulty ACR system and promotion policies. How is it that the system has thrown up subsequent Army Chiefs and Generals who are now being seen as currupt or manipulative. Govt also need to introspect where they went wrong in their selection procedure by promoting an officer who openly challenged its order in Court, making mockery of the entire system in front of the country. How can a leader on whose verbal command men are expected to give supreme sacrifice, go back on his own commitment given in writing. Sheer opportunism; no different from our political system.

    ReplyDelete
  14. while comparing the chief to the cabin boy
    and gen. kapoor to the cannibals,atul side steps one point,
    namely,kapoor had promised a correction of his date in due
    course, and that this was just a temporary way out.
    was the cabin boy promised a resurrection??
    think about it.
    behram j. d.

    ReplyDelete
  15. came across the below proverb, and the supreme court's advice to gen. v k singh,asking him to to adjust to the wind came to mind!
    in retrospect, the chief shud have adjusted his sails!!

    behram j. d.


    You can't control the wind, but you can adjust your sails.
    Yiddish proverb

    ReplyDelete
  16. if VK would not have exposed gen Awdesh' &'ADARSH' probably his DOB would have been 1951 in MS records. its pure connivance to malignly work out a favoured heirarchy. but i do regret he having agreed to 1950 in the early stages.

    ReplyDelete
  17. How many Army Chiefs have served for nearly three years? Who would want any one person to enjoy this singular privilege longer than his "fair" share. What if the succession line is predictable and manageable?
    To compound the issue further what if the Person is perceived to be a crusader out to get the goat of the not so truthful.
    The issue is further compounded if one considers the fact that the flavor of the crusade itself may have a tinge of recency or the same could be attributed to the author of the crusade.
    No case is as simple as it appears. Management of human aspirations itself is becoming an increasingly complex issue in a transparent and networked environment.

    ReplyDelete