The Indian Army Chief General V K Singh has defied the babus of South Block by disclosing the fact that he was offered a bribe by a colleague for sanctioning the induction of ‘sub-standard’ vehicles into the Army and for listing, in a letter to the Prime Minister, the gross deficiencies in the Indian Army. Earlier the Chief had asked for a review of his date of birth so that his retirement could be delayed by a year. His request was rejected by the Ministry of Defense and the subsequent court case he filed was also decided against him. Inevitably dots are being connected to insinuate that the Chief came up with his allegation and disclosures (mysteriously leaked to the media!) only after he had been denied the extra year because the bribe offer was made two years ago and had been promptly reported by him to the Minister of Defense who has now asked the CBI to investigate. It also transpires that when the Chief reported the matter to the Minister the decision was to let the matter rest—-let sleeping dogs lie! The inevitable conclusion being drawn is that by requesting for an extra year in service the General was asking to be paid back for his silence.
The vehicle in question is produced under license by a public sector company and is already in service in the armed forces. This implies that it meets General Staff criteria and has been approved on the basis of technical and field evaluations. The critical factor is user feed back on the vehicle and it is on the basis of these reports that the Chief must have based his opinion of the vehicle as being sub-standard. The Chief could not be the final approving authority for induction of the vehicle but his recommendation would carry enormous weight. His recommendation would not be based on his personal judgment but on the case presented to him by the staff in Army Headquarters. This case would constitute the proof for his classification of the vehicle as sub-standard. Obviously this brings into question the entire process of initial induction of the vehicle into the military and this tie’s in with his allegation that a colleague offered him a bribe for a positive recommendation. The fact that he reported the matter to the Minister at the time it happened makes his allegation plausible. An internal Army investigation and subsequent action would not have been possible since a public sector company under the Ministry was involved. The General cannot be faulted for his action.
The General also cannot be faulted for raising the issue of deficiencies because this impacts on the operational readiness of the force he commands. He must have statistical and factual proof of the exact state of affairs and must have felt strongly about the issue especially if he had raised it earlier and no action was taken. His actions are obviously for posterity because he is on the verge of retirement with a successor already named. Powerful ex-bureaucrats are asking for the Generals head because they are furious that a military totally under political and bureaucratic control could raise its head and say what needed to be said. The sad part is the leakage of a classified communication from the Chief to the Prime Minister but this should not be difficult to investigate and resolve.
General V K singh is a professional career officer with a most distinguished record of service. He must have carefully weighed his options before settling on his course of action. The colleague he has named as the ‘would-be briber’ has already gone to court against him for defamation. At this point institutional interest should take precedence. Instead of a publicized ugly court case and a messy CBI investigation the entire matter should be handled by an investigative commission or court of inquiry set up by the Ministry. The conclusion reached should then lead to specific decisive action.
Courtesy: Tacstrat Analysis
Comments
Post a Comment