Controversy on the Date Of Birth
The strange controversy on the issue of the establishment of the actual DOB of the senior most authority of the Army should have consumed so much time, energy and money of the senior officials of the GOI smells of some foul play somewhere in the whole System.
Even a child or an inexperienced person would not take more than five minutes to settle the matter once for all without wasting a single moment. Analyzing the whole story one finds the following points that reflect the various dimensions in very clear perspective.
At the outset:
1) The Candidate in Question, General V.K.Singh was born in an Army Hospital and not in some remote Village Health Care Centre. The army is trained to be meticulous in maintaining the records of births and deaths. Accordingly in case of need, the record of the Army Hospital is the best tool for verification. The record of the Army Hospital confirms that He was born on May 10, 1951.
2) The universally accepted norm of the accepting the School Leaving Certificate is the most authentic proof, for admission to any institution across the Globe. And that His School Leaving Certificate confirms that He was born on May 10, 1951, that leaves nothing for imagination for any establishment.
3) The Adjutant General’s office is supposed to be the official record keeper of the complete establishment of the Army. Naturally they are supposed to verify all possible particulars with the original documents at the time of registering a particular Date in their records before they need to certify the same…! Their record confirms that his DOB is May 10, 1951, as certified in the SLC.
4) The MS office being only a duplicate source just for double checking the records reflects the DOB as May 10, 1950. This is where the source of the whole trouble lies.
5) Now what is the authenticity of the records of the MS Office of the Army? The concerned officials say that they have recorded this date because this particular date was mentioned in the Application form for admission to the NDA. That anyone may write anything in the Application Form and the establishment will agree to the same. Is it justified?
6) The rule says that at the time of admission and joining the course to any institution, all the candidates have to submit original documents to certify that all the particulars’ given in the Application Form were Correct. This is a universal rule and applies for admission to any institution. That means the particulars written in the Application form are not supposed to be standard base for verification but unless it is supported by a proper certifying Document. In this case the supporting Document is the School Leaving Certificate. This means that the officer in charge of verification of the Application Forms at the time of admission had not done his duty well at that time for which the whole nation has to suffer now. He should be identified and asked to verify the actual system that he had followed to register the particulars in the Army Records. The signature of the concerned officer would be available in the original Application Form.
7) Will someone take pains to check whether that Application Form, that is in the Army records has been countersigned by some proper authority and to have had verified the DOB with the original School Leaving Certificate or not and whether the copy of the SLC is also attached with it or not. Ideally speaking the same Officer would have sent the details to the MS Office and The Adjutant General’s Office.
8) Why shouldn’t that Officer have been called up by the Army administration to verify the facts, in the year 2006 when the controversy had just cropped up?
9) As it is evident from the existing circumstances that it is purely a case of internal administration of the different departments of the Army itself in which now the members of the legislature, executive and judiciary are unnecessarily warming their hands, at the cost of the reputation of the General himself and the institution of the Army as well.…!!
10) If today, the MS Office continues to harp on the data of the veracity of the Application Firm then the whole establishment is at fault because the MS office is not performing its duty efficiently as per laid out international norms. The concerned Officers in The MS Office need to be sent for some refreshment course to update their knowledge before they are allowed to raise any voice on the subject.
11) Now considering the reverse situation if the Application Form had shown the DOB as May 10, 1950 whereas the School Leaving Certificate would have shown the DOB as May 10, 1951 then probably the whole administration would have made the life of General, a hell and probably he would have been court martialled for the crime.
12) It is beyond the comprehension of the common man that why should the necessary correction be made in the records in the earlier years when the candidate had been highlighting the matter and requesting to do the needful.
13) Accordingly the following officers namely
a. The one who was supposed to verify the particulars entered in the Application Form at the time admission, with the original certificates’ should be put in the dock.
b. The officer in the Military Secretary’s Office who registered the DOB in the records without checking the original certificates should be questioned on the veracity of the job done by him.
c. All the records related to the DOB of all the employees of the Army, available with the MS Office, should be counter-checked with that of the Adjutant General’s Office. Because prima facie the MS Office has been taking the matter of keeping the records of particulars in a casual manner and they can’t be trusted for future.
d. Somewhere down the line someone has played a dirty game to consider the record of the MS office as more trust worthy rather than that of the records of the Adjutant General’s Office and also convinced the bureaucracy of the same.
e. How come the previous two Chiefs of Staff, fell unsuspecting victims to this dirty politics within the Army administration, is just beyond the comprehension to understand as this doesn’t require any rocket science to make a sound judgment about the verification of the actual age of the candidate when so many documents prove it otherwise. Both the Army Chiefs had the Power to attest and get the DOB corrected at the right time.
f. Accordingly all those individuals who have knowingly or un-knowingly played with the actual DOB of the Gentleman Officer, need to be identified and also court martialled so that in future no one dares to play with the actual records so casually and moreover try to prove a “wrong record” as correct, to the whole nation, not only at the cost of the reputation of the candidate in question but also at the cost of the reputation of the whole institution of the Army itself.
14) The million dollar question is what reasons did prompt and convince the MS office a supposed to be responsible authority in the Army establishment to base their allegations on the record of the Army Chief just because he had written the DOB as May 10, 1951 in the Application Form for admission to NDA, and then sticking to this lame excuse.
15) The Billion dollar question is that for such a small trivial matter why should have the Ex-Chiefs have even forced General V.K.Singh to accept the wrong DOB to be as correct….?? Was it ethical and professional on their part to do so with their own colleague..? Any competent authority should question the two Ex-Chiefs as to who prompted them to convince the Candidate to accept a wrong DOB to be correct…!!
16) The trillion Dollar question is that how come the experts in the bureaucracy also not advice the M.S.Office to correct their records as per the particulars of the School Leaving Certificate, at the very first instance before the matter has been blown up to such great proportions.
17) The multi-billion dollar question is that why should a highly competent officer, who is medically fit and on whom the country has spent so much for his training ; be retired one year earlier in advance. In America if required, they even call their retired Generals to take up the charge at specific assignments. But Our Officer is in active life…!!!
18) Why should the Government spend additional money on the appointment of a new Officer one year in advance when there is no such need … !! !! !
A justified course would be at the outset to correct the grave mistakes existing in army records as this is quite different from altering the records. Then the Government should take a fresh look at the issue after the correction is done and then take a revised decision on whether to appoint a new Chief on year earlier at the cost of the Tax payer’s funds when we are already passing thru a financial strain…!! !!!
Also Please Visit:
