army chief controversy

Why one of the messiest chapters in Indian army history refuses to be closed

The defence ministry continues to back the current Army Chief, even though it means questioning the role of one of his predecessors, now a sitting minister.

It is unprecedented in the annals of post-Independence India for a serving Army Chief to file an affidavit in the Supreme Court accusing a predecessor – or a serving minister – of impropriety.

In this case, it happens to be a predecessor and a serving minister.

Chief of Army Staff General Dalbir Singh Suhag has accused Minister of State for External Affairs General (retired) VK Singh, of trying to stall his promotion “with mysterious design, malafide intent and to arbitrarily punish” him for “extraneous reasons”, the Indian Express reported.

In an affidavit submitted in his personal capacity to the Supreme Court, Suhag has said that in 2012 he “was sought to be victimised by the then COAS” [VK Singh] “with the sole purpose of denying [him] promotion to the appointment of Army Commander”.

The controversy is a continuation of one of the messiest chapters in the history of the Indian army when VK Singh, as the Chief of Army Staff, raised the issue of his date of birth and took the United Progressive Alliance government to court.

More than six years ago, when VK Singh took over as the army chief, he had staked his claim to an additional year in office on the grounds that he was born in 1951 and not 1950, as stated in army’s official records. His contention was that throughout his career he had followed 1951 as his year of birth, but for a mistake in an entry before he joined National Defence Academy that led to a year being shaved off from his service.

Ordinarily, such a move should have been resolved when VK Singh accepted 1950 as his year of birth, just before his promotion as an Army Commander. However, while Singh accepted the year under protest, he had never reconciled to the fact and finally went to the Supreme Court, challenging the government’s position.

But at stake was not just VK Singh’s own tenure but the entire succession plan of the Indian Army, usually offered to the senior-most army commander. In this case, had the government accepted VK Singh’s claim, he would have served three years as the Army Chief, and his successor, Gen Bikram Singh would have retired without getting the top job. In such a scenario, perhaps, VK Singh would have also retired a year later than he did and possibly would not have sought a career in politics. But that was not to be.

The succession war

Had VK Singh served for an extra year, it would have impacted not just Bikram Singh, but also Suhag. Those opposed to VK Singh argue that he deliberately filed Discipline and Vigilance ban on Suhag to nix his chances as a future Army Chief.

In January 2012, a military intelligence official, Major T Ravi Kumar wrote to the Dimapur-based 3 Corps commander, Lt Gen Suhag, asking him to inquire into allegations of a fake encounter and dacoity by his colleagues of the 3 Corps Intelligence and Surveillance Unit. A copy of the letter was also marked to Lt Gen Bikram Singh, then the Eastern Army Commander and then army chief, Gen VK Singh.

Gen VK Singh forwarded the letter to Lt Gen Bikram Singh as well as Lt Gen Suhag asking them to conduct an inquiry into these allegations. It was this letter that sparked off a flurry of events that has led to the Indian Army’s most embarrassing moment, as top army Generals fight amongst themselves, through media leaks and court cases.

During his tenure as the Eastern Army Commander, Lt Gen Bikram Singh ordered a Court of Inquiry conducted by Brigadier A Bhuyan. While Bhuyan was supposed to inquire into the allegations of fake encounters and dacoity by the officers and men of Suhag’s Unit, the role of Suhag himself was not inquired into. VK Singh felt that a much senior officer should have been asked to conduct the inquiry since Lt Gen Suhag was two rungs higher than Brigadier Bhuyan. It was suspected that Suhag protected the unit he commanded from the court of inquiry.

The matter would have been laid to rest but VK Singh issued a show cause notice to Suhag. As per procedure, when a notice is issued to a serving officer, a ban is placed on the officer’s promotion, till the allegations have been cleared up satisfactorily.

Ideally, this would have been a routine procedure, except for a few critical details. VK Singh had already lost his case in the Supreme Court for an extension of his service and he was days away from his retirement. Bikram Singh was the Army Chief-designate and Suhag was waiting to take up his position as the Eastern Army Commander. A prolonged ban at this stage would have ensured that Suhag would never become the army chief, impacting the succession plan forever.

The officer, who was ideally poised to be considered for promotion during the ban on Suhag was Lt Gen Ravi Dastane. Had he been considered for the Eastern Army Commander’s post, he would be in position to become the army chief after Bikram Singh. In fact, the post of the Eastern Army Commander was kept vacant till Bikram Singh took over. Clearly, the intention was to ensure that Suhag was cleared of the ban, so that he could take over Eastern Command and be eligible for the top job. The succession war had clearly become a murky one, unprecedented in the history of the Indian Army.

And sure enough, on taking over as the chief, Bikram Singh lifted the ban on Suhag.

Court battles

Meanwhile, even though VK Singh lost the case for his extension in the Supreme Court, Dastane filed a petition seeking promotion to the rank of an army commander. His argument was simple. When the promotion ban was placed on Suhag, Dastane was the senior-most officer who should have been automatically considered for promotion. Since that was not done, he missed out his chance to contend for the Army Chief’s post.

There was a case of conflict of interest in lifting the ban on Suhag’s appointment, Dastane also argued in his petition. Bikram Singh as the Eastern Army Commander, Dastane contended, was also responsible for the actions of Suhag who was serving under him, therefore creating a conflict of interest.

The case went to court, but in July 2014, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice TS Thakur refused to stay Suhag’s appointment as the next Army Chief.

Meanwhile, Dastane, the petitioner, retired from military service, but continued to fight the case leading to a prolonged court battle. Even though the government had changed and VK Singh had been appointed as a Minister of State, the Ministry of Defence filed an affidavit in the same case, virtually blaming him for the mess.

What surprised everyone was that such an affidavit had been allowed to go through, even though it would embarrass a sitting union minister.

The current affidavit, ostensibly filed by the current army chief in his “personal capacity” has caused further embarrassment to VK Singh. The current affidavit, even though filed in the Army Chief’s “personal capacity” was informally cleared by the defence ministry, say officials in Army Headquarters. This sends out a message that the ministry will continue to back the current Army Chief, even if it means questioning the role of a sitting Minister of State.

Those close to VK Singh allege that this is being done deliberately at the behest of “arm dealers and corrupt bureaucrats” who continue to dominate the workings of the defence ministry. This had also been their allegation as the reason why VK Singh was denied the extra year – parochial considerations were insinuated as a possible motivation as then chief Gen JJ Singh, it was alleged, had wanted to ensure that Bikram Singh and Suhag went on to get the top job, which would not have been possible otherwise.

But what is beyond dispute is that this episode has deeply politicised the army that is sworn to remain apolitical. The damage done to the institution is irreversible.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

How sustainable farming practices can secure India's food for the future

India is home to 15% of the world’s undernourished population.

Food security is a pressing problem in India and in the world. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), it is estimated that over 190 million people go hungry every day in the country.

Evidence for India’s food challenge can be found in the fact that the yield per hectare of rice, one of India’s principal crops, is 2177 kgs per hectare, lagging behind countries such as China and Brazil that have yield rates of 4263 kgs/hectare and 3265 kgs/hectare respectively. The cereal yield per hectare in the country is also 2,981 kgs per hectare, lagging far behind countries such as China, Japan and the US.

The slow growth of agricultural production in India can be attributed to an inefficient rural transport system, lack of awareness about the treatment of crops, limited access to modern farming technology and the shrinking agricultural land due to urbanization. Add to that, an irregular monsoon and the fact that 63% of agricultural land is dependent on rainfall further increase the difficulties we face.

Despite these odds, there is huge potential for India to increase its agricultural productivity to meet the food requirements of its growing population.

The good news is that experience in India and other countries shows that the adoption of sustainable farming practices can increase both productivity and reduce ecological harm.

Sustainable agriculture techniques enable higher resource efficiency – they help produce greater agricultural output while using lesser land, water and energy, ensuring profitability for the farmer. These essentially include methods that, among other things, protect and enhance the crops and the soil, improve water absorption and use efficient seed treatments. While Indian farmers have traditionally followed these principles, new technology now makes them more effective.

For example, for soil enhancement, certified biodegradable mulch films are now available. A mulch film is a layer of protective material applied to soil to conserve moisture and fertility. Most mulch films used in agriculture today are made of polyethylene (PE), which has the unwanted overhead of disposal. It is a labour intensive and time-consuming process to remove the PE mulch film after usage. If not done, it affects soil quality and hence, crop yield. An independently certified biodegradable mulch film, on the other hand, is directly absorbed by the microorganisms in the soil. It conserves the soil properties, eliminates soil contamination, and saves the labor cost that comes with PE mulch films.

The other perpetual challenge for India’s farms is the availability of water. Many food crops like rice and sugarcane have a high-water requirement. In a country like India, where majority of the agricultural land is rain-fed, low rainfall years can wreak havoc for crops and cause a slew of other problems - a surge in crop prices and a reduction in access to essential food items. Again, Indian farmers have long experience in water conservation that can now be enhanced through technology.

Seeds can now be treated with enhancements that help them improve their root systems. This leads to more efficient water absorption.

In addition to soil and water management, the third big factor, better seed treatment, can also significantly improve crop health and boost productivity. These solutions include application of fungicides and insecticides that protect the seed from unwanted fungi and parasites that can damage crops or hinder growth, and increase productivity.

While sustainable agriculture through soil, water and seed management can increase crop yields, an efficient warehousing and distribution system is also necessary to ensure that the output reaches the consumers. According to a study by CIPHET, Indian government’s harvest-research body, up to 67 million tons of food get wasted every year — a quantity equivalent to that consumed by the entire state of Bihar in a year. Perishables, such as fruits and vegetables, end up rotting in store houses or during transportation due to pests, erratic weather and the lack of modern storage facilities. In fact, simply bringing down food wastage and increasing the efficiency in distribution alone can significantly help improve food security. Innovations such as special tarpaulins, that keep perishables cool during transit, and more efficient insulation solutions can reduce rotting and reduce energy usage in cold storage.

Thus, all three aspects — production, storage, and distribution — need to be optimized if India is to feed its ever-growing population.

One company working to drive increased sustainability down the entire agriculture value chain is BASF. For example, the company offers cutting edge seed treatments that protect crops from disease and provide plant health benefits such as enhanced vitality and better tolerance for stress and cold. In addition, BASF has developed a biodegradable mulch film from its ecovio® bioplastic that is certified compostable – meaning farmers can reap the benefits of better soil without risk of contamination or increased labor costs. These and more of the company’s innovations are helping farmers in India achieve higher and more sustainable yields.

Of course, products are only one part of the solution. The company also recognizes the importance of training farmers in sustainable farming practices and in the safe use of its products. To this end, BASF engaged in a widespread farmer outreach program called Samruddhi from 2007 to 2014. Their ‘Suraksha Hamesha’ (safety always) program reached over 23,000 farmers and 4,000 spray men across India in 2016 alone. In addition to training, the company also offers a ‘Sanrakshan® Kit’ to farmers that includes personal protection tools and equipment. All these efforts serve to spread awareness about the sustainable and responsible use of crop protection products – ensuring that farmers stay safe while producing good quality food.

Interested in learning more about BASF’s work in sustainable agriculture? See here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of BASF and not by the Scroll editorial team.