You say in your edit that given that peacetime army promotions are based on seniority, it is untenable that General Singh should have accepted his promotion to the Chief of Army Staff on the basis of a 1950 birth year and then expected to retire on the basis of another, a year later. But the chief’s birth year has nothing to do with his seniority, which depends on his date of commission. In fact, it is creditable that even with 1950 as his year of birth he was young enough and had the residual tenure to become army commander and chief. It is surprising that the media is assuming that the General, the office of the Army Chief and the army are one by accusing the General of dragging all of them into the controversy, while in the 2G case and other scams it differentiates between the prime minister, the Prime Minster’s Office, the Cabinet and the government. You should also get a legal eagle to explain how a date of birth can be sustained without the corroboration of a body statutorily authorised to do so, since the year 1950 only appears in the form that the General filled and the two letters that he wrote. If this is so, then why should the Union Public Service Commission or any employer ask for the birth certificate? What one writes in his or her form should be taken as the gospel truth and be legally valid. Right?
T R Ramaswami Mumbai
Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
The Editor, Business Standard
Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
Fax: (011) 23720201
E-mail: letters@bsmail.in
All letters must have a postal address and telephone number