We are masters in obfuscating issues. And we do this till the issues succumb to our softer skill of engaging in diversionary tactics.
Today, the age controversy of the serving chief of Army staff is hogging the headlines. The media is giving it an importance that I did not expect that it would. Luckily or unluckily, for the General, there is no bigger news that would eclipse this one for the time being, so he must smart in the public or media gaze, which will deny him and the government the opportunity to cut a clandestine side deal to close this murky issue.
So today, to retire or not to retire in May, that is the issue. While the General seeks subterfuge behind vague yet exalted ideas like honor and dignity, the government too is confusing the issue in bureaucratic fine print – in your letter you had agreed you will not rake up the age issue, you have given this in writing to the Defence Secretary, you had agreed that you will align your ambition to the Military secretaries records and relinquish the post of chief to whom we dole this to next as per your earlier DoB etc etc and etc.
But the main issue as to what is the correct date of birth, and why and how the mistake was made in some records, why over 40 years it should not be corrected and that he should retire as per the correct date of birth, regardless of whether he serves less or more than he was originally supposed to.
Well the matter is at the doorstep of the SC and mostly, its judgments or advisories to the government are comprehensive, aligned with highest standards of jurisprudence even if there is a tint of judicial activism sometimes.
No comments:
Post a Comment