Musings of a Man in Uniform

I am trying to put up opinions of serving officers (anonymously of course) on various issues. The first in the series is on the controversy over the age of the Army Chief General VK Singh, which has now been put to rest. 

When to wish the Army Chief Happy Birthday?

I am a simple citizen. I do not fathom the intricacies or the mechanics of the legal system. My idea of justice comes from a simple understanding of right and wrong as ingrained through education which includes, most notably, social and cultural upbringing. Hence, when I observe a legal case through media lines, I assume that it ought to serve the primary purpose of reinforcing our faith in the law machinery of the nation.

This in itself may have many aspects. At the very outset, it would help me better understand the nature of my country and the values enshrined in the constitution. In this regard, my education taught me that free societies are based on the primary assertion of protecting the individual against the tyranny of stronger forces including the state itself. So, when I follow a case, it tells me if indeed the various organs of state, for all their respective shortcomings, are able to add up and deliver justice or are the tendencies aimed at giving bureaucratically impeccable settlements of a case by applying the knowledge and intricacy of 'rule position'. I am conscious that the evolution of civilization is deeply dependent on its ability to deliver justice and not just dispose cases.

Here's how I see the case of 'Gen VK Singh's Age Row' : Any citizen must have one date of birth and not something fixed by mutual consent or convenience. Departments within his own organisation were unable to decide this date. Until such time that this was decided, a certain date was taken into cognisance. In due course, the individual took the matter to the next higher authority. They too were unable to decide something that is routinely done at the lower divisions of office. Suspicion of vested interest could be debated against the individual and the establishment likewise.

Is the individual acting smart or had he been blackmailed by the representatives of the establishment in the past? Has he suddenly chosen to trade his long built 'honour' for a few more months in office or is he fighting the hidden arbitrariness of the establishment in achieving a premeditated successor? Is he using the law to his advantage (and is that a crime) or are we, the simple citizens, being led by vested parties in giving momentum to a malign campaign against a person who some representatives of the  establishment consider unsavoury? How much of his life or focus ought to be adamantly (or vehemently) devoted to this issue? Such questions are hardly germane to the elementary case – determining his date of birth!

I am reminded of a case in the past where a citizen (female) had alleged 'outrage of modesty' by another citizen (male). Public debate had made references to vested issues like inter departmental rivalries between the cadres that these two eminent people came from. Some even questioned the time lag in formally taking up a case where breach of dignity ought to have been clearly evident at the very outset of physical contact. Yet, and I am sure, we, the simple citizens, were all proud, that the law protected the right of the individual for seeking recourse from becoming time-bar or from isolating the petitioner. On the other hand, the Jessica Lal murder case saw considerable flip-flop over years. From 'Nobody Murdered.....' to celebrations on the deliverance of justice was a journey fluctuating between anxiety and expectations for the populace. Even now society remains uncertain whether sending the murderer to jail does indeed keep him from attending parties. The legal position to his 'medical holidays' is that seeking medical aid is his lawful right. Civilised society forbids speculating vested motives – even for a branded criminal.

Laws have been enacted to reduce subjective norms in judging people. Attempting to peep into the heart of a fellow human being and conjuring up our own idea of what vested desire might lie therein, is a right that no civilised society gives to any individual. Least of all if such an assessment is liable to be defamatory. History has it, that such incursions upon an individual's dignity were often decided by armed duel.  In fact, the legal establishment intends to curb such tendency of individuals to take the law into their own hands by encouraging them to seek formal recourse.

That, the Chief of a nation's army had to take a simple procedural matter to the apex court, ought to have implications for an ordinary citizen’s confidence in the establishment. We must also introspect the righteousness of our conduct in speculating ulterior motives on his part. On the other hand, the matter is now said to be settled and yet it must bear scrutiny that we, the simple citizens of India do not know what the date of birth was fixed at. Newspaper reports seem to suggest that there are two such dates as apply to his military life and as a citizen respectively.

They say that the law is blind. It delivers verdict without prejudice to related consequences. So, would some learned person kindly guide me, where a simple citizen may redress an odd grievance in the hope of clear justice (yes or no, guilty or not guilty, this way or that way) which does not inordinately take away the right to live with dignity. 

'We the People' must seek a healthy interdependence amongst departments poised to propel a nation's success. There is an urgent need to  curb the race for supremacy of each department being exercised through their control over the respective arena of responsibility. Such a format can only lay the foundation of drawing the military to follow likewise and one day, in the face of imminent need, we being left stunned by a tacit volte face by the last bastion.