In what may be described as a first, a former Army chief has come out in support of General VK Singh in the age row controversy. Former Chief of Army Staff General Shankar Roychowdhury, while speaking to Karan Thapar on Devil's Advocate, remarked that the government should have acted with much more understanding in the case. He further said that Defence Minister AK Antony should ideally have overruled his bureaucrats, who were advising him on the matter.

Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil's Advocate. Is Army Chief General VK Singh right in going to court? Has the government mishandled the matter? And could it end up damaging civilian military relations as well as the Army's image? That's the key issue I shall explore today with former Army Chief General Shankar Roychowdhury.

General Roychowdhury, let me start with a simple question. In your eyes, is the Army Chief justified into going to court or has he made a terrible mistake?

Shankar Roychowdhury: Can the Army Chief go to court? Yes, of course he can. Should he have gone to court? That is an issue which has to be judged in overall context of events, it's not an open and shut case depending on this court case. It must be examined whether the Chief was placed in a position by events in a background and how long it has been going on. Because every day the newspapers comes out with something new and the new aspects of the case unfolds. So that I think can't get a straight or simple answer. We will have examined the whole context in background. Can a Chief be placed in a certain position by the turn of the events, the rulings of the ministry of defence, where he has no option but to go to the court.

Karan Thapar: In other words you are suggesting, it's possible that General VK Singh was boxed into a corner and left with no option but to go to court? In other words, he was almost forced to go to court?

Shankar Roychowdhury: I think so. The question is when I see the newspaper headlines now and also in the visual media - it's about honour and dignity. Now these are very philosophical terms which cannot be defined in the law. Yet these are the very bases on which the Army rests and I do feel that General VK Singh is an extremely honourable man. I don't think he can compromise on the honour unless he was driven to it.

Karan Thapar: Okay, I will come to this question on honour and dignity in a moment's time General Roychowdhury. But let me put to you a view put across to by many people. They say "is it fitting and proper for a serving Army Chief to take his government to court? Should he not have first resigned and then taken the step?"

Shankar Roychowdhury: That is the point of view expressed by many but then again that you take the basic position. If a serving major or a serving Colonel can go to court, I don't really see, in principle, why a Chief shouldn't go to court. But as I said earlier, should he have gone to court? That we can debate on.

Karan Thapar: You don't think that the Chief's position, unlike that of a serving Major or Colonel, is unique. He is not just an individual, he represents the very Army that he heads. And therefore in that sense he is an institution?

Shankar Roychowdhury: I agree with you. But it must be accepted also that apart form his rank basically he is an Army officer, an Army person with the Army person's rights. So, what is the issue that forced, a Chief to go to court because that really has to be gone into.

Karan Thapar: I come to that issue in a moment, if I may my General Roychowdhury. But one more question on going to court, I accept that an Army officer he has rights. But what about the view that the Army all over the world operate on the basis of one cardinal principle that orders must be obeyed without demur and questioning. Could you argue General VK Singh's guilty of breaching that principle?

Shankar Roychowdhury: That is a basic principle, alright. But then there are organisations outside the Army which take advantage of the principle and try to force things upon the Army, decisions which the Army doesn't like but has to accept.

Karan Thapar: Alright, let's come to some of the key fact that make up this case. It's fairly clear that all the documents bar two including his birth certificate and school leaving certificate and the Supreme Court has indicated that the school leaving certificate is the critical one - all suggest that he was born in 1951; it's only the UPSC form for entering the NDA which was filled in when he was 14 by a tutor which suggests that he born in 1950 and an IMA dossier that based upon it. In fact even the adjutant general's branch in Army which is the official record keeper shows his date of birth is 1951. So would you accept practically all the evidence is in the General's favour?

Shankar Roychowdhury: I would accept that and the government should have examined all the aspects long time ago, because things that are moving now are not very conducive to the dignity of the Army or the dignity of the government itself.

Karan Thapar: Except there is the problem, is not General Roychowdhury at least on two occasions. Sometimes newspapers suggests on three occasions, General VK Singh in writing has accepted that he was born in 1950. In your eyes, does that acceptance vitiate his case or do you accept his claim that the acceptance happened under pressure and secondly conditionally?

Shankar Roychowdhury: I would like to say that we should go into the circumstances which made him declare in writing that he is prepared to accept 1950 as his date of birth. What were the circumstances, we don't know about enough it and what was the pressure put on him and by who?

Karan Thapar: It seems that the circumstance was first when he was a core Commander awaiting promotion to Army Commander. And the Army Commander waiting to become Chief and on both occasion he were given the clear impression, that if he didn't accept 1950 he would be denied promotion. Is that in your eyes mitigating set of circumstances?

Shankar Roychowdhury: Well if you were the professional soldier, as we were in one time and others are at now. You join the Army of course honour duty and country but also to make a career form it. So anything that affects the career particularly getting the top spot and at that particular juncture, some person or some organisation says that unless you sign this undertaking you will not be promoted. I think it would bring severe pressure on him.

Karan Thapar: So in those circumstances where his career and his promotion was at stake, the pressure is understandable and therefore he under pressure understandably accepted 1950, that's what you want you are saying?

Shankar Roychowdhury: I think yes that what I am saying.

Karan Thapar: Let me quote to you from the letter General VK Singh wrote on November 12, 2009 to his predecessor Chief General Deepak Kapoor. Remember this letter was sent just four months before General VK Singh himself became Army Chief. In the letter he says, "I have learnt from some misgiving and doubts being raised in my commitment given on my date of birth as per your directions. You are well aware that I have not gone back on this commitment". And then he adds "I once again reiterate that my commitments to you stands and any doubt of misgivings needs to be dispelled". To you does that sounds as it is written under pressure and conditional or does it sounds as if it was written voluntarily and willingly?

Shankar Roychowdhury: I think it was written when he understood that there were pressure at work and some of them conveyed to him possibly by his previous Chief. So he wanted to clarify his position and say that alright under the circumstances I will accept what is being stated as my date of birth.

Karan Thapar: In other words because you are leaving me no choice to do so, I have to accept it. Because if I don't I won't get the promotion that I deserve?

Shankar Roychowdhury: I think one should take, at least I take it that way.

Karan Thapar: Now as you mention earlier as General VK Singh himself has repeatedly said he is fighting for his integrity and honour? Do you accept that or do you also think that some truth to the alternate view that in the process he put his own interest ahead of his Army's interest, his put self before service?

Shankar Roychowdhury: No. I think that is the very wrong view. Apart from my personal knowledge about General VK Singh, I think a soldier is a man of honour. I don't think that he would put in such a complaint and take it to this stage just for the shake of one year extension, I don't think at all. I think this word integrity, honour all these are legally indefinable terms but vital to an Army officer. And I think General VK Singh is telling the truth.

Karan Thapar: Now as you say General VK Singh is a man of honour and he is fighting for his honour and integrity. But was not the same honour and integrity compromised when on two occasions, in writing, he accepted 1950 as his date of birth knowing that it was the wrong date of birth?

Shankar Roychowdhury: As I said again in response to your earlier question, there were pressures at work, on his career. So I think under those pressure he wrote that certificate. It doesn't compromise his honour I don't think. Why were those pressures put on him and what were those pressures

Karan Thapar: Now on the other hand people say that if the Army Chief believes his date of birth is A, B or C and the government refuses to accept, that is tantamount to holding the Army Chief to be a liar. Is that how you view the government's refusal to accept the Army Chief's date of birth?

Shankar Roychowdhury: I don't think the government realises that when you doubt the word of an Army Chief or any officer for that matter particularly the Army Chief. When he is placed in the position where they have has to recast to a statuary complain. I think the government should have realised that because it is the matter of honour and honour as I said is a concept which is foreign to most organisations, except I like think the Defence service.

Karan Thapar: General Roychowdhury, let's broaden our discussion and look at the government handling of this matter. Would you accept that by allying the situation to continue and fester the government has handled it very badly?

Shankar Roychowdhury: I would do that because I think this situation surface many years ago. I am not going into the exact dates but 2006 is one year being quoted. Surely between 2006 and when the General took over as Chief, these matters should have been put right.

Karan Thapar: Now I have it from unimpeachable sources, sadly I am not at liberty to revel who they are, that on three different occasions in separate meeting with Defence Secretary, the Defence Minister and finally the Finance Minister, the Army Chief was asked how this matter should be resolved and he said the way to do so was for the government to issue a statement saying that on the basis of the certificates he is shown, they accept the 1951 is his date of birth and then adding significantly in the same statement that he was appointed Army Chief in the believe that his date of birth was1950. Therefore his retirement was fixed for May 2012 and now that retirement date will be maintained regardless of the amendment in his date of birth. Sadly, the government didn't accept this resolution suggested to them. Do you think the government was wrong in refusing to accept the resolution?

Shankar Roychowdhury: As I said it is very difficult to accept a concept of honour outside the services. So I think the government could not appreciate what was being said and I do think the government should have accepted his word - again on the principle of honour.

Karan Thapar: Infact this offer and resolution that suggested to the government by General VK Singh, is still many believe the most credible or sensible way of sorting out the matter. Would you accept that it is still the most sensible solution?

Shankar Roychowdhury: I would think so. I would agree with that. But is there still time to adopt that solution? That's the point.

Karan Thapar: Now that we have gone to court and events take on to there own momentum, that's what you were saying?

Shankar Roychowdhury: That's right.

Karan Thapar: To what extend do you believe the Defence Minister Antony has failed to show the requisite judgment and tact that this tricky situation required?

Shankar Roychowdhury: Well, I wouldn't want to take names but certainly the government could have handled the case better with the or having the regard and respect for a Chief of a service. Which as you said earlier is really a very unique position and I think they should have shown more understanding rather then go by the pages of an order which directs, if your want to change of date of birth you should have put it in up before completion of five years of service. Yes, I think they should have given it more consideration having regard to the fact that it has arisen.

Karan Thapar: In other words that the government has been narrow and technical in their approach rather than broadminded generous and sensible?

Shankar Roychowdhury: I would not say that in respect of the minister because a minister is a very fine person. But certainly the Ministry of Defence which is the arm of the government that more or less controls the defence services, they have been guilty of not putting a broader approach to it.

Karan Thapar: In other words you are blaming the civil servant of the Ministry of the Defence rather then the ministers who heads the Ministry of Defence.

Shankar Roychowdhury: I would think so this is the case where the minister should have also exercised his judgment and taken a decision on the case.

Karan Thapar: So the ministry possibly over ruled the bureaucratic advice he was getting?

Shankar Roychowdhury: Perhaps yes, that would have been better.

Karan Thapar: Now General Roychowdhury, so far we been focusing on the government's alleged mishandling of the situation but the truth is long before this became a problem for the government, it was the problem for the Army. Because the two different branches of the Army the adjutant general branch and the military secretary's branch have different date of births for General VK Singh. To what extend, is the Army itself responsible for failing to sort out this matter?

Shankar Roychowdhury: I think it's appalling and the fact that two branches of the same headquarters at different dates should have been rectified decades earlier because this is been going on for a long time. So I think it's appalling and I only hope that there are no other such cases pending. I think the Army headquarters should make a review of its own personal documentation of the officers.

Karan Thapar: Now General VK Singh has let it be known that in 2008, when he first gave a commitment that he would accept 1950 as his date of birth in the larger interest of the organisation he did so having received assurance from General Deepak Kapoor who was the Army Chief of the time that the matter would be sorted out? Unfortunately the matter was never sorted out and repeated letter sent to General Kapoor left to unanswered. So do you get the feeling that General VK Singh was either led up the garden path or let down by his bosses?

Shankar Roychowdhury: Since it concerns a former chief and a serving Chief. I would prefer not to comment on it.

Karan Thapar: Alright you being diplomatic. Let me put something else to you. General VK Singh has also let it be known that successive military secretary insisted on 1950 being maintained as his date of birth because they claimed the change of date of birth would affect not simply the line of succession but four lines of succession. Outlook magazine has now commented this week, this suggests manipulation perhaps the politics at the very top of the Army to secure lines of successions, to place friends rather then the best man at the top. How do you view that situation?

Shankar Roychowdhury: I will answer the second half of the question later or probably I will not answer it. But the first part of your question that the Army itself is at fault, that is definitely so and someone needs to find out how this date came in any case. Someone needs to go into that and again for the future are there any other such cases.

Karan Thapar: But is the politics at the top where Chiefs, Military Secretary, Army headquarters tries to plays favourites in line of succession rather than necessarily the best man.

Shankar Roychowdhury: One certainly hopes not, it is going to be very bad for the services if such an arrangement is in place. The maximum you can plan ahead is may be the next Chief definitely and perhaps the Chiefs after that when you have to look at the records of a number of bright officers who are steadily making the great. But going back four lines of commands I think frankly that's rubbish.

Karan Thapar: General Roy Choudhury you begun your answers with the words 'one hopes not'. In another words you are hoping that there's politics manipulation at the top but you can't say that with certainty?

Shankar Roychowdhury: As I said one hopes not.

Karan Thapar: To what extent and I put this question to you as an former Army Chief to whom this institution is very dear. To what extent has the Army's image suffered as a result of this sorry situation?

Shankar Roychowdhury: It has suffered but it has suffered earlier also. You take it back to the 1962 and the days of the General BM Kaul. You take it back between General Thimaya and VK Krishna Menon. So the Army has taken few knocks including recently these so-called scams that have come up. So the Army has taken few knocks but the Army is the institution and still eminently pre-eminent. The concept of honour still guides most of our officers and the instances of breach of honour should be taken note of by the serving officers and ensure that this is not repeated. Because this something that if repeatedly comes to light, will hurt the image of the Army as an institution and I think no body wants that.

Karan Thapar: One another quick question. Have Army values, perhaps particularly at the top, deteriorated in recent years?

Shankar Roychowdhury: I don't believe that people say so. But I think when a officers starts off in a service he is inculcated the sense of honour, self before service, the chetwood motto. All this is rigidly incorporated into him and he starts of believing what he is taught and tries to keep it up as it progresses up the chain of command.

Karan Thapar: My very last question. Has General VK Singh's image suffered as a result of this?

Shankar Roychowdhury: Surprising. He is an excellent officer and I hope it does not suffer.

Karan Thapar: You hope it doesn't suffer. Once again that word hope no certainty just a hope. General Shankar Roychowdhury thank you very much for speaking to the Devil's Advocate.