Should age matter in the Indian Army?
The controversy regarding the age of General V K Singh, the Indian Army chief, has been in the press for a while now. There has been a lot of mudslinging from various quarters.
I'm of the opinion that what should matter is the tenure of service and merit, not the age of the person.
"It is absurd. When you are 15 or 16 you apply for NDA. Should the fact of being younger than others decide whether one should be military chief or not? It is laughable," says a serving army general. "Let's say two of us join NDA together, and we get promotions at the same time. All through the service I may have excelled in my work, but if I were a day younger, it is you who gets to become the chief," he says. (in a ToI article)
What do you feel about this issue?
Questions - answer/ idea
About the Author
I think Gandhiji put it best when he said "Be the change you want to see in the world."
Unless each of us does his/her part, we can't expect change to happen.
Other debates by the author
-
Test your awareness with 5 new questions every week worth 25 points!!
Questions most debated/ most recent
-
Makepeace_Sitlhou -
Makepeace_Sitlhou
-
nikhlesh -
nikhlesh
-
aksaklani
-
jeetalex -
Strider -
NewtonLewis
-
nikhlesh
-
NewtonLewis
This is not about idealism (of course we all prefer that) but the retirement age is a technical argument in the army that determines much for the Army officer, who will then accordingly be given lesser important appointments. Of course there is the whole politics of power to it as well. Unfortunate but people have to prove themselves at all levels for the smallest things because they're at a position vulnerable to criticism and up for grabs by many behind him.
The chief of the Indian Army, General V K Singh, won the first round of his legal battle against the government in the Supreme Court today
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/army-chief-vs-govt-begins-in-supreme-c...