Gen. Singh must go
Army chief's reputation can never be repaired since he crossed wires with the executive and penned that letter to PM Manmohan
The political leadership in any other institutional democracy would have fired General V. K. Singh in the wake of his relentless fusillade of revelations targeting the government -- the latest salvo being the leaked letter to the Prime Minister in which he presented a grim picture of the force's battle-preparedness.
For the first time, the Indian army -- in the shape of its chief -- has openly crossed swords with the executive. In the process, the General has sullied the image of the very institution he heads.
He has reached the point of no return, leaving behind a huge stink and making his position as the man at the helm of one of the largest armies in the world untenable.
Yet the ruling coalition, in the grip of a severe policy paralysis, failed Indian parliamentary democracy again on Wednesday by mouthing inanities rather than summarily giving General Singh marching orders.
That the country's systemic inadequacies were showcased at a time when Chinese President Hu Jintao was in New Delhi for the BRICS summit was a further blow to the prestige of the largest democracy in the world.
Through a series of interviews and leaked letters describing the sorry state of the army, the General has shown what frustration can do even to a fine officer.
But in democratic societies, even a whiff of challenge to the civilian authority needs to be decisively snuffed out.
Witness the pathetic attempts of Defence Minister A.K. Antony to convince Parliament about India's defence preparedness, hours after the army chief's totally contrary views became public knowledge.
' Since this matter has been raised, I wish to assure the House - and through the House the Nation - that the government is determined to continue to do all that is necessary to ensure the security and defence of India,' Antony told Parliament on a wimpish note.
Contrast this with what General Singh said in his leaked letter which, in tone and tenor, suggested it was meant more for public consumption than seeking an official reflection on the army's state of affairs. '…The state of the major (fighting)