Premium
This is an archive article published on August 21, 1999

Ex-Kargil commander got 6 postings in 45 days8217;

CHANDIGARH, AUG 20: Former Commander of the 121 Infantry Brigade in Kargil, Brig. Surinder Singh, said in a petition filed at the Punjab ...

.

CHANDIGARH, AUG 20: Former Commander of the 121 Infantry Brigade in Kargil, Brig. Surinder Singh, said in a petition filed at the Punjab and Haryana High Court that he was issued six posting orders in one-and-a-half months. The Brigadier, who is on 30 days annual leave here, has now been asked to report to Leh, Headquarters of 3 Infantry Division, with immediate effect for a possible inquiry.

The petition for directions to the Chief of the Army Staff and two other respondents 8212; against posting him 8220;from one place to another without justifiable cause8221; 8212; was today dismissed as withdrawn by the court. The court, however, granted that he can approach the court again.

Brig. Singh, who commanded the 121 Infantry Brigade, in his petition before Chief Justice A.B. Saharya and Justice V.K. Bali, had earlier stated that the same was being done 8220;only on account of malafide on part of the Chief of the Army Staff and the General Officer Commanding, 3 Infantry Division.8221;

He said that he was first issued ordersfor attachment to Headquarters 15 Corps, which were then cancelled. He was then posted as sub-area commander, Secunderabad, but on reaching there he learnt that he had been posted to 23 Division. He then applied for leave, which was granted. However, he now received a signal cancelling his leave and being asked to report to HQ 3 Infantry Division. Following inquiries over the telephone, he learnt that he has been called there for some inquiry, his petition said.

The counsel for the petitioner stated that Brig. Singh was being made a scapegoat as the action of the higher authorities in 8220;dealing with the situation arising out of the Kargil episode was receiving exposure in various quarters and thus exposing the acts of omissions and commission which they were unjustly passing on to the petitioner8221;.

Going into the details, he had stated that 8220;if the petitioner was not made a scapegoat, the blame would have reached where it actually lay.8221; He further stated: 8220;The petitioner does not wish to mince words instating that after taking over the charge of the Kargil Brigade, during the various briefings which he had conducted with senior officers including the Chief of the Army Staff, the threat perceptions were correctly projected. All this was well documented in the form of written briefs and letters. The projections were not rightly appreciated and he was rather termed as alarmist in casual conversation8221;.

He added that despite requests and submissions regarding the enemy threats 8220;to the higher authorities including the Chief of the Army Staff and GOC of No.3 Infantry Division, no corrective measures were taken to check the situation, resulting in the Kargil episode8221;.

Story continues below this ad

He stated that had his plea been heeded to at the relevant time, the situation which the nation ultimately faced, may have been avoided.He said though he was informed that his request for an interview with the Chief of Army Staff was granted for June 28, 8220;the Chief refused to see him on one pretext or the other.8221; He said that he did not getthe promised audience with the Chief though he stayed in Delhi for six days.

In the petition, he has tried to clarify his position on the Kargil crisis. He stated that as Commander of the Kargil Brigade, he was required to brief the Chief of Army staff. In the proposed brief, submitted to the higher quarters on August 25, 1998, he had clearly analysed the likely aim of the enemy, the enhanced threat perception, likely infiltration routes, and additional resources required by the brigade headquarters. He said his communications to the higher quarters dated September 1, and December 17, 1998, and January 5, 1999 also reflected the same. 8220;The petitioner can look back with satisfaction that whatever he had visualised had happened in the same manner as projected by him.8221;

He further stated, 8220;Despite it being a failure at the highest level and non-provisioning of additional resources to the petitioner, the petitioner detected the enemy at the earliest stance, stalled him, re-captured some positions, andcreated a firm base in front and rear of the enemy for a major force to be inducted through Zojila and to be applied for eviction.8221; He added: 8220;Instead of giving any pat or shabhash8217; to the petitioner, he has been made a scapegoat.8221;

The Brigadier recounted his career and mentioned that as a Captain, he was awarded the Sena Medal while fighting hostile elements in Nagaland. Then as a Major, he was given the commendation card by the Chief of Army Staff for evicting the enemy in the Kaksar Sector of Kargil in 1980. Later as a Colonel commanding an infantry battalion on a UN peace mission in Somalia, he was given the Vishisht Seva Medal.

 

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement