The Army is seriously considering the possibility of approaching the Supreme Court against the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) asking it to ?moderate? the official history of the Kargil War to correct the ?bias? shown against an officer. All relevant reports and records have been dug out, and an appeal is under legal consideration, top sources said.

The tribunal had on May 26 ruled that Lt Gen Kishan Pal, 15 Corps commander during the war, had shown a bias against Brigadier Devinder Singh, who was commanding the 70 Infantry Brigade under Lt Gen Pal?s overall command. The tribunal had asked the Army to modify its records to give Brigadier Singh credit for the victory at Batalik.

However, a detailed examination of ?sitreps? (situation reports), filed twice a day by every battallion, and after-action reports filed by respective headquarters, has thrown up several questions, sources said. These records, available with the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO), have been examined in the aftermath of the tribunal verdict.

Maha Vir Chakra: To substantiate his charge of bias, Brigadier Singh claimed that he was ?cited for award of Maha Vir Chakra?, the second highest gallantry medal, but was instead awarded only the Vishisht Seva Medal (VSM), an award associated with peacetime duties. However, according to the Army?s records, the recommendation was apparently for the Yudh Seva Medal (YSM) that got diluted to VSM as it moved up the command system, on the grounds that a Brigade Commander does not always stay on the battlefront. Under the military?s award recommendation system, these referrals are included in the battle reports.

Brigadier Dugal?s role: The official history of the war currently credits Brigadier Ashok Dugal, then Deputy GOC of 3 Mountain Division, for the successes on the eastern flank of the Batalik sector, stating he was asked to ?oversee? these operations. Brigadier Singh had pleaded that Brigadier Dugal was present only for 72 hours to help in ?coordination?, and did not oversee operations. The tribunal ordered the alleged injustice to Brigadier Singh corrected. It said: ?When Major Gen Budhwar who was GOC has clearly mentioned that Brigadier Ashok Dugal was called to assist and coordinate, therefore the extracts given in paragraphs 37 and 38 also need to be properly modified… We direct that the records may be put in correct perspective…? However, the Army, after examining situation reports and daily war reports of the time, has concluded that Brigadier Dugal was present on the battlefield for seven days. Sources said that Major Gen Budhwar, who wrote the ACRs of both these officers, assessed Brigadier Dugal higher than Brig. Singh. The Army, sources said, is yet to decide which one of Major General Budhwar?s somewhat changing opinions should be taken for the record. But it is, as of now, inclined to go by existing official records. On the denial of promotion, the tribunal ruled that Lt Gen. Kishan Pal?s assessment of Brig. Singh was not objective. ?It is obvious that the assessment of Lt Gen. Kishan Pal was not an objective assessment of the petitioner and more so respondents have already expunged more than 50% of his remarks. It only shows that the ACR were not written in an objective and unbiased manner. A person who writes the ACR in biased manner, cannot be allowed to sustain. Accordingly, we direct the ACR from 11/98 to 06/99 should be expunged to the extent of Reviewing Officer.?

However, the Army seems to be of the opinion that Brig. Singh was given ?sufficient relief? by its official redressal mechanism. The officer, sources said, was considered thrice on the promotion board as is the right of every officer, and each time, one or more reports were expunged. When the Defence Ministry expunged an entire batch of ACRs following his complaint, he was taken up as a fresh case after the three turns, but still did not make the cut. In all, the Army has found, he was considered for promotion at least five times after some ?inconsistent ACR markings? were removed.

The Army is currently examining these facts to see if they can constitute the legal basis for an appeal. It is awaiting the opinion of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch, and may also approach independent experts. It is acutely aware that the credibility of its system of war reporting and the fairness of its promotion redressal system is under a cloud.