Government reclamation of land near PM house is not a slight to the IAF

By Brig. B.L. Poonia (retd

The chief of air staff, Air Chief Marshal A.P. Singh, who retired on 31 October 2026, was given a grand and befitting farewell by the Indian Air Force. However, a controversy erupted on social media for he being denied golfing-out, since Land & Development Office (L&DO), functioning under the ministry of housing and urban affairs had asked the IAF to close the Air Force Sports Complex with effect from 0500 hours 28 October 2026.

The Centre had been pursuing consolidation of government-controlled land around the Prime Minister’s Lok Kalyan Marg residence in New Delhi, reclaiming or seeking to reclaim major adjoining land parcels including the Air Force Sports Complex, Delhi Race Course (Delhi Race Club), Jaipur Polo Ground, Delhi Gymkhana Club, and Old Wellington Camp.

The purpose behind the acquisition of all these land parcels is to develop defence infrastructure, ensure public security, fulfill institutional requirements and develop governance infrastructure, suggesting an effort to create a larger, contiguous and more secure government precinct rather than isolated redevelopment projects.

In fact, eviction notices have a longer history. These were initially issued in 2017. While the process largely remained dormant for years, the government revived the reclamation effort in 2026.

Since there was no specific date and time for surrender, none of these institutions were coming forward to hand over the land, assuming resistance as the best option, right since 2017. Hence the government decided to act.

Moreover, this was not the first time the IAF had been told that the government wanted the land. The L&DO had informed the Air Force earlier in 2026 about its decision concerning the Sports Complex. In fact, the present action traces back to an eviction notice issued in 2017.

The process of reclamation of these land parcels had been initiated in 2017. On November 13 that year, the L&DO issued eviction notices to all five institutions. However, the notices since then, lay largely dormant. Incidentally, the land on which the Air Force Sports Complex, including the golf course is located, belongs to the ministry of housing and urban affairs.

In the latest turn of events, the L&DO served eviction notices to Delhi Race Club and Polo Association in March 2026, and took possession of the Polo Ground on June 13, and of the Delhi Race Club on August 27. The Air Force Sports Complex was closed on October 28.

Even the demolition of historic Race Course Masjid near the Prime Minister’s official residence had been ordered, which has now been temporarily paused for four weeks following a hearing in the Delhi High Court.

The outgoing CAS had written a letter to the defence minister on October 26 and followed it up with an in-person meeting three days later, urging him to ensure that Air Force Sports Complex remained under the control of Indian Air Force. However, the reasons cited were the same as those cited since 2017.

Since the date of closure of Air Force Sports Complex happened to be three days prior to the retirement of the air chief, it was perceived as an attempt by the bureaucrats/ government to deny golfing-out to the Air Chief. But was it really so?

I had a detailed discussion on the subject with an ex-air chief, and he clarified the following points:

● The matter has been portrayed with an emotional narrative by many veterans who are not privy to the facts of the case. The happenings around that time coincided to make the veterans feel outraged.

● Moreover, golfing-out is not a part of the official farewell proceedings of the CAS, nor was the incident of taking possession of Sports Complex aimed at dishonouring the CAS. The timing was just coincidental; not planned.

● While the notice had been served on the IAF, the defence minister and the MoD were also in picture, and the defence minister was fully aware that the land would be taken away.

● It is not a case of bureaucracy versus the defence services.

A Manufactured Controversy

The retirement of an air chief should be remembered for his distinguished service and the befitting farewell accorded to him, rather than being overshadowed by an avoidable controversy over the closure of its sports complex, leading to the alleged denial of golfing-out. Portraying an administrative decision as an affront to the dignity of the air force, without examining the larger context, is neither fair nor justified.

Golfing-out may be a cherished informal tradition, but it is not an essential or officially prescribed component of an air chief’s farewell. Moreover, the air chief was a non-golfer.

Unfortunately, a section of veteran discourse has developed a tendency to celebrate every criticism of the government and bureaucracy while branding any rational or alternative viewpoint as anti-institutional.

Accountability is important, but so are the facts, perspectives, and proportionality. Not every administrative decision is an institutional insult, and not every inconvenience warrants public outrage. We must guard against the growing culture of manufactured outrage, where perception takes precedence over facts, insinuation replaces reason, and criticism becomes an end in itself.

Shockingly, some of the veterans are still indulging in trying to condemn the Supreme Court judgement on the OROP issue through various articles. Though debate, protest and disagreement are legitimate means of expression in a democracy, yet when competing claims cannot be reconciled, it is for the judiciary to examine the facts, the law, and the larger public interest. Hence those dissatisfied with the decision, have every right to approach the Supreme Court.

However, once the judicial process has run its course, the verdict must be respected. While we may continue to hold different opinions, we must accept the decisions gracefully. Respecting the final judgment, even when we disagree with it, is the true measure of respecting the Constitution.

Conclusion

Institutions are built on traditions, professionalism and mutual respect, not on manufactured controversies or misplaced notions of prestige. The dignity of the IAF is far too enduring to be judged by whether an outgoing Chief gets to enjoy a round of golf before retirement. Equally, the government and its bureaucracy deserve to be judged on facts and administrative propriety rather than assumptions and insinuations.

Criticism is welcome, accountability is essential, but sensationalism and selective outrage serve no institutional purpose. Let us not allow an administrative issue to overshadow the larger picture and undermine the mutual respect that must exist between the armed forces and the civil administration.

The nation needs responsible discourse, not manufactured outrage. Neither every administrative inconvenience is an institutional insult, nor every controversy should become a national debate.