In India, unlike armies in our neighbourhood, our armed forces have
been traditionally apolitical and exceedingly disciplined. The Indian
soldier has acquitted himself with honour in the wars that, thanks to
his valour, ignited great patriotic fervour among all men and women of
the country. Unfortunately for the Indian soldier, however, the worst
of these wars – the ongoing 'proxy war' – is not as spectacular as
all-out Indo-Pak wars and yet it has taken heavier toll than the
combined toll of all those wars in terms of lives of our soldiers and
national wealth. And it goes on unabated.
It is in such trying times that the recommendations of the Sixth Pay
Commission have delivered a shattering blow to the soldiery
demoralising the rank and file very badly. Officers and men across the
three Services are stunned even though solemn and silent. Never before
has the Indian soldier needed and deserved more honour, respect, love
and remuneration for his sacrifices and dedication. Constitutionally,
the Defence Forces have their constraints and cannot express their
problems in the manner in which most of our civil services and
brethren do through public demonstration. This handicap often sends
wrong signals to the political leaders who are used to noise,
pandemonium and violence in streets or in the House rather than quiet
presentations marked with etiquette and restraint. Over the years,
they have taken the silence of the armed forces for granted.
But times have changed now. Easy access to advanced means of
communication has laid the whole world bare for the soldier to form
his own perceptions. The speed and magnitude of socio-economic changes
have obliterated the class demarcations in our society to a large
extent giving rise to higher ambitions even among the village youth.
The profile of Indian soldier is no longer that of the proverbial
Sepoy Bhup Singh who would 'do or die without questioning why'. The
level of awareness among rank and file in the armed forces is
stunningly high today. Whereas life is becoming more and more
comfortable for everyone in the modern world, his operational burden
is becoming heavier by the day degrading his basic comforts and
heightening danger to his life. And his role is not limited only to
fight terrorism and the enemy. Almost every failure of the civil
administration comes to him to be redeemed. Be it emergencies like
natural calamities, disaster management, or man-made catastrophic
situations like communal violence, blasts, strikes, service breakdown
or even heaving hapless children from death traps like bore wells left
open in villages, everyone turns to the soldier – administration's
last resort and people's most reliable saviour! A soldier is a jack of
all trades!
He has had enough of it. He knows his power but is restrained by his
discipline and value system drilled into him through training and
tradition of chivalry by his leaders. But increasing pressures and
declining honour of the profession have pushed him to the corner. He
has no more space to manoeuvre and is left with only one option to
choose from: kill or get killed. The writing on the wall is clear and
people must be blind not to read it from the increasing number of
incidents like suicide, fratricide, desertion with a large number of
their frustrated leaders already queuing up to leave the service
prematurely. Are our political leaders able to fathom the seriousness
and real dimension of the problem? Is it merely a Services' problem?
No, it is a big national problem because our Defence Forces are the
guarantors of nation's safety and security against all kinds of
threats; and their higher motivation level will always be the most
significant factor in safeguarding our national interests. Therefore,
those in charge of affairs of the nation have a duty to ensure
maintenance of a high level of morale and motivation by requiting the
soldier honourably.
Does the following verse composed in anguish by Francis Quarles long
ago describe today's Indian psyche in painfully apt terms?
"Our God and soldiers we alike adore
Only at the brink of danger; not before;
After deliverance, both are alike requited –
Our God's forgotten and our soldiers slighted."
Now I understand why there was mass hysteria in Indian masses
eulogizing and adoring the soldier during Kargil War and why they
appear oblivious of all that is happening to their hero now.. Who
dared touch our soldier then? And now, who cares for a soldier whose
ongoing battle and sacrifices continue but are not melodramatic enough
to entertain or scare us!
High morale and fighting potential of the armed forces are a national
asset and worth as much as the cost of freedom and security of the
country. What you give to the soldier is not his remuneration; it is
your investment in national defence. Economic growth alone cannot make
India a super power in the world. Richness actually carries an element
of vulnerability along. It is the strong and able armed forces that
would provide credibility to the concept of 'super power'. Belittling
the soldier is, therefore, belittling the nation and weakening its
defence potential at a time when India, though poised to emerge as a
super power, is threatened by hordes of evil forces seeking to weaken
and disintegrate India from within and without. Even as we progress
economically, let us also make our future generations safe.
Whatever the notion of some of the politicians, Indian generals have
an accountability and owe clarifications to the Indian public who pay
for the hefty defence budget and for whose security the armed forces
are maintained. And we know for certain that our generals are
professionally as competent and morally as upright as the best in the
world, odd aberrations here and there notwithstanding. It was a
different army and their generals on whom Arthur Wellesley, Duke of
Wellington had lamented in one of his military dispatches in these
words:
"When I reflect upon the characters and attainments of our General
officers of this army – on whom I am to rely – I tremble; and, as Lord
Chesterfield said of the Generals of this day, 'I only hope that when
the enemy reads the list of their names, he trembles as I do!"
Indian generals must not be snubbed and their opinion – be it on
matters of national security or border disputes must be respected
because most of those who shamelessly comment on a General's propriety
to speak to media on such matters have not treaded where the general
has. In fact others must not speak out on such matters without the
general's informed counsel.
There was a time when bureaucracy in the US was influencing the
political leadership in somewhat similar manner while deciding on
army's budgetary needs. In 1933 Gen MacArthur, then Chief of the US
Army, did not hesitate to protest against the deep cuts in the Army's
budget. And when President Franklin Roosevelt did not relent, he
roared with his characteristic disregard to personal interests, "Mr.
President, when we lose the next war and an American boy lying in the
mud with an enemy bayonet through his belly and an enemy foot on his
throat, spits out his last curse, I want the name on his lips to be
Roosevelt, not MacArthur." He concluded by saying that he was
resigning although he was later persuaded to withdraw it after
Roosevelt finally yielded and reversed most of the proposed cuts.
All top generals, admirals and air marshals of India are today
squirming with similar belly aches and may stand up putting country's
interests ahead of their own. Let us hope the government will not
compel them to speak out loudly because military 'loudness' is never
good for ear drums!
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
stand up for the indian soldier
It is with a sense of disbelief that one hears the Indian minister of state for defence, sitting in his cozy air-conditioned seminar room, pontificating that 'it is unbecoming' of former soldiers to protest against the treatment meted out to them by the government.. So here's a non-soldier making a public protest. One hopes that it is not below the dignity of the minister to read this.
The minister would not have dared to make such a comment had the protestors been a part of his or his party's vote bank. The fact that the Indian armed services do not go public with their grievances does not mean that they do not have any concerns and the fact that they have been forced to come to the streets should make the minister and his government acknowledge how desperate the situation might be.
The Indian government is fooling itself if it thinks that by dragging its feet on the issue of the armed forces dissatisfaction with the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, it can make the issue go away.
A country that refuses to respect its armed forces will eventually end up getting forces that will not respect the nations' aspirations. A country makes a sacred contract with its soldiers that while he/she will lay down his/her life when called upon to do so, the nation will take good care of his/her and his/her family's needs to the extent its resources would permit.
This contract underpins the very survival of a nation as when its territorial integrity and political independence are under threat, the nation looks upon the only instrument that can protect it -- its armed forces.
While all governments have to look for a considered bargain between their commitments and power and between power and resources, a responsible government will always be aware of the serious implications of not spending adequate resources on defence.
The debate as it has been made out to be in some quarters between defence and development is a spurious one. Unless adequate provisions are made for defence, no state will be able to pursue its developmental agenda. This is much more important for a country like India that faces a unique security environment with two of its 'adversaries' straddling it on two sides of its borders and problems on all sides of its periphery.
A government can keep spouting pious rhetoric about global peace and non-violence but it realises fully that force is the ultima ratio in international relations.. Politics among nations is conducted in the brooding shadow of violence. Either a state remains able and willing to use force to preserve and enhance its interests or it is forced to live at the mercy of its militarily powerful counterpart.
Even Nehru, after neglecting defence for all the years after independence had to eventually concede in 1962 that India's military weakness 'has been a temptation, and a little military strength may be a deterrent.'
The Indian public and press remain apathetic on defence issues. We make Kargil into a television spectacle, an opportunity for our journalists to try to show their temporary bravery by going to the frontlines for a few hours and getting the excitement of covering a war from the inside. And then when it is all over, our soldiers have been interred into their graves, we move on to new and more exciting spectacles -- to our song and dance reality shows and saas-bahu sagas, forgetting that soldiers are still on guard.
This is a nation that will cry with Lata Mangeshkar when she sings Aye Mere Watan Ke Logon but will not make any effort to understand the real problems and concerns of its soldiers. It is a sign of the highly skewed priorities of the Indian media that the rising turmoil and dissatisfaction within the ranks of nations' armed forces is being given only perfunctory coverage.
It is an issue of nation's very survival yet the media seems busy with its devotion of superficialities. Every rave and rant of Bollywood actors is religiously covered, detailed dissection of seemingly never-ending cricket matches are conducted, exorbitant pay rises in the corporate sector make it to the headlines but the one issue that can make or break the future of this country is consigned to the margins.
We continue to pray at the altar of our false heroes while our real heroes continue to face neglect and scorn.
The armed forces feel they have never got their due from various pay commissions over the years but the government in its wisdom decided to keep the armed forces away from any representation in the latest Pay Commission. The dominance of bureaucrats meant that while the interests of the bureaucrats were well-recognised, the armed services once again ended up getting a raw deal.
The discontent is so serious that some of the best and brightest in our services have refused to go for the Higher Command Courses and more and more are seeking an early retirement. Indian armed forces are desperately trying to fill vacancies as other professions are luring the young of the country.
Against the sanctioned strength of 300 per batch, the National Defence Academy finds that it can only attract 192 cadres (cadets?) this year. The same story repeats itself in the Indian Military Academy . A country that purports to be a rising power is facing a shortage of more than 11,000 officers.
The reason is pretty obvious: One can't think of any major power in the world that treats its soldiers the way India does. It is indeed a sorry sight when India 's bravest have to literally cry out for help from a callous politico-bureaucratic elite.
Our politicians remain more than willing to waste tax payers money by routinely boycotting Parliament and have never shied away from increasing their own pay and allowances, claiming that they remain underpaid. Yet those who defend the sanctity of Parliament are given a short shrift.
The abysmal knowledge of defence issues that pervades the Indian political class probably gives them an illusion that the country is being protected by divine blessings.
Political apathy and bureaucratic design are rapidly eroding the self-esteem of our forces. A functioning liberal democracy needs a loyal soldier that can take care of the state's security, allowing the state to look after its citizenry.. In India , the State is gradually withering away, all that's left is the loyal soldier. How long will this soldier, under siege from all sides, remain steadfast to its commitments, is a question all Indians should seriously ponder on.
Dr Harsh V Pant teaches at King's College London .
The minister would not have dared to make such a comment had the protestors been a part of his or his party's vote bank. The fact that the Indian armed services do not go public with their grievances does not mean that they do not have any concerns and the fact that they have been forced to come to the streets should make the minister and his government acknowledge how desperate the situation might be.
The Indian government is fooling itself if it thinks that by dragging its feet on the issue of the armed forces dissatisfaction with the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, it can make the issue go away.
A country that refuses to respect its armed forces will eventually end up getting forces that will not respect the nations' aspirations. A country makes a sacred contract with its soldiers that while he/she will lay down his/her life when called upon to do so, the nation will take good care of his/her and his/her family's needs to the extent its resources would permit.
This contract underpins the very survival of a nation as when its territorial integrity and political independence are under threat, the nation looks upon the only instrument that can protect it -- its armed forces.
While all governments have to look for a considered bargain between their commitments and power and between power and resources, a responsible government will always be aware of the serious implications of not spending adequate resources on defence.
The debate as it has been made out to be in some quarters between defence and development is a spurious one. Unless adequate provisions are made for defence, no state will be able to pursue its developmental agenda. This is much more important for a country like India that faces a unique security environment with two of its 'adversaries' straddling it on two sides of its borders and problems on all sides of its periphery.
A government can keep spouting pious rhetoric about global peace and non-violence but it realises fully that force is the ultima ratio in international relations.. Politics among nations is conducted in the brooding shadow of violence. Either a state remains able and willing to use force to preserve and enhance its interests or it is forced to live at the mercy of its militarily powerful counterpart.
Even Nehru, after neglecting defence for all the years after independence had to eventually concede in 1962 that India's military weakness 'has been a temptation, and a little military strength may be a deterrent.'
The Indian public and press remain apathetic on defence issues. We make Kargil into a television spectacle, an opportunity for our journalists to try to show their temporary bravery by going to the frontlines for a few hours and getting the excitement of covering a war from the inside. And then when it is all over, our soldiers have been interred into their graves, we move on to new and more exciting spectacles -- to our song and dance reality shows and saas-bahu sagas, forgetting that soldiers are still on guard.
This is a nation that will cry with Lata Mangeshkar when she sings Aye Mere Watan Ke Logon but will not make any effort to understand the real problems and concerns of its soldiers. It is a sign of the highly skewed priorities of the Indian media that the rising turmoil and dissatisfaction within the ranks of nations' armed forces is being given only perfunctory coverage.
It is an issue of nation's very survival yet the media seems busy with its devotion of superficialities. Every rave and rant of Bollywood actors is religiously covered, detailed dissection of seemingly never-ending cricket matches are conducted, exorbitant pay rises in the corporate sector make it to the headlines but the one issue that can make or break the future of this country is consigned to the margins.
We continue to pray at the altar of our false heroes while our real heroes continue to face neglect and scorn.
The armed forces feel they have never got their due from various pay commissions over the years but the government in its wisdom decided to keep the armed forces away from any representation in the latest Pay Commission. The dominance of bureaucrats meant that while the interests of the bureaucrats were well-recognised, the armed services once again ended up getting a raw deal.
The discontent is so serious that some of the best and brightest in our services have refused to go for the Higher Command Courses and more and more are seeking an early retirement. Indian armed forces are desperately trying to fill vacancies as other professions are luring the young of the country.
Against the sanctioned strength of 300 per batch, the National Defence Academy finds that it can only attract 192 cadres (cadets?) this year. The same story repeats itself in the Indian Military Academy . A country that purports to be a rising power is facing a shortage of more than 11,000 officers.
The reason is pretty obvious: One can't think of any major power in the world that treats its soldiers the way India does. It is indeed a sorry sight when India 's bravest have to literally cry out for help from a callous politico-bureaucratic elite.
Our politicians remain more than willing to waste tax payers money by routinely boycotting Parliament and have never shied away from increasing their own pay and allowances, claiming that they remain underpaid. Yet those who defend the sanctity of Parliament are given a short shrift.
The abysmal knowledge of defence issues that pervades the Indian political class probably gives them an illusion that the country is being protected by divine blessings.
Political apathy and bureaucratic design are rapidly eroding the self-esteem of our forces. A functioning liberal democracy needs a loyal soldier that can take care of the state's security, allowing the state to look after its citizenry.. In India , the State is gradually withering away, all that's left is the loyal soldier. How long will this soldier, under siege from all sides, remain steadfast to its commitments, is a question all Indians should seriously ponder on.
Dr Harsh V Pant teaches at King's College London .
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Kautilya's wisdom ...... why don't our politicians and babus get some
Pretty interesting read. Its a letter written to Chandragupt Maurya by his Prime Advisor Chanakya and reproduced in "Kautilya" , his monumental State treatise.
He Wrote:
"The Mauryan soldier does not the Royal treasuries enrich nor the Royal granaries fill. He does not carry out trade and commerce nor produce scholars, littérateurs, artistes, artisans, sculptors, architects, craftsmen, doctors and administrators. He does not build roads and ramparts nor dig wells and reservoirs. He does not do any of this directly. The soldier only and merely ensures that the tax, tribute and revenue collectors travel forth and return safely; that the farmer tills, harvests, stores and markets his produce unafraid of pillage; that the trader, merchant and financier function and travel across the length and breadth of the realm unmolested; that the savant, sculptor, maestro and mentor create works of art, literature, philosophy and astrology in quietitude; that the architect designs and builds his Vaastus without tension; that the tutor and the priest teach and preach in peace; that the rishis meditate in wordless silence; that the doctor invents cures and medicines undisturbed; that the mason and bricklayer work unhindered; that the mother and the wife go about their chores and bring up children in harmony and tranquility; that the cattle graze freely without being lifted or stolen. Pataliputra reposes each night in peaceful comfort, O King, secure in the belief that the distant borders of Magadha are inviolate and the interiors are safe and secure, thanks only to the Mauryan Army standing vigil with naked swords and eyes peeled for action, day and night, in weather fair and foul, all eight praharas (round the clock), quite unmindful of personal discomfort and hardship, all through the year, year after year. While the citizenry of the State contributes to see that the State prospers and flourishes, the soldier guarantees it continues to EXIST as a State! To this man, O Rajadhiraja, you owe a debt: please, therefore, see to it, suo motu, that the soldier continuously gets his dues in every
form and respect, be they his needs or his wants, for he is not likely to ask for them himself. The day the soldier has to demand his dues will be a sad day for Magadha for then, on that day, you will have lost all moral sanction to be King!
He Wrote:
"The Mauryan soldier does not the Royal treasuries enrich nor the Royal granaries fill. He does not carry out trade and commerce nor produce scholars, littérateurs, artistes, artisans, sculptors, architects, craftsmen, doctors and administrators. He does not build roads and ramparts nor dig wells and reservoirs. He does not do any of this directly. The soldier only and merely ensures that the tax, tribute and revenue collectors travel forth and return safely; that the farmer tills, harvests, stores and markets his produce unafraid of pillage; that the trader, merchant and financier function and travel across the length and breadth of the realm unmolested; that the savant, sculptor, maestro and mentor create works of art, literature, philosophy and astrology in quietitude; that the architect designs and builds his Vaastus without tension; that the tutor and the priest teach and preach in peace; that the rishis meditate in wordless silence; that the doctor invents cures and medicines undisturbed; that the mason and bricklayer work unhindered; that the mother and the wife go about their chores and bring up children in harmony and tranquility; that the cattle graze freely without being lifted or stolen. Pataliputra reposes each night in peaceful comfort, O King, secure in the belief that the distant borders of Magadha are inviolate and the interiors are safe and secure, thanks only to the Mauryan Army standing vigil with naked swords and eyes peeled for action, day and night, in weather fair and foul, all eight praharas (round the clock), quite unmindful of personal discomfort and hardship, all through the year, year after year. While the citizenry of the State contributes to see that the State prospers and flourishes, the soldier guarantees it continues to EXIST as a State! To this man, O Rajadhiraja, you owe a debt: please, therefore, see to it, suo motu, that the soldier continuously gets his dues in every
form and respect, be they his needs or his wants, for he is not likely to ask for them himself. The day the soldier has to demand his dues will be a sad day for Magadha for then, on that day, you will have lost all moral sanction to be King!
Sunday, May 11, 2008
No honour please, you are Indian Navy Chief
TEN YEARS ago, the Indian Navy suffered a disgraceful defeat. The humiliation was inflicted not by any inimical foreign power, but by powers-that-be in New Delhi's South Block. In December 1998, the then Chief of the Naval Staff (CNS), Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, was unceremoniously booted out at the instance of 'honourable' defence minister George Fernandes, who could not make him bootlick.
Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, a staunch nationalist, expected to be the last person to hurt the country's honour, had his compulsions to back the Defence Minister. Fernandes was playing a key role in letting the government survive, acting as go-between with Tamilnadu chief minister Jayalalithaa. The Defence Minister's main job, in fact, was to rush to Chennai to satiate her routinely. Bhagwat's refusal to have vice admiral Harinder Singh, enjoying Fernandes' confidence, as his deputy was the ostensible reason for the sack. Actually, the purpose was to teach a lesson to the service chiefs; they were harming entrenched interests doing deals in South Block.
In July that year, defence secretary Ajit Kumar had conveyed Fernandes' instructions to the service commanders that they should seek prior approval of the ministry before intercepting any vessel suspected to be carrying narcotics and arms. The three service chiefs jointly wrote back that interdiction operations in the Andamans were 'mandated operations', which did not require the 'prior approval' of the ministry.
It was open secret, later caught in camera by Tehelka that the drug and arms mafia had links with socialites and 'friends' of George. The Admiral was bold enough to publicly ask, "Why are Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Burmese and the northeastern rebels operating from the house of the Defence Minister?" According to the Navy Chief, as per the policy framework, 'civilian control' does not allow criminals in Parliament and government to boss over the Armed Services. He asserted, "Never in the 50 years of our history since 1947 has the subversion of the chain of military command been carried out in such a blatant manner – destroying the entire civil-military relationship, undermining the disciplinary framework of an armed force of the union." Sadly, it was the South Block mandarins who triumphed over the Navy Chief.
Ever since November last year, South Block had been uncomfortable again at the service chiefs asserting their dignity. They wanted to get honoured as much as Robert Vadra – son-in-law of Sonia Gandhi – without realising that even their 'supreme commander' has to pay obeisance to her! The civil aviation minister grudgingly admitted, "The men who guard our borders should not have to be frisked. There are already 11 people who are exempt. The chiefs of defence services come in at number 12." Even that number 12 required a salvo from former Army chief Gen S Roychoudhary: "It's a small symbolic gesture and the government should have gone ahead with exempting the three service chiefs. In public eye, men in uniform are iconic figures." Indian netas, babus and their cronies, however, do not agree that they should be iconic figures!
It is now the turn of Navy Chief, Admiral Sureesh Mehta, to be shown his place by South Block babus and defence minister. Significantly, Admiral Mehta happens to be the senior-most among the heads of the three services. As the chairman of Chiefs of Staff (CoS) committee, he is the vital contact point between civilians and the military. Humiliating him must teach a lesson to others!
Officials of Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and armchair strategic affairs pundits have not been too happy in recent years with initiatives taken by Manmohan Singh's government. Recently, inaugurating the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) at New Delhi, the PM pointed out that it was not a military pact where a set of nations joined forces against another; it aimed to bring regional states together to fight terrorism, piracy and natural disasters. Singh urged the gathering of naval chiefs to develop a "comprehensive cooperative framework of maritime security." Admiral Mehta contrasted IONS – a collective grouping of states that are arrayed against common security challenges and threats – with cold-war constructs of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact.
Indian Foreign Service (IFS) babus, with a mindset belonging to cold war time warp, do not find the doctrine palatable. Also, high-science babus in outfits like Defence Research and Development (DRDO), adept at siphoning off monstrous sums to unveil fictitious breakthroughs to drum up hollow national pride, are alarmed at the prospect of exposure of their real prowess. Left Front politicians – chief beneficiaries of 'deals' with their old Russian masters – too resist the change in attitude.
MEA has been taking exceptions to the Navy taking decisions, which have 'foreign policy implications' without consultation. Antony, at their instance, had earlier reprimanded the Admiral for not defending the retrofitting of the junked Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov at huge expense and renaming it as Vikramaditya. His 'friends' from Kerala and Bengal had also bitterly opposed the Indo-US Malabar exercises, in which ships from Japan, Australia, Singapore participated. The comrades organised 'dharnas' (protest road shows) along the coast.
At the instance of the comrades, Antony recently criticised the naval headquarters for embedding a US warship – USS Cole – in the Indo-British Konkan 2008 exercise – part of UK's Orion 08 Deployment. It was the Royal Navy that considered USS Cole eminently suited to be an observer. It symbolises the cooperation of navies across the world to jointly foil terrorism at sea. Suspected Al Qaida suicide bombers had attacked it in October 2000 at the Yemeni port of Aden. But it is back. The pro-Iran lobby in MEA found its presence offending during Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's India visit.
The Royal navy's decision to embed USS Cole in replacement for a Spanish ship had, in fact, been conveyed to the defence ministry two days in advance. But, Antony was probably busy in powwows with the Left and could not see it. He instructed that from now on, contours of naval exercises with any country must be spelled out to the last detail and 'well in advance'! That ominously smacks of his predecessor George Fernandes, who insisted on obtaining 'prior approval' by the babus before catching arms traffickers!
Like Vajpayee's government in 1998, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government of Singh too survives with 'outside support' from the Left Front. Singh is reckoned as the proxy of Sonia Gandhi and the weakest and meekest PM India has ever had. The Congress is aware of the compulsion to maintain cordial relations with the Left to stay in power. No wonder, Manmohan Singh, like Vajpayee, chooses to look the other way when his defence minister, who is the go-between with 'outside supporters' to prop his government, causes to the Armed services worse humiliation than any enemy country!
This month, Antony shot down the Navy's recommendation to give a two-year extension to Commodore M Gidwani, the present Judge Advocate General. The babus of his ministry judged that the Judge Advocate General was not fully qualified to head its legal branch. Captain Harinder Gupta, the senior most officer from the Navy's legal cadre, has instead been appointed to take charge from July 1. This reminds one of what Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat said 10 years ago about 'civilian control' of the country: "It relates to issues of war and peace; it relates to matters of strategic consequence. It prohibits day-to-day interference in matters of appointment, posting and promotion."
Defence and MEA babus, who were taken aback at the frigid reception to Pranab Mukherjee and Antony given at Moscow last year, were also furious at Admiral Mehta's 12-day long trip to the US recently. They feel that the absence of a service chief during Parliament session is against 'democratic norms'! Next, they may want the Armed Forces bosses to be compulsorily present in the House to watch how convicted criminals, supari-takers (hired murderers), movie stars, and just plain goons make war while transacting business of enacting law!
It is now learnt that the Navy Chief has been asked to take a commercial flight, like any ordinary chap, for his upcoming visit to Thailand, which is part of Manmohan Singh's strategy spelled out at IONS. The defence minister does not want Admiral Mehta to use one of the four Embraer VVIP planes available.
Speaking on a report this week in Janes's Defence Weekly about the ongoing construction of a formidable, state-of-the-art marine and submarine base by China, Antony bragged, "Whether in sea lanes or in the land bodies, our armed forces are always taking all precautions to protect our security interests!" What better way to protect the country's interests than to deny basic honour and esteem, deserved by the officers directing the armed forces! And how long is the farce going to continue?
Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, a staunch nationalist, expected to be the last person to hurt the country's honour, had his compulsions to back the Defence Minister. Fernandes was playing a key role in letting the government survive, acting as go-between with Tamilnadu chief minister Jayalalithaa. The Defence Minister's main job, in fact, was to rush to Chennai to satiate her routinely. Bhagwat's refusal to have vice admiral Harinder Singh, enjoying Fernandes' confidence, as his deputy was the ostensible reason for the sack. Actually, the purpose was to teach a lesson to the service chiefs; they were harming entrenched interests doing deals in South Block.
In July that year, defence secretary Ajit Kumar had conveyed Fernandes' instructions to the service commanders that they should seek prior approval of the ministry before intercepting any vessel suspected to be carrying narcotics and arms. The three service chiefs jointly wrote back that interdiction operations in the Andamans were 'mandated operations', which did not require the 'prior approval' of the ministry.
It was open secret, later caught in camera by Tehelka that the drug and arms mafia had links with socialites and 'friends' of George. The Admiral was bold enough to publicly ask, "Why are Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), Burmese and the northeastern rebels operating from the house of the Defence Minister?" According to the Navy Chief, as per the policy framework, 'civilian control' does not allow criminals in Parliament and government to boss over the Armed Services. He asserted, "Never in the 50 years of our history since 1947 has the subversion of the chain of military command been carried out in such a blatant manner – destroying the entire civil-military relationship, undermining the disciplinary framework of an armed force of the union." Sadly, it was the South Block mandarins who triumphed over the Navy Chief.
Ever since November last year, South Block had been uncomfortable again at the service chiefs asserting their dignity. They wanted to get honoured as much as Robert Vadra – son-in-law of Sonia Gandhi – without realising that even their 'supreme commander' has to pay obeisance to her! The civil aviation minister grudgingly admitted, "The men who guard our borders should not have to be frisked. There are already 11 people who are exempt. The chiefs of defence services come in at number 12." Even that number 12 required a salvo from former Army chief Gen S Roychoudhary: "It's a small symbolic gesture and the government should have gone ahead with exempting the three service chiefs. In public eye, men in uniform are iconic figures." Indian netas, babus and their cronies, however, do not agree that they should be iconic figures!
It is now the turn of Navy Chief, Admiral Sureesh Mehta, to be shown his place by South Block babus and defence minister. Significantly, Admiral Mehta happens to be the senior-most among the heads of the three services. As the chairman of Chiefs of Staff (CoS) committee, he is the vital contact point between civilians and the military. Humiliating him must teach a lesson to others!
Officials of Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and armchair strategic affairs pundits have not been too happy in recent years with initiatives taken by Manmohan Singh's government. Recently, inaugurating the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) at New Delhi, the PM pointed out that it was not a military pact where a set of nations joined forces against another; it aimed to bring regional states together to fight terrorism, piracy and natural disasters. Singh urged the gathering of naval chiefs to develop a "comprehensive cooperative framework of maritime security." Admiral Mehta contrasted IONS – a collective grouping of states that are arrayed against common security challenges and threats – with cold-war constructs of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact.
Indian Foreign Service (IFS) babus, with a mindset belonging to cold war time warp, do not find the doctrine palatable. Also, high-science babus in outfits like Defence Research and Development (DRDO), adept at siphoning off monstrous sums to unveil fictitious breakthroughs to drum up hollow national pride, are alarmed at the prospect of exposure of their real prowess. Left Front politicians – chief beneficiaries of 'deals' with their old Russian masters – too resist the change in attitude.
MEA has been taking exceptions to the Navy taking decisions, which have 'foreign policy implications' without consultation. Antony, at their instance, had earlier reprimanded the Admiral for not defending the retrofitting of the junked Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov at huge expense and renaming it as Vikramaditya. His 'friends' from Kerala and Bengal had also bitterly opposed the Indo-US Malabar exercises, in which ships from Japan, Australia, Singapore participated. The comrades organised 'dharnas' (protest road shows) along the coast.
At the instance of the comrades, Antony recently criticised the naval headquarters for embedding a US warship – USS Cole – in the Indo-British Konkan 2008 exercise – part of UK's Orion 08 Deployment. It was the Royal Navy that considered USS Cole eminently suited to be an observer. It symbolises the cooperation of navies across the world to jointly foil terrorism at sea. Suspected Al Qaida suicide bombers had attacked it in October 2000 at the Yemeni port of Aden. But it is back. The pro-Iran lobby in MEA found its presence offending during Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's India visit.
The Royal navy's decision to embed USS Cole in replacement for a Spanish ship had, in fact, been conveyed to the defence ministry two days in advance. But, Antony was probably busy in powwows with the Left and could not see it. He instructed that from now on, contours of naval exercises with any country must be spelled out to the last detail and 'well in advance'! That ominously smacks of his predecessor George Fernandes, who insisted on obtaining 'prior approval' by the babus before catching arms traffickers!
Like Vajpayee's government in 1998, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government of Singh too survives with 'outside support' from the Left Front. Singh is reckoned as the proxy of Sonia Gandhi and the weakest and meekest PM India has ever had. The Congress is aware of the compulsion to maintain cordial relations with the Left to stay in power. No wonder, Manmohan Singh, like Vajpayee, chooses to look the other way when his defence minister, who is the go-between with 'outside supporters' to prop his government, causes to the Armed services worse humiliation than any enemy country!
This month, Antony shot down the Navy's recommendation to give a two-year extension to Commodore M Gidwani, the present Judge Advocate General. The babus of his ministry judged that the Judge Advocate General was not fully qualified to head its legal branch. Captain Harinder Gupta, the senior most officer from the Navy's legal cadre, has instead been appointed to take charge from July 1. This reminds one of what Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat said 10 years ago about 'civilian control' of the country: "It relates to issues of war and peace; it relates to matters of strategic consequence. It prohibits day-to-day interference in matters of appointment, posting and promotion."
Defence and MEA babus, who were taken aback at the frigid reception to Pranab Mukherjee and Antony given at Moscow last year, were also furious at Admiral Mehta's 12-day long trip to the US recently. They feel that the absence of a service chief during Parliament session is against 'democratic norms'! Next, they may want the Armed Forces bosses to be compulsorily present in the House to watch how convicted criminals, supari-takers (hired murderers), movie stars, and just plain goons make war while transacting business of enacting law!
It is now learnt that the Navy Chief has been asked to take a commercial flight, like any ordinary chap, for his upcoming visit to Thailand, which is part of Manmohan Singh's strategy spelled out at IONS. The defence minister does not want Admiral Mehta to use one of the four Embraer VVIP planes available.
Speaking on a report this week in Janes's Defence Weekly about the ongoing construction of a formidable, state-of-the-art marine and submarine base by China, Antony bragged, "Whether in sea lanes or in the land bodies, our armed forces are always taking all precautions to protect our security interests!" What better way to protect the country's interests than to deny basic honour and esteem, deserved by the officers directing the armed forces! And how long is the farce going to continue?
It pays to be a "Babu"
It was meant to hand out sops to government servants ahead of an election year, but the Sixth Central Pay Commission is fast turning into an acrimonious and divisive affair.
Disagreements have been a hallmark of the last two pay commissions, which covered the two decades since 1986, but this time the tone of the protests is more serious.
The armed forces, constituting 42 per cent of the government staff, and the police force, accounting for nearly 37 per cent, which are responsible for the external and internal security of the country, have said that they feel let down by the latest pay commission’s recommendations.
The armed forces have rejected it outright. “There is no question of us accepting the pay commission’s recommendations in their present form,” says a senior army official.
The target of all this ire is the bureaucracy, which comprises 22 per cent of the government. The armed forces feel that the bureaucratic arm is wielding its clout over others and have voiced their disappointment with Minister for Defence A.K. Antony, while ex-servicemen met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi.
Now Indian Police Service (IPS) officers have joined the chorus, warning that the pay commission has widened the gap between the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and the IPS.
Members of the IPS Central Association met Sonia and Minister for Home Affairs Shivraj Patil, seeking their intervention and pointing out what they claimed were discriminatory proposals.
This dissatisfaction stems from the fundamental change brought about by the Sixth Pay Commission in the way relative statuses will be defined in the bureaucracy. Currently, the basic pay of an officer is used as the parameter for defining the status of the position he holds.
Higher the basic pay, higher is the position. According to the new recommendations, however, the basic pay will not define status. In the scheme that has now been formulated, a grade pay has been defined for the purpose.
A higher grade pay will indicate a higher status. When grade pays are equivalent, higher total emoluments including all special pays will define a higher status.
The pay commission has thus created a select club of 8,000 officers in the highest pay bracket of PB-4, with salaries upward of Rs 52,000 per month. The IAS, which generally witnesses faster promotions, will no doubt form the majority in this club.
Armed forces personnel retire early, while civil servants serve till the age of 60. Besides, career progression in the armed forces is slow and limited.
All IAS officers can become joint secretaries in just 14 years, while only 3.5 per cent of army officers can reach the equivalent rank of major general, and that too, after 33 years of service. Even after attaining the position, an army officer will only serve for another five years before he retires.
The bureaucrat, on the other hand, will enjoy the benefits of the equivalent position for 19 years before retiring. “It is the third battle of the pecking order (after the two previous pay commissions),” says Major General Surjit Singh (retired), adding, “It is difficult to say who will win or lose this struggle, but the nation will definitely lose.”
The IPS Central Association has also expressed concern over the downgrading of the position of state directorgeneral of police (DGP) vis-à-vis that of the state chief secretary.
Bureaucracy
All civil servants can reach the New Pay Bracket 4, which starts at Rs 52,000 per month.
Grade pays for all IAS officers. Since grade pays will now define the status of a position, IAS will benefit.
According to the recommendation, all IAS officers can reach the rank of joint secretary in just 14 years. The IAS witnesses faster promotions.
Armed forces
Only 3.5 per cent of armed forces officers of the rank of major general and above draw Rs 52,000 a month.
Grade pay is available to just 15 per cent of the officers, i.e., brigadiers and above.
It will take an army officer 33 years to reach an equivalent rank of major general. He can serve in the position for just five years before retirement.
Police
Less than a dozen police officials will enjoy parity with close to 200 secretary-rank IAS officials.
Grade pays for all IPS officials is three-four years slower than in the administrative service.
Promotion to the post of inspector general will take 20 years. The deputy inspector general’s post is now functional, not supervisory.
“The pay commission has only formalised the discrimination against the police force and perpetuates a colonial practice that favours the IAS. If the suggestion is to have different pay scales for IPS officers in the states and the Centre, then it should be done for IAS officers as well,” a state DGP told India Today.
Another big anomaly concerns the position of deputy inspector general (DIG) of police, which was earlier equivalent to that of a state commissioner from the IAS, but has now been made equivalent to an inspector general’s.
Even as the police service has demanded that the DIG’s post be put under a higher pay scale, it has been made a functional post instead of a supervisory one.
The army is unhappy with the imbalances in the military service pay, a monthly allowance that has been introduced by the pay commission. The IPS wants a similar police service pay, arguing that its personnel face greater risks—such as threats from anti-social elements—as compared to the other civil services.
Police officials have also been demanding risk-based pay, citing threat to life and injury. Indeed, the police force lost 4,972 officers in the last five years, with 994 casualties and over 8,000 personnel maimed/injured per year. Yet, some of the key proposals by the IPS, including a grant of hardship pay, have been turned down.
There are divisions among the Central police organisations (CPOs) too, with officials alleging that IPS officers are more concerned with their own cadre than the CPOs they head. The IPS Central Association, in a wish-list presented to Patil, has sought parity with the director-generals (DGs) of CPOs, who have been placed in a higher grade.
But as per the commission’s present recommendations, only DGs of the Border Security Force, the Central Reserve Police Force, the Central Industrial Security Force, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police and the Sashastra Seema Bal are in the higher pay band of Rs 80,000.
Another issue is that of grade pay for field postings at the district level. The police association has sought a higher grade pay for IPS officers in the districts so that they are not at a disadvantage as compared to IAS officers like the district magistrate or the additional district magistrate, who now come under a higher grade.
While the battle lines are drawn, it seems that the Government, which does not want any unpopularity creeping into the administrative and police machinery in a pre-election year, will extend an olive branch to calm the men in khaki.
It has already set up a high-level official committee headed by Cabinet Secretary K.M. Chandrasekhar to look into the pay commission report. The prime minister, too, admitted that the Commission may have fallen short of expectations.
“I would like our civil and defence services to be properly rewarded,” he told a gathering of civil servants. A vast majority of his government machinery will be waiting to see if he puts his money where his mouth is.
Disagreements have been a hallmark of the last two pay commissions, which covered the two decades since 1986, but this time the tone of the protests is more serious.
The armed forces, constituting 42 per cent of the government staff, and the police force, accounting for nearly 37 per cent, which are responsible for the external and internal security of the country, have said that they feel let down by the latest pay commission’s recommendations.
The armed forces have rejected it outright. “There is no question of us accepting the pay commission’s recommendations in their present form,” says a senior army official.
The target of all this ire is the bureaucracy, which comprises 22 per cent of the government. The armed forces feel that the bureaucratic arm is wielding its clout over others and have voiced their disappointment with Minister for Defence A.K. Antony, while ex-servicemen met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi.
Now Indian Police Service (IPS) officers have joined the chorus, warning that the pay commission has widened the gap between the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and the IPS.
Members of the IPS Central Association met Sonia and Minister for Home Affairs Shivraj Patil, seeking their intervention and pointing out what they claimed were discriminatory proposals.
This dissatisfaction stems from the fundamental change brought about by the Sixth Pay Commission in the way relative statuses will be defined in the bureaucracy. Currently, the basic pay of an officer is used as the parameter for defining the status of the position he holds.
Higher the basic pay, higher is the position. According to the new recommendations, however, the basic pay will not define status. In the scheme that has now been formulated, a grade pay has been defined for the purpose.
A higher grade pay will indicate a higher status. When grade pays are equivalent, higher total emoluments including all special pays will define a higher status.
The pay commission has thus created a select club of 8,000 officers in the highest pay bracket of PB-4, with salaries upward of Rs 52,000 per month. The IAS, which generally witnesses faster promotions, will no doubt form the majority in this club.
Armed forces personnel retire early, while civil servants serve till the age of 60. Besides, career progression in the armed forces is slow and limited.
All IAS officers can become joint secretaries in just 14 years, while only 3.5 per cent of army officers can reach the equivalent rank of major general, and that too, after 33 years of service. Even after attaining the position, an army officer will only serve for another five years before he retires.
The bureaucrat, on the other hand, will enjoy the benefits of the equivalent position for 19 years before retiring. “It is the third battle of the pecking order (after the two previous pay commissions),” says Major General Surjit Singh (retired), adding, “It is difficult to say who will win or lose this struggle, but the nation will definitely lose.”
The IPS Central Association has also expressed concern over the downgrading of the position of state directorgeneral of police (DGP) vis-à-vis that of the state chief secretary.
Bureaucracy
All civil servants can reach the New Pay Bracket 4, which starts at Rs 52,000 per month.
Grade pays for all IAS officers. Since grade pays will now define the status of a position, IAS will benefit.
According to the recommendation, all IAS officers can reach the rank of joint secretary in just 14 years. The IAS witnesses faster promotions.
Armed forces
Only 3.5 per cent of armed forces officers of the rank of major general and above draw Rs 52,000 a month.
Grade pay is available to just 15 per cent of the officers, i.e., brigadiers and above.
It will take an army officer 33 years to reach an equivalent rank of major general. He can serve in the position for just five years before retirement.
Police
Less than a dozen police officials will enjoy parity with close to 200 secretary-rank IAS officials.
Grade pays for all IPS officials is three-four years slower than in the administrative service.
Promotion to the post of inspector general will take 20 years. The deputy inspector general’s post is now functional, not supervisory.
“The pay commission has only formalised the discrimination against the police force and perpetuates a colonial practice that favours the IAS. If the suggestion is to have different pay scales for IPS officers in the states and the Centre, then it should be done for IAS officers as well,” a state DGP told India Today.
Another big anomaly concerns the position of deputy inspector general (DIG) of police, which was earlier equivalent to that of a state commissioner from the IAS, but has now been made equivalent to an inspector general’s.
Even as the police service has demanded that the DIG’s post be put under a higher pay scale, it has been made a functional post instead of a supervisory one.
The army is unhappy with the imbalances in the military service pay, a monthly allowance that has been introduced by the pay commission. The IPS wants a similar police service pay, arguing that its personnel face greater risks—such as threats from anti-social elements—as compared to the other civil services.
Police officials have also been demanding risk-based pay, citing threat to life and injury. Indeed, the police force lost 4,972 officers in the last five years, with 994 casualties and over 8,000 personnel maimed/injured per year. Yet, some of the key proposals by the IPS, including a grant of hardship pay, have been turned down.
There are divisions among the Central police organisations (CPOs) too, with officials alleging that IPS officers are more concerned with their own cadre than the CPOs they head. The IPS Central Association, in a wish-list presented to Patil, has sought parity with the director-generals (DGs) of CPOs, who have been placed in a higher grade.
But as per the commission’s present recommendations, only DGs of the Border Security Force, the Central Reserve Police Force, the Central Industrial Security Force, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police and the Sashastra Seema Bal are in the higher pay band of Rs 80,000.
Another issue is that of grade pay for field postings at the district level. The police association has sought a higher grade pay for IPS officers in the districts so that they are not at a disadvantage as compared to IAS officers like the district magistrate or the additional district magistrate, who now come under a higher grade.
While the battle lines are drawn, it seems that the Government, which does not want any unpopularity creeping into the administrative and police machinery in a pre-election year, will extend an olive branch to calm the men in khaki.
It has already set up a high-level official committee headed by Cabinet Secretary K.M. Chandrasekhar to look into the pay commission report. The prime minister, too, admitted that the Commission may have fallen short of expectations.
“I would like our civil and defence services to be properly rewarded,” he told a gathering of civil servants. A vast majority of his government machinery will be waiting to see if he puts his money where his mouth is.
Insult to Soldier, Injury to Nation!
In India, unlike armies in our neighbourhood, our armed forces have been traditionally apolitical and exceedingly disciplined. The Indian soldier has acquitted himself with honour in the wars that, thanks to his valour, ignited great patriotic fervour among all men and women of the country. Unfortunately for the Indian soldier, however, the worst of these wars – the ongoing ‘proxy war’ – is not as spectacular as all-out Indo-Pak wars and yet it has taken heavier toll than the combined toll of all those wars in terms of lives of our soldiers and national wealth. And it goes on unabated.
It is in such trying times that the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission have delivered a shattering blow to the soldiery demoralising the rank and file very badly. Officers and men across the three Services are stunned even though solemn and silent. Never before has the Indian soldier needed and deserved more honour, respect, love and remuneration for his sacrifices and dedication. Constitutionally, the Defence Forces have their constraints and cannot express their problems in the manner in which most of our civil services and brethren do through public demonstration. This handicap often sends wrong signals to the political leaders who are used to noise, pandemonium and violence in streets or in the House rather than quiet presentations marked with etiquette and restraint. Over the years, they have taken the silence of the armed forces for granted.
But times have changed now. Easy access to advanced means of communication has laid the whole world bare for the soldier to form his own perceptions. The speed and magnitude of socio-economic changes have obliterated the class demarcations in our society to a large extent giving rise to higher ambitions even among the village youth. The profile of Indian soldier is no longer that of the proverbial Sepoy Bhup Singh who would ‘do or die without questioning why’. The level of awareness among rank and file in the armed forces is stunningly high today. Whereas life is becoming more and more comfortable for everyone in the modern world, his operational burden is becoming heavier by the day degrading his basic comforts and heightening danger to his life. And his role is not limited only to fight terrorism and the enemy. Almost every failure of the civil administration comes to him to be redeemed. Be it emergencies like natural calamities, disaster management, or man-made catastrophic situations like communal violence, blasts, strikes, service breakdown or even heaving hapless children from death traps like bore wells left open in villages, everyone turns to the soldier – administration’s last resort and people’s most reliable saviour! A soldier is a jack of all trades!
He has had enough of it. He knows his power but is restrained by his discipline and value system drilled into him through training and tradition of chivalry by his leaders. But increasing pressures and declining honour of the profession have pushed him to the corner. He has no more space to manoeuvre and is left with only one option to choose from: kill or get killed. The writing on the wall is clear and people must be blind not to read it from the increasing number of incidents like suicide, fratricide, desertion with a large number of their frustrated leaders already queuing up to leave the service prematurely. Are our political leaders able to fathom the seriousness and real dimension of the problem? Is it merely a Services’ problem? No, it is a big national problem because our Defence Forces are the guarantors of nation’s safety and security against all kinds of threats; and their higher motivation level will always be the most significant factor in safeguarding our national interests. Therefore, those in charge of affairs of the nation have a duty to ensure maintenance of a high level of morale and motivation by requiting the soldier honourably.
Does the following verse composed in anguish by Francis Quarles long ago describe today’s Indian psyche in painfully apt terms?
“Our God and soldiers we alike adore
Only at the brink of danger; not before;
After deliverance, both are alike requited –
Our God’s forgotten and our soldiers slighted.”
Now I understand why there was mass hysteria in Indian masses eulogizing and adoring the soldier during Kargil War and why they appear oblivious of all that is happening to their hero now.. Who dared touch our soldier then? And now, who cares for a soldier whose ongoing battle and sacrifices continue but are not melodramatic enough to entertain or scare us!
High morale and fighting potential of the armed forces are a national asset and worth as much as the cost of freedom and security of the country. What you give to the soldier is not his remuneration; it is your investment in national defence. Economic growth alone cannot make India a super power in the world. Richness actually carries an element of vulnerability along. It is the strong and able armed forces that would provide credibility to the concept of ‘super power’. Belittling the soldier is, therefore, belittling the nation and weakening its defence potential at a time when India, though poised to emerge as a super power, is threatened by hordes of evil forces seeking to weaken and disintegrate India from within and without. Even as we progress economically, let us also make our future generations safe.
Whatever the notion of some of the politicians, Indian generals have an accountability and owe clarifications to the Indian public who pay for the hefty defence budget and for whose security the armed forces are maintained. And we know for certain that our generals are professionally as competent and morally as upright as the best in the world, odd aberrations here and there notwithstanding. It was a different army and their generals on whom Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington had lamented in one of his military dispatches in these words:
“When I reflect upon the characters and attainments of our General officers of this army – on whom I am to rely – I tremble; and, as Lord Chesterfield said of the Generals of this day, ‘I only hope that when the enemy reads the list of their names, he trembles as I do!”
Indian generals must not be snubbed and their opinion – be it on matters of national security or border disputes must be respected because most of those who shamelessly comment on a General’s propriety to speak to media on such matters have not treaded where the general has. In fact others must not speak out on such matters without the general’s informed counsel.
There was a time when bureaucracy in the US was influencing the political leadership in somewhat similar manner while deciding on army’s budgetary needs. In 1933 Gen MacArthur, then Chief of the US Army, did not hesitate to protest against the deep cuts in the Army’s budget. And when President Franklin Roosevelt did not relent, he roared with his characteristic disregard to personal interests, “Mr. President, when we lose the next war and an American boy lying in the mud with an enemy bayonet through his belly and an enemy foot on his throat, spits out his last curse, I want the name on his lips to be Roosevelt, not MacArthur.” He concluded by saying that he was resigning although he was later persuaded to withdraw it after Roosevelt finally yielded and reversed most of the proposed cuts.
All top generals, admirals and air marshals of India are today squirming with similar belly aches and may stand up putting country’s interests ahead of their own. Let us hope the government will not compel them to speak out loudly because military ‘loudness’ is never good for ear drums!
It is in such trying times that the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission have delivered a shattering blow to the soldiery demoralising the rank and file very badly. Officers and men across the three Services are stunned even though solemn and silent. Never before has the Indian soldier needed and deserved more honour, respect, love and remuneration for his sacrifices and dedication. Constitutionally, the Defence Forces have their constraints and cannot express their problems in the manner in which most of our civil services and brethren do through public demonstration. This handicap often sends wrong signals to the political leaders who are used to noise, pandemonium and violence in streets or in the House rather than quiet presentations marked with etiquette and restraint. Over the years, they have taken the silence of the armed forces for granted.
But times have changed now. Easy access to advanced means of communication has laid the whole world bare for the soldier to form his own perceptions. The speed and magnitude of socio-economic changes have obliterated the class demarcations in our society to a large extent giving rise to higher ambitions even among the village youth. The profile of Indian soldier is no longer that of the proverbial Sepoy Bhup Singh who would ‘do or die without questioning why’. The level of awareness among rank and file in the armed forces is stunningly high today. Whereas life is becoming more and more comfortable for everyone in the modern world, his operational burden is becoming heavier by the day degrading his basic comforts and heightening danger to his life. And his role is not limited only to fight terrorism and the enemy. Almost every failure of the civil administration comes to him to be redeemed. Be it emergencies like natural calamities, disaster management, or man-made catastrophic situations like communal violence, blasts, strikes, service breakdown or even heaving hapless children from death traps like bore wells left open in villages, everyone turns to the soldier – administration’s last resort and people’s most reliable saviour! A soldier is a jack of all trades!
He has had enough of it. He knows his power but is restrained by his discipline and value system drilled into him through training and tradition of chivalry by his leaders. But increasing pressures and declining honour of the profession have pushed him to the corner. He has no more space to manoeuvre and is left with only one option to choose from: kill or get killed. The writing on the wall is clear and people must be blind not to read it from the increasing number of incidents like suicide, fratricide, desertion with a large number of their frustrated leaders already queuing up to leave the service prematurely. Are our political leaders able to fathom the seriousness and real dimension of the problem? Is it merely a Services’ problem? No, it is a big national problem because our Defence Forces are the guarantors of nation’s safety and security against all kinds of threats; and their higher motivation level will always be the most significant factor in safeguarding our national interests. Therefore, those in charge of affairs of the nation have a duty to ensure maintenance of a high level of morale and motivation by requiting the soldier honourably.
Does the following verse composed in anguish by Francis Quarles long ago describe today’s Indian psyche in painfully apt terms?
“Our God and soldiers we alike adore
Only at the brink of danger; not before;
After deliverance, both are alike requited –
Our God’s forgotten and our soldiers slighted.”
Now I understand why there was mass hysteria in Indian masses eulogizing and adoring the soldier during Kargil War and why they appear oblivious of all that is happening to their hero now.. Who dared touch our soldier then? And now, who cares for a soldier whose ongoing battle and sacrifices continue but are not melodramatic enough to entertain or scare us!
High morale and fighting potential of the armed forces are a national asset and worth as much as the cost of freedom and security of the country. What you give to the soldier is not his remuneration; it is your investment in national defence. Economic growth alone cannot make India a super power in the world. Richness actually carries an element of vulnerability along. It is the strong and able armed forces that would provide credibility to the concept of ‘super power’. Belittling the soldier is, therefore, belittling the nation and weakening its defence potential at a time when India, though poised to emerge as a super power, is threatened by hordes of evil forces seeking to weaken and disintegrate India from within and without. Even as we progress economically, let us also make our future generations safe.
Whatever the notion of some of the politicians, Indian generals have an accountability and owe clarifications to the Indian public who pay for the hefty defence budget and for whose security the armed forces are maintained. And we know for certain that our generals are professionally as competent and morally as upright as the best in the world, odd aberrations here and there notwithstanding. It was a different army and their generals on whom Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington had lamented in one of his military dispatches in these words:
“When I reflect upon the characters and attainments of our General officers of this army – on whom I am to rely – I tremble; and, as Lord Chesterfield said of the Generals of this day, ‘I only hope that when the enemy reads the list of their names, he trembles as I do!”
Indian generals must not be snubbed and their opinion – be it on matters of national security or border disputes must be respected because most of those who shamelessly comment on a General’s propriety to speak to media on such matters have not treaded where the general has. In fact others must not speak out on such matters without the general’s informed counsel.
There was a time when bureaucracy in the US was influencing the political leadership in somewhat similar manner while deciding on army’s budgetary needs. In 1933 Gen MacArthur, then Chief of the US Army, did not hesitate to protest against the deep cuts in the Army’s budget. And when President Franklin Roosevelt did not relent, he roared with his characteristic disregard to personal interests, “Mr. President, when we lose the next war and an American boy lying in the mud with an enemy bayonet through his belly and an enemy foot on his throat, spits out his last curse, I want the name on his lips to be Roosevelt, not MacArthur.” He concluded by saying that he was resigning although he was later persuaded to withdraw it after Roosevelt finally yielded and reversed most of the proposed cuts.
All top generals, admirals and air marshals of India are today squirming with similar belly aches and may stand up putting country’s interests ahead of their own. Let us hope the government will not compel them to speak out loudly because military ‘loudness’ is never good for ear drums!
Friday, May 2, 2008
A General's letter in anguish to the PM
Retired officers of the Indian armed forces took out a rally in Gurgaon, Haryana, on Sunday to protest against the sixth Pay Commission report. The rally was held in Gurgaon as the Central government refused to allow it to be held in New Delhi and didn't even allow them to lay a wreath on India Gate to pay homage to soldiers who gave their lives for the country.
Commodore Uday Bhaskar told rediff.com, "The Sixth pay commission's recommendation, if implemented, will not help raise the morale of the armed forces. The Indian fauj (forces), once the noble 'profession of arms', will be reduced to a ignoble 'profession of alms' by a callous politico-bureaucratic elite."
General Nirmal Chander Vij, former Chief of Army Staff, wrote a letter in anguish to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh against the adverse implications of the sixth pay commission on the armed forces.
The army's foremost strategist and a Kargil war-decorated soldier, General Vij was country's 21st Chief of Army Staff. The letter written on April 17, 2008, speaks volumes about the armed forces' dissatisfaction, which no government can ignore.
The copy of the letter written by N C Vij to Dr Singh is reproduced below.
Adverse implications of sixth Pay Commission report on the armed forces
Last week I had gone to Amritsar [Images] to attend a regimental function. I was surprised to note the intense disappointment and despondency in all the jawans, officers and their families as they spoke vociferously about how let down they felt with the sixth Pay Commission report. The services chiefs have already met the Hon'ble Raksha Mantri (defence minister) and expressed their deep concern.
As a former chief, I feel morally duty-bound to bring this fact to the notice of the Hon'ble Prime Minister in my personal capacity. I take heart from the fact, that it is under your leadership, that, in my tenure, the government went for a major improvement in the 'operational posture by sanctioning South Western Command and 9 Corps HQs with full complements and also for some restoration of self esteem of the young officers through addressing their delayed promotions-cum-service conditions, by approving Part 1 of Ajay Vikram Singh Committee report'.
If this had been followed up, through a balanced PCR and implementation of Part II of the 'AVS Report', things would have reasonably improved, but unfortunately the very opposite has happened.
The PCR has hurt the Armed Forces on the following major accounts:
Military Service Pay - (X Factor): The Military Service Pay, which has now been introduced, is intended to compensate service personnel for intangible difficulties and risks, which they experience during their service careers. While this is a welcome step, the jawans who face the greatest privations, have been given a paltry amount of Rs 1000/-.
As recommended by the three services to the Ministry of Defence, this compensation be fixed in the following manner; (i) for jawans and Junior Commissioned Officers (below Lt rank), MSP should be 62.5 per cent of their basic pay (ii) for officers, MSP be fixed at 56.5 per cent of basic pay (iii) since there is no justification for excluding Maj Generals and Lt Generals from this pay (just 300 in number), they should also be included. (iv)Lastly, as these difficult service conditions have been existing all along, the arrears must be paid wef Jan 1, 2006, as in the case of other recommendations of the Pay Commission. All these recommendations have already been made by the Defence Services.
Depressed Pay Scales and Lowering of Status of Officers: (i) In determining the grade pay of officers of the rank of Brigadiers and below, the Pay Commission has excluded the rank pay, from the scale of officers, on the ground that rank pay is an element of Military Service Pay now proposed. The exclusion of the rank pay from the pay scale has led to depressed grades of pay and lowering 'Services' status in different ranks by one rung below the extant position. This will cause immense functional problems not only for inter-se functioning vis-a-vis the civilian/police counterparts etc but also within the Armed Forces, wherein a large number of civilians are working.
The Pay Commission has upgraded the DsG of certain police forces and certain specific posts in other civil services. It is important to note that (i) Lt Generals and equivalent comprise just 0.13% of the Services Officer Cadre as against at least fifteen-twenty times more posts at that level in civil/police services and more than a hundred times in the IAS. Furthermore, the creation of posts of Special Secretaries like the earlier Additional DGP will further upset the entire status equation. The promotions in the Services are achieved (if one escapes the most extraordinary degree of supercessions) with much longer service. For example at the lower level, a Brigadier is promoted after 28 years service and a Major General with 33 years service, whereas their counterparts (in non-military services) get these promotions with 14-16 and 20 years service resulting in huge disparities. The service officers thus suffer both on account of status and total take home salary to the tune of 30-40 lakh and more.
In order to restore parity, I, therefore, strongly recommend that:- (i) ideally, the rank pay should be restored or in the very least, grade pay be linked to the length of service equivalent to that of the IAS, since the promotions in services are much slower and;(ii) For protecting the status equation of 'Lieutenant Generals' it is recommended that they must remain above DsG of Police forces and equivalent to five DsG of the PMF. It may be mentioned that in the Warrant of Precedence, all 'Lt Generals' have been placed in Article 24, whereas, DsGP are in Article 25. Hence, any disparity in pay structure will lead to an anomalous situation. Similarly, the status equations finalized in the Fifth Pay Commission for all levels must be maintained. Any further erosion of status will undermine the military leadership in the eyes of their own subordinates.
Introduction of Running Pay Band and Adverse Impact on Junior and Middle Piece (Majors to Colonels) and Brigadiers level Officers: The new scales now introduced have hurt officers of these levels very badly and are resulting in virtually negligible benefits amounting to just 10 percent or so. This aberration is likely to start a trend of resignations of large number of officers, in these ranks soon on completion of the mandatory minimum 20 years service. I gather that already more than approx 650 officers have been waitlisted for premature release. The Services, which are already heavily undersubscribed, cannot sustain this exodus. One additional pay band is required to be introduced here to ensure suitable benefits to officers at all levels. There is, thus, a need to have two pay bands, one between Lt to Lt Colonels and the other between Colonels to Brigadiers with suitable raise linked to the length of service.
Lateral Shift and Assured Second Career for Men-'A Myth': The Pay Commission recommendations for the Services hinge, largely, on the successful implementation of the lateral transfer of the service personnel, into the PMFs/Central Police Organizations (CPOs). Thus, these recommendations have been 'based on and got eroded' in the garb of a possible future lateral shift and assured second career. The scheme of lateral transfer, if not implemented or delayed, would negate the most core underlying concept/assumption of these recommendations. I may submit here, that this particular recommendation has been attempted for implementation for decades (included in the Fifth Pay Commission Report also) but with no success earlier. Nor will it succeed in future for the obvious reasons. All Pay Commission recommendations thus need to be re-examined in the absence of this basic assumption of lateral transfer. The lateral transfer was also considered earlier actively and dropped, when I was the Vice Chief.
Safeguarding of Interest of the Pensioners: Over the past two decades, the government has been able to achieve some parity in the pensions of the current and past retirees. 'One rank one pension' was more or less achieved for the men, and in the case of officers, some minimum parity was brought in by grant of pension at the bottom of scale of the rank in which they retired. However, with introduction of running pay bands and the absence of top and bottom of the scales for any rank, the parity with specific bands, achieved over some time now, will be lost. There is, thus, a need to protect the interests of the past retirees by suitable modifications and thereby ensuring enhanced pensionary benefits to the tune of minimum 30%.
'Anomalies Committee' is Unlikely to Succeed in Addressing the Grievances of the Armed Forces: I have read in the media that an Anomalies Committee has been set up to look into the issues raised by everyone. This will not solve the problems of the Armed Forces for two reasons: (a) The Lack of Sensitivity/ Understanding -- This committee, which does not even have representatives of the armed forces as their members, will never be able to achieve a deep understanding or be sensitive enough to their problems. It is for this reason of lack of sensitivity, that the status of the Indian Armed Forces has undergone constant erosion with every Pay Commission Report. (b) Problems are of Basic Principles and Not Mere Technicalities -- The anomalies committees can address the technicalities but our problems are on account of the core concepts and approach and not merely of technicalities. The problems of the Services can be solved, only with the involvement of the leadership of the country. Therefore, a 'Group of Ministers' alone will be able to address these issues.
Summary of Recommendations:
(a) Lateral Shift and Assured Second Careers for Men: Since all recommendations for the men are based on an assured second career, which is likely to be a non starter, a time limit of one year be fixed for implementation of the proposal of 'lateral shift'. In the interim, all related recommendations for men be reviewed and made applicable as suggested in this paper based on the existing scenario.
(b) Military Service Pay: As recommended by the three services to the Ministry of Defence, this compensation be fixed in the following manner (i) for jawans and Junior Commissioned Officers, MSP should be 62.5 per cent of their basic pay (ii) for officers at all levels, it should be fixed at 56.5 per cent of their basic pay (iii) since, there is no justification for excluding Major Generals and Lt Generals from this pay (just 300 in number), they should also be included for benefits as all other officers. (iv)Lastly, as these difficult service conditions have been existing all along, the arrears must be paid wef January 1 2006, as in case of other recommendations of the Pay Commission.
(c) Depressed Pay Scales and Restoration of Status of Officers: In order to restore parity, the recommendations are (i) ideally, the rank pay should be restored or alternatively the grade pay be linked to the length of service equivalent to that of the IAS, since the promotions in the services are much slower and fewer. (ii) with a view to protect the status equations of Lt Generals, they should be above DsG of Police forces and be equivalent to that of the five DsG of the PMFs and remain in Article 24 of the Warrant of Precedence and lastly (iii) the status equations finalized in the Fifth Pay Commission report must be maintained in all the ranks.
(d) Introduction of Running Pay Band and Adverse Impact on Junior and Middle Piece Officers: To offset the disadvantages of virtually no benefits to junior and middle level officers and also the factor of much delayed-cum-fewer promotions, an additional pay band be introduced. There should, thus, be two pay bands; one for Lt to Lt Cols and second for Colonels to Brigadiers with suitable raise linked to the length of service.
(e) Protection of Pension for Past Retirees: Fixation of pension scale for the past retirees be done in a manner that their interests are protected and they get raise in their pensions to the tune of minimum 30 percent.
(f) Group of Ministers: It is recommended that a GOM be appointed to examine the grievances of the Services. Till the time, their recommendations are finalized, the Pay Commission Report for the Services be held up.
Conclusion
Sir, you yourself hail from a state, which has traditionally produced soldiers. You would have often wondered, as to why a supremely fit jawan/JCO who retires at the young age of 42-48, ages and grows old so fast. It is because he has no resources to fall back upon to ensure a decent living for his family after his early retirement. This problem gets further accentuated with the constraints of even poor farming conditions. Why should a soldier retire at this early age (other services serve upto 60 years) and why this man who has served the Nation so valiantly not be given a second career by way of 'lateral transfer', which alas will never come about.
The service conditions have become even tougher and more risk prone today than what they were when we joined the service in 1962, because of the pressures of 'insurgency'. Insurgency poses nearly as much physical danger as a war. A soldier is thus exposed to constant risks and yet he retains the motivation to build a 'fence of 650 km length at varying altitudes upto 14000 ft' in six to nine months flat, to successfully defeat the infiltration. The foreign armies are studying the underlying reasons of such a high level of motivation and dedication.
In the Indian Armed Forces, a jawan/officer serves almost every alternate tenure of three years in the insurgency environment, whereas all other armies in the world are not being able to sustain even one 'nine months' tenure. Officers and their jawans do it for the izzat (honour) but this raison d'etre is now getting deflated with such Pay Commission reports, and all their expectations are being shattered.
I strongly urge you Sir, to appoint a 'GOM' for the armed forces and withhold the implementation of this report, for the defence services, till the justice is given to them. The armed forces cannot sustain any continuation of poor intake of officers and also current wave of resignation requests. Already, the Indian Military Academy and OTA, Chennai are reporting a drop in the intake by over 70 per cent. In case of jawans, this recruitment trend will continue yet for a few more years, but their level of motivation will drop. The country cannot afford either of these situations.
N C Vij
Commodore Uday Bhaskar told rediff.com, "The Sixth pay commission's recommendation, if implemented, will not help raise the morale of the armed forces. The Indian fauj (forces), once the noble 'profession of arms', will be reduced to a ignoble 'profession of alms' by a callous politico-bureaucratic elite."
General Nirmal Chander Vij, former Chief of Army Staff, wrote a letter in anguish to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh against the adverse implications of the sixth pay commission on the armed forces.
The army's foremost strategist and a Kargil war-decorated soldier, General Vij was country's 21st Chief of Army Staff. The letter written on April 17, 2008, speaks volumes about the armed forces' dissatisfaction, which no government can ignore.
The copy of the letter written by N C Vij to Dr Singh is reproduced below.
Adverse implications of sixth Pay Commission report on the armed forces
Last week I had gone to Amritsar [Images] to attend a regimental function. I was surprised to note the intense disappointment and despondency in all the jawans, officers and their families as they spoke vociferously about how let down they felt with the sixth Pay Commission report. The services chiefs have already met the Hon'ble Raksha Mantri (defence minister) and expressed their deep concern.
As a former chief, I feel morally duty-bound to bring this fact to the notice of the Hon'ble Prime Minister in my personal capacity. I take heart from the fact, that it is under your leadership, that, in my tenure, the government went for a major improvement in the 'operational posture by sanctioning South Western Command and 9 Corps HQs with full complements and also for some restoration of self esteem of the young officers through addressing their delayed promotions-cum-service conditions, by approving Part 1 of Ajay Vikram Singh Committee report'.
If this had been followed up, through a balanced PCR and implementation of Part II of the 'AVS Report', things would have reasonably improved, but unfortunately the very opposite has happened.
The PCR has hurt the Armed Forces on the following major accounts:
Military Service Pay - (X Factor): The Military Service Pay, which has now been introduced, is intended to compensate service personnel for intangible difficulties and risks, which they experience during their service careers. While this is a welcome step, the jawans who face the greatest privations, have been given a paltry amount of Rs 1000/-.
As recommended by the three services to the Ministry of Defence, this compensation be fixed in the following manner; (i) for jawans and Junior Commissioned Officers (below Lt rank), MSP should be 62.5 per cent of their basic pay (ii) for officers, MSP be fixed at 56.5 per cent of basic pay (iii) since there is no justification for excluding Maj Generals and Lt Generals from this pay (just 300 in number), they should also be included. (iv)Lastly, as these difficult service conditions have been existing all along, the arrears must be paid wef Jan 1, 2006, as in the case of other recommendations of the Pay Commission. All these recommendations have already been made by the Defence Services.
Depressed Pay Scales and Lowering of Status of Officers: (i) In determining the grade pay of officers of the rank of Brigadiers and below, the Pay Commission has excluded the rank pay, from the scale of officers, on the ground that rank pay is an element of Military Service Pay now proposed. The exclusion of the rank pay from the pay scale has led to depressed grades of pay and lowering 'Services' status in different ranks by one rung below the extant position. This will cause immense functional problems not only for inter-se functioning vis-a-vis the civilian/police counterparts etc but also within the Armed Forces, wherein a large number of civilians are working.
The Pay Commission has upgraded the DsG of certain police forces and certain specific posts in other civil services. It is important to note that (i) Lt Generals and equivalent comprise just 0.13% of the Services Officer Cadre as against at least fifteen-twenty times more posts at that level in civil/police services and more than a hundred times in the IAS. Furthermore, the creation of posts of Special Secretaries like the earlier Additional DGP will further upset the entire status equation. The promotions in the Services are achieved (if one escapes the most extraordinary degree of supercessions) with much longer service. For example at the lower level, a Brigadier is promoted after 28 years service and a Major General with 33 years service, whereas their counterparts (in non-military services) get these promotions with 14-16 and 20 years service resulting in huge disparities. The service officers thus suffer both on account of status and total take home salary to the tune of 30-40 lakh and more.
In order to restore parity, I, therefore, strongly recommend that:- (i) ideally, the rank pay should be restored or in the very least, grade pay be linked to the length of service equivalent to that of the IAS, since the promotions in services are much slower and;(ii) For protecting the status equation of 'Lieutenant Generals' it is recommended that they must remain above DsG of Police forces and equivalent to five DsG of the PMF. It may be mentioned that in the Warrant of Precedence, all 'Lt Generals' have been placed in Article 24, whereas, DsGP are in Article 25. Hence, any disparity in pay structure will lead to an anomalous situation. Similarly, the status equations finalized in the Fifth Pay Commission for all levels must be maintained. Any further erosion of status will undermine the military leadership in the eyes of their own subordinates.
Introduction of Running Pay Band and Adverse Impact on Junior and Middle Piece (Majors to Colonels) and Brigadiers level Officers: The new scales now introduced have hurt officers of these levels very badly and are resulting in virtually negligible benefits amounting to just 10 percent or so. This aberration is likely to start a trend of resignations of large number of officers, in these ranks soon on completion of the mandatory minimum 20 years service. I gather that already more than approx 650 officers have been waitlisted for premature release. The Services, which are already heavily undersubscribed, cannot sustain this exodus. One additional pay band is required to be introduced here to ensure suitable benefits to officers at all levels. There is, thus, a need to have two pay bands, one between Lt to Lt Colonels and the other between Colonels to Brigadiers with suitable raise linked to the length of service.
Lateral Shift and Assured Second Career for Men-'A Myth': The Pay Commission recommendations for the Services hinge, largely, on the successful implementation of the lateral transfer of the service personnel, into the PMFs/Central Police Organizations (CPOs). Thus, these recommendations have been 'based on and got eroded' in the garb of a possible future lateral shift and assured second career. The scheme of lateral transfer, if not implemented or delayed, would negate the most core underlying concept/assumption of these recommendations. I may submit here, that this particular recommendation has been attempted for implementation for decades (included in the Fifth Pay Commission Report also) but with no success earlier. Nor will it succeed in future for the obvious reasons. All Pay Commission recommendations thus need to be re-examined in the absence of this basic assumption of lateral transfer. The lateral transfer was also considered earlier actively and dropped, when I was the Vice Chief.
Safeguarding of Interest of the Pensioners: Over the past two decades, the government has been able to achieve some parity in the pensions of the current and past retirees. 'One rank one pension' was more or less achieved for the men, and in the case of officers, some minimum parity was brought in by grant of pension at the bottom of scale of the rank in which they retired. However, with introduction of running pay bands and the absence of top and bottom of the scales for any rank, the parity with specific bands, achieved over some time now, will be lost. There is, thus, a need to protect the interests of the past retirees by suitable modifications and thereby ensuring enhanced pensionary benefits to the tune of minimum 30%.
'Anomalies Committee' is Unlikely to Succeed in Addressing the Grievances of the Armed Forces: I have read in the media that an Anomalies Committee has been set up to look into the issues raised by everyone. This will not solve the problems of the Armed Forces for two reasons: (a) The Lack of Sensitivity/ Understanding -- This committee, which does not even have representatives of the armed forces as their members, will never be able to achieve a deep understanding or be sensitive enough to their problems. It is for this reason of lack of sensitivity, that the status of the Indian Armed Forces has undergone constant erosion with every Pay Commission Report. (b) Problems are of Basic Principles and Not Mere Technicalities -- The anomalies committees can address the technicalities but our problems are on account of the core concepts and approach and not merely of technicalities. The problems of the Services can be solved, only with the involvement of the leadership of the country. Therefore, a 'Group of Ministers' alone will be able to address these issues.
Summary of Recommendations:
(a) Lateral Shift and Assured Second Careers for Men: Since all recommendations for the men are based on an assured second career, which is likely to be a non starter, a time limit of one year be fixed for implementation of the proposal of 'lateral shift'. In the interim, all related recommendations for men be reviewed and made applicable as suggested in this paper based on the existing scenario.
(b) Military Service Pay: As recommended by the three services to the Ministry of Defence, this compensation be fixed in the following manner (i) for jawans and Junior Commissioned Officers, MSP should be 62.5 per cent of their basic pay (ii) for officers at all levels, it should be fixed at 56.5 per cent of their basic pay (iii) since, there is no justification for excluding Major Generals and Lt Generals from this pay (just 300 in number), they should also be included for benefits as all other officers. (iv)Lastly, as these difficult service conditions have been existing all along, the arrears must be paid wef January 1 2006, as in case of other recommendations of the Pay Commission.
(c) Depressed Pay Scales and Restoration of Status of Officers: In order to restore parity, the recommendations are (i) ideally, the rank pay should be restored or alternatively the grade pay be linked to the length of service equivalent to that of the IAS, since the promotions in the services are much slower and fewer. (ii) with a view to protect the status equations of Lt Generals, they should be above DsG of Police forces and be equivalent to that of the five DsG of the PMFs and remain in Article 24 of the Warrant of Precedence and lastly (iii) the status equations finalized in the Fifth Pay Commission report must be maintained in all the ranks.
(d) Introduction of Running Pay Band and Adverse Impact on Junior and Middle Piece Officers: To offset the disadvantages of virtually no benefits to junior and middle level officers and also the factor of much delayed-cum-fewer promotions, an additional pay band be introduced. There should, thus, be two pay bands; one for Lt to Lt Cols and second for Colonels to Brigadiers with suitable raise linked to the length of service.
(e) Protection of Pension for Past Retirees: Fixation of pension scale for the past retirees be done in a manner that their interests are protected and they get raise in their pensions to the tune of minimum 30 percent.
(f) Group of Ministers: It is recommended that a GOM be appointed to examine the grievances of the Services. Till the time, their recommendations are finalized, the Pay Commission Report for the Services be held up.
Conclusion
Sir, you yourself hail from a state, which has traditionally produced soldiers. You would have often wondered, as to why a supremely fit jawan/JCO who retires at the young age of 42-48, ages and grows old so fast. It is because he has no resources to fall back upon to ensure a decent living for his family after his early retirement. This problem gets further accentuated with the constraints of even poor farming conditions. Why should a soldier retire at this early age (other services serve upto 60 years) and why this man who has served the Nation so valiantly not be given a second career by way of 'lateral transfer', which alas will never come about.
The service conditions have become even tougher and more risk prone today than what they were when we joined the service in 1962, because of the pressures of 'insurgency'. Insurgency poses nearly as much physical danger as a war. A soldier is thus exposed to constant risks and yet he retains the motivation to build a 'fence of 650 km length at varying altitudes upto 14000 ft' in six to nine months flat, to successfully defeat the infiltration. The foreign armies are studying the underlying reasons of such a high level of motivation and dedication.
In the Indian Armed Forces, a jawan/officer serves almost every alternate tenure of three years in the insurgency environment, whereas all other armies in the world are not being able to sustain even one 'nine months' tenure. Officers and their jawans do it for the izzat (honour) but this raison d'etre is now getting deflated with such Pay Commission reports, and all their expectations are being shattered.
I strongly urge you Sir, to appoint a 'GOM' for the armed forces and withhold the implementation of this report, for the defence services, till the justice is given to them. The armed forces cannot sustain any continuation of poor intake of officers and also current wave of resignation requests. Already, the Indian Military Academy and OTA, Chennai are reporting a drop in the intake by over 70 per cent. In case of jawans, this recruitment trend will continue yet for a few more years, but their level of motivation will drop. The country cannot afford either of these situations.
N C Vij
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
