Veterans speak out: 'Na Cheen ne na Pakistan ne, apne fauj ko barbad kiya Hindustan ne' - Has the OROP matter really been settled? Did government try to sabotage the veterans mass rally on Sept 12?
Because of perceived apathy of the Government and after three months of continuous protests by UFESM at Jantar Mantar, it was decided to hold the Ekta/ Solidarity Rally on 12th September 2015. For the three days preceding the Rally, it was reported that many messages by SMS, WhatsApp and Twitter were being sent out informing everyone that the Ekta Rally had been called off! Personal threats against Gen Satbir Singh were received. A heavy effort to malign individually everyone involved with the protests was set afoot. This was followed up by many TV channels using runners at the bottom of the screens, giving the same message. From: Ex-Servicemen's Welfare Blogspot
Politics and the Military
Lt Gen (Retd) N.S. Brar, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
August 24, 2015
As part of the ongoing agitation by Ex Servicemen (ESM) for
One Rank One Pension (OROP), a large number had gathered on the highway
bisecting the Bathinda Military Station, which also has the Corps Headquarters,
and had intended to enter the station to agitate and hand over a memorandum to
the Corps Commander. But the gates had been closed thus preventing them from
entering. A media photograph showed a very agitated and aggressive police
officer confronting the veterans. The whole incident left many veterans
worried: what if the police were to use force against the agitating ESMs and
this in turn provoked action by serving personnel? What if the gates were
opened by the men on duty? The worry is that it could very well happen with
grave consequences.
The purpose of the profession of arms has been, and will
remain, the management of organised violence and is inextricably linked with
the ultimate question of life and death. The shared uniqueness of the
profession moulds its members into the ‘Brotherhood of Arms’ with shared
values, beliefs, standards and codes of conduct. The soldier (which includes
the sailor and airman) dons the uniform on oath to go by land, sea or air where
ordered by his superiors and execute the task allotted even at the cost of his
life, if required. Willingness to perform unquestionably, even at the cost of
his life, does not come merely because he is paid to do so or simply because
his superiors have ordered him to do so. It comes from mutual trust and
camaraderie between the leader and the led. It also comes from the time
honoured concept of Izzat. Also, wafadari, imandari, self-esteem
and pride in honourable soldiering are constant bywords in the military
community – things that are under-appreciated outside the military environment.
Surely a soldier will not launch himself into battle with a
high probability of loss of limb or life merely on verbal words of command
unless this rests on unquestioning faith and trust in his superior. By
the same logic, at the highest level, the armed forces of the country also act
on the basis of mutual trust between the political and military leadership.
Military leadership strives to ensure mutual trust on the foundations of justice and fair play. No leader worth his salt can be seen to be acting unfairly or in a partisan manner. Over long years of service this concept of justice and fair play is deeply ingrained in a serviceman. He carries it with him on hanging his uniform. This unique culture rests on accepting the spoken word as inviolable. The soldier’s angst arises when society at large and the political leadership, in particular, is perceived to be ignoring and rescinding its own spoken commitment.
Military leadership strives to ensure mutual trust on the foundations of justice and fair play. No leader worth his salt can be seen to be acting unfairly or in a partisan manner. Over long years of service this concept of justice and fair play is deeply ingrained in a serviceman. He carries it with him on hanging his uniform. This unique culture rests on accepting the spoken word as inviolable. The soldier’s angst arises when society at large and the political leadership, in particular, is perceived to be ignoring and rescinding its own spoken commitment.
Post-independence, the serviceman has been consistently
given an unfair deal; be it the pay commissions, the higher national security
policy making apparatus, status, and so on. There is a deeply ingrained sense
of injustice harboured by the military – both serving and retired. The ongoing
agitation for OROP is primarily driven more by the feeling of lack of fair play
then merely by the seeking of monetary gains. In other words, the soldier feels
cheated.
This is compounded by the recent politics injected into the
controversy with disastrous consequences. The announcements by the UPA and NDA
governments of OROP were blatantly politically motivated with electoral gains
in mind. The president of the ruling party had committed to the representatives
of the ESM that OROP would be announced within 10 days. Even the Prime Minister
had made this commitment on more than one occasion. Not honouring these
commitments has generated cynicism and mistrust in the forces, which is likely
to lead to questioning the motives of the political leadership even in
operational matters.
The Army Chief had made a public announcement on
implementation of OROP. So had the former servicemen recently elected and
appointed ministers of state. Obviously such commitments were made on the
assurance of the political establishment. Regrettably all have lost credibility
and trust both with the serving and the retired fraternity. More regrettably
the Army Chief too has become a victim of politics. If this is not politicising
the armed forces, one fails to see what is politicising the armed forces. In a
country where everything from garbage to governance is mired in politics the
one institution that was outside its purview appears to have finally been
sucked into the quagmire.
In the past, the senior leadership would discourage any
discussion or comment on issues like pay commission dispensations in the
interest of discipline and in keeping with the military ethos. The military
continued to perform its role with a healthy disdain for political
horse-trading and unethical politics. No more. It has long been a ploy to refer
legitimate demands of the armed forces to the pay commissions and thereafter
simply ignore the issue.
The 6th Pay Commission was the last straw. It
presented the military with blatant down gradation and a patently unfair
dispensation. One such issue was of honorary officers being awarded more
pension than regular officers holding the same rank. Approved recommendations
of the pay commission were distorted during implementation. Failure to address
the large number of issues generated by the 6th Pay Commission finally
convinced the military that it had been short-changed and that politics had
finally caught up with it.
The rank and file does raise these issues and the leadership
has no answers. In some recent gatherings and seminars one has heard ESM
questioning the senior leadership as to why they do not take a tough collective
stand on issues concerning the armed forces, in other words suggesting
‘collective insubordination'. The social media is rife with irresponsible
voices suggesting, if not demanding, that the three Service Chiefs resign over
the OROP issue. This is a very dangerous trend indeed.
Compounding this
dangerous trend is the motivated attempts and propaganda to drive a wedge
between the officers and the men by suggesting that OROP is primarily for the
benefit of the officers with men having little to gain. Such a wedge strikes at
the very root of military cohesion besides damaging the vital aspect of mutual
trust. We have already seen former Army Commanders joining the protesters at
Jantar Mantar. It would be an ultimate shame if former service chiefs are also
to do so.
In keeping with the national political culture of horse
trading and breaking the opposition through wheeling and dealing, the Central
Police Organisations were also encouraged to orchestrate demands for OROP. This
was never an issue till now. Promoting their coverage in the media and
suppressing the ESM protests was politics at play.
Then there is the politics of the Armed Forces Special
Powers Act (AFSPA), which is periodically raked up to gain political capital.
The soldier does not ask to be employed in counter-insurgency operations. More
often than not his employment is brought about by political mishandling and
mis-administration. In this environment the soldier sees his sacrifices in
counter-insurgency operations as being politically driven and not in the
national interest, thereby raising questions in his mind about the sincerity of
the powers that be and generating ideas of being ‘used’ unfairly.
The country and the politico–bureaucratic establishment need
to remember that if there is any profession which has a generational link it is
the profession of arms. Many of my generation were third or fourth generation
soldiers serving not only in the same arm but in the same Regiment as their
forefathers did. The Army Chief and the former servicemen who are now ministers
of state are generational soldiers. Many servicemen today have at least one
close relative retired from the armed forces. There is perhaps no other
institution more closely linked between the serving and the retired than the
armed forces. The sentiments of the ex-servicemen are not confined to them
alone, these percolate down to the serving community as well. Whatever happens
at Jantar Mantar or anywhere in the country is instantly conveyed through the
social media both to the ESM and the serving community. Anything that
humiliates the ESM also hurts the self-esteem of the soldier. Anything that
concerns the ESM concerns the serviceman.
An unspoken social contract exists between the Indian armed
forces and the people of India. At one end of the bargain exists a deep sense
of admiration, respect and intrinsic affection for the soldier. At the other
end the people expect the armed forces to deliver when required, no matter what
the demand or cost. The people believe it to be the one institution that has
not been affected by the all-pervasive moral decline of society. This social
contract is vital for the future of the armed forces given the indifference or
ignorance of matters military by the politico-bureaucratic combine. The
soldier’s end of the contract will endure as long as he perceives that he has
been given a fair deal by the powers that be and by civil society at large.
In our context and at the very basic level, the emphasis of
society at large to reduced deference, if not indifference, to authority and
discipline and enhanced awareness of individual rights with lack of
corresponding obligation towards duty and the all-pervasive culture of corruption,
are at odds with what the military emphasises. The Hon’ble Defence Minister
recently expressed the view that the country had lost respect for the armed
forces or the armed forces relevance had declined as there had not been any war
since 1971. This perception needs to be clarified.
It is not the nation at
large which has lost respect for the armed forces. It is the lower level
functionaries of the government at all levels and across all areas of the
soldier’s interaction for his basic problems that has lost respect for the
armed forces. In an all-pervasive environment of petty graft, seen and
experienced before entering the service and when back in the environment on
leave, how does a military man reconcile to the core value of ‘imandari’ the
profession demands? It is also the highest level of the government, the
politico-bureaucratic elite, which is perceived to have lost respect for the
armed forces in pursuit of their agenda or narrow objectives. If there is any
institution left in the country which is respected by the people at large it is
the armed forces. Yet, after every war, the military was downgraded in status,
pay and pension by the pay commissions. So much for the respect for or
importance of the armed forces which war generates!
A worthy politician had recently derided the death of a
soldier by opining that ‘they are paid to die’. Nothing could be more callous
or ill-informed. The soldier may well ask whether he could kill someone and pay
his family to go scot free. Paying the soldier alone does not buy his
obligation for duty and death. Respecting his dignity, promoting his
self-esteem and treating him as an important member of society ensures such a
commitment.
Much as the serviceman, and by extension the ex-serviceman,
abhors the idea of agitating on the streets, undertaking fasts or indulging in
collective protest, today he sees these as the only options in an uncaring
environment. The recent death of policemen in a terrorist incident saw their
families sitting in protest demanding jobs and compensation. Giving a go bye to
the laid down rules for ex gratia and other dispensations, the political
leadership acquiesced. It would be a very sad day if the soldier’s families
were to agitate similarly.
Our polity by design and default has proceeded to
politicise, downgrade and demoralise its own armed forces and veterans. As
Bahadur Shah Zafar wrote after 1857:
Na Shah Iran ne, na Czar Roos ne,
Angres ko barbad kiya kartoos ne
It can now be said
Na
Cheen ne, na Pakistan ne, apne fauj ko barbad kiya Hindustan ne
A dissatisfied military is not in the interest of any nation
least of all India which has to contend with multiple internal and external
security issues. The nation at large and the political leadership must be alive
to the prevailing sentiments and act appropriately lest the gates of military
stations are opened.
Lt. Gen. (Retd.) N.S. Brar, PVSM, AVSM, VSM, is a former
Deputy Chief of Integrated Defence Staff and Member of the Armed Forces
Tribunal.
Over the last three months, we, the constituents of United
Front of Ex Servicemen (UFESM) have been diligently and honestly negotiating
and talking with everyone from the side of the Government or the BJP. Col Inderjeet Singh, Lt Gen BS Yadav and Maj
Gen Satbir Singh, assisted by Gp Capt VK Gandhi, Brig Kartar Singh, Wg Cdr CK
Sharma, Hon Lt K Pandey, Hon Capt JS Rathee and many others were always there
to inform the Government of the facts of OROP. During this period, all aspects
of OROP have been discussed in great details with just about everyone other
than the Prime Minister.
Despite all honest efforts, what the Government finally
announced was nowhere near OROP as defined by the Parliaments of February 2014
and June 2014. Just a "One Time Increase" has been offered, with
five-yearly reviews instead of the present ten-yearly ones.
Because of perceived apathy of the Government and after
three months of continuous protests by UFESM at Jantar Mantar, it was decided
to hold the Ekta/ Solidarity Rally on 12th September 2015. For the three days
preceding the Rally, it was reported that many messages by SMS, WhatsApp and
Twitter were being sent out informing everyone that the Ekta Rally had been
called off! Personal threats against Gen Satbir Singh were received. A heavy
effort to malign individually everyone involved with the protests was set
afoot. This was followed up by many TV channels using runners at the bottom of
the screens, giving the same message.
UFESM countered these efforts of those inimical to the
sanction of OROP by releasing advertisements in newspapers regarding the Ekta
Rally. The contentions of UFESM are:
Whilst the Government has announced acceptance of the
principle of OROP, there are serious drawbacks that the country needs to know
to appreciate why the agitation has not been withdrawn. OROP implies “Same Pension for same rank, for same number of
years of service rendered, regardless of when retired and any future
enhancements in rate of pension to be passed to Past Pensioners automatically.” There are many contradictions in what has been announced by the Government and
what actually comprises OROP:
1 VRS: The Government has created
avoidable confusion by including ‘VRS’ in their announcement as VRS does not
exist in the Defence Forces. However, those who have taken Pre-Mature
Retirement must come under OROP.
2 BASE YEAR: After having agreed to FY 13-14,
the Government has now gone to some never-heard concept of middle of calendar
year!
3 ANNUAL EQUALISATION: This is the very
core of OROP in order to ensure that no Senior ever gets less pension than a
junior and cannot be ignored by making equalisation a five-yearly effort.
4 ONE-MAN COMMISSION: If the Govt were to
agree to all the points put up by ESM, there would be no need for any
Commission. However, if unavoidable, it must be a Committee of three ESM, one
serving member with one person nominated by RM and the report must be submitted
in one month and NOT six months.
5 AVERAGE OF PAY SCALES: The Defence
Minister had earlier assured that pensions would be taken from “top of the pay
scales” whereas now, the Government seems to have gone to an unknown concept!
6 OROP INDEPENDENT OF CPC: Whatever awards
accrue from OROP must be totally protected from anything that Central Pay
Commissions may give to Central Government employees.
7 OROP CONCEPT ‘IN PERPETUITY’: Everything
that is given to Defence Forces pensioners are given in perpetuity for all
times to come.
The changes proposed by the Government will not save any
significant amount of money for the Nation but will definitely dilute and
distort the definition of OROP which the Ex Servicemen have been seeking for
the last 40 years.
We are pleased to report that the Ekta Rally was a huge,
thundering success! Starting from Friday evening onwards, many buses and
vehicles of ESM had started coming into Delhi. Many arrived by train or public
buses, too. Whilst many made their own arrangements for stay, many others were
put up at Gurudwaras by UFESM. On a conservative estimate, there were at least
200 vehicles that had come from Rajasthan, UP, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Punjab,
Uttaranchal etc etc. A serious effort was made by the Government to stop many
of the buses with ESM at various entry points of Delhi. And yet, the
attendance at Jantar Mantar has been reported by conservatives as about 20,000
to 25,000. Whereas, those who were there for the cause say that the rolling
number of people who have attended the Ekta Rally was 50,000!
There has now been a total blackout of the reports on the
Rally in all media. Whilst virtually all channels had their OB Vans on the
stand-bye, none of the cameras were rolling. There is not even a mention of
the Rally in this morning's newspapers. Those who were at Jantar Mantar speak in awe of the sea of
humanity that was there, all around. As far as the eye could see, there were
the ESM and their families, everywhere. Every time a question was asked, you
could see tens of thousands of arms waving in the air in agreement!
It has been decided that the protest Relay Hunger Strike
will continue at Jantar Mantar till the Government agrees to give what OROP is
actually about. It is requested that every Ex Serviceman who gets this
message to please convey it not only to all your ESM contacts and friends, but
also to all your civilian friends. We HAVE to fight the misinformation campaign
and negative publicity that the Government is doing with all our efforts to
ensure that Ex Servicemen are given due justice and equity for which this
struggle is!
Wg Cdr CK Sharma
Treasurer, UFESM/IESM
http://ex-servicemenwelfare.blogspot.in/2015/09/ufesm-sainik-ekta-rally-at-jm-on-12-sep.html
Governance and Civil Military Relations in India by MG Devasahayam
Governance and Civil Military Relations in India by MG Devasahayam
Even if the OROP issue is resolved, there is an urgent need
to address the relationship between India’s civil and the military, which has
reached a nadir.
THE year 1965 saw a war in which many military veterans
of today fought fiercely against Pakistan to save India’s honour. Fifty years
later, in 2015, most of them were compelled to fight a war against the
Government of India to defend their own honour. All because of breach of trust!
The struggle for the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme,
that seeks equity in the payment of pensions to ex-servicemen, has been going
on for years. At the fag end of its term, UPA II made a sleight of hand and
granted this demand by making a token Budget allocation. The BJP, as a
political party during elections, and Narendra Modi, as prime ministerial
candidate and then as the Prime Minister, made voluminous promises of
implementing OROP. But, when the veterans felt that Prime Minister Modi and the
government he heads were reneging on this commitment, citing some difficulties
in its ‘arithmetical translation’, they rose up as one man and went on the
warpath with rallies and protests all over the country. Volunteers among them
sat on a chain dharna at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.
Sensing the discontent and distress, four former Service
Chiefs—one from the Army and three from the Navy—came together and wrote to the
President of India, stating that this development has the potential for
inflicting long-term damage to India’s ‘proud and apolitical military ethos’.
They pointed out that successive Pay Commissions have been used to whittle down
the financial and protocol status of the military vis-à-vis their civilian
counterparts. The letter expressed the suspicion that there has been a
sustained effort to bring the armed forces on a par with the police and
paramilitary forces and make the Indian army subservient to the
bureaucracy.
They also warned: “In the daunting security scenario that
prevails, our powerful military is expected to be at the peak of
combat-readiness, with high morale and motivation, ready to react swiftly to
orders of the political leadership to meet every national crisis. However, such
a response may not be readily forthcoming from a military which suffers low self-esteem
because its respected veterans are seen to be ignored and humiliated by their
own sarkar.” According to the chiefs, weak politics and lack of
political will is the root cause of this malaise.
Then something preposterous happened. On Independence Day
Eve, Delhi Police, in its attempt to ‘evict’ the peacefully protesting veterans
from Jantar Mantar on the pretext of ‘security’, manhandled them and reportedly
even snatched a train of medals from the shirt of one of them. In this era of
instant communication, electronic and digital photography, the images of the
aging and struggling veterans being beaten and pushed around will haunt the
conscience of most citizens. Even worse, the next day, in his near-90 minutes’
‘oration to the nation’ from the ramparts of the Red Fort, the Prime Minister
did not even mention this sordid episode, let alone express any regret. As for
OROP, he only repeated the words that have been spoken ad
nauseam.
OVERNIGHT, the OROP struggle transformed from a
monetary issue to one of fauji izzat (military honour). Across
the veterans’ email circuit, the thought process on the future role of the
armed forces was moving towards a sort of ‘non-cooperation in aid to civil
authorities’. Even if OROP issue is financially resolved, the wide
civil-military hiatus caused by senseless procrastination for long years would
continue and could even get worse if the message reaches the serving
personnel
“…..The safety, honour and welfare of your country comes
first, always and every time. Of course it does, but you don’t have to take on
other people’s work just because they are inept and corrupt. Saving people from
floods and other disasters is not your job. There are over-paid officials in
the civil services and police who are supposed to do it. The funds earmarked
for such relief work is meticulously divided amongst themselves, while you
share your meager rations with the disaster afflicted.
“…..If a child falls in a bore-well, don’t get all worked up
about it. Your country doesn’t care about you one way or the other. If a
few jihadis with weapons and bombs sneak in through the Line
of Control, it shouldn’t agitate you. Keeping them on the other side is the job
of the fattened BSF, commanded at the higher levels by corrupt cops of the IPS
who have never fired in anger or been fired at.
“…..Don’t go around shooting your own countrymen just
because they are insurgents. That’s not your job. Let the CRPF and the motley
lot of other central and State policemen do it. They are highly paid and very
well equipped and if they cannot or will not do their job, so be it. Let
the netas, babus and cops, who started the alienation in the
first place, sort it out between themselves. You do not come into the picture
here. Don’t make enemies of your own countrymen while the babus and
cops play goody-goody. When war comes, these rats will scuttle away. You will
need the help of your countrymen to fight the enemy.
“…..Do only what you are supposed to do–train for war and
win it when it comes.In the meantime, live it up. Everyone else is!”
Sensing the trend, 10 more former Chiefs - seven from the
Army, one from the Navy and two from the Air Force - joined the fray, making it
almost a confrontation between the civil and military. As the Chiefs said in
the letter, for the government and people of India things appear to be going
out of hand. It became worse when the younger generation entered the OROP
struggle with the appeal to all children of ex-servicemen to come out and
support the veterans.
The dysfunctional relationship between India’s civil and the
military has reached a nadir. Now, even if the OROP issue is resolved, the wide
civil-military hiatus caused by senseless procrastination for long years would
continue and could even get worse if the message reaches the serving personnel.
This would directly impact on the country’s security and sovereignty and needs
to be addressed urgently in its proper perspective.
For doing so, we need to draw on the centuries-old wisdom of
Kautilya reiterated in modern times by the General-turned-President of the US,
Dwight Eisenhower: “When diplomats fail to maintain peace, the soldier is
called upon to restore peace. When civil administration fails to maintain order,
the soldier is called to restore order. As the nation’s final safeguard, the
army cannot afford a failure in either circumstance. Failure of army can lead
to national catastrophe, endangering the survival of the nation.”
This sums up the role performed by our military and the
criticality of an abiding civil-military relationship, lest the nation face any
catastrophe. It should be realised that in war or conflict military men do not
offer the ‘supreme sacrifice’ just for money or rank. There is something far
more precious called ‘patriotism and honour’ and this is embedded in the Indian
Military Academy’s Chetwood Hall credo, which none of the civil servants or
politicians have gone through but most military leaders have. It
reads thus: “First—the Safety, Honour and Welfare of your Country come
First, Always and Every Time. Second—the Honour, Welfare and Comfort of the Men
You Command come Next. Third—Your Own Ease, Comfort and Safety come Last,
Always and Every Time.” The Civil-military relationship should be
moored on such an anchor.
DESPITE the passage of seven decades since
Independence, the political leadership has failed to evolve a framework for a
coherent civil-military relationship. But the military brass had attempted it.
Way back in 1998, in his treatise, The Soldier and the State,
former Naval Chief Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat wrote: “The modern military
profession exists as part of the government insofar as the term ‘government’
includes the executive departments of the nation-state... Modern democracies
therefore pay great attention to the supremacy of the political class over the
military in governance, normally referred to as ‘civilian control of the
military’. This is clearly how it should be, since all ultimate power and
decision making should be wielded by the elected representatives of the
people.”
On the eve of his demitting office in 2012, General VK Singh
fully endorsed this view with a compelling caveat: “I am a firm believer in
civilian supremacy over the military in a democracy. I subscribe to the views
of the former Naval Chief, Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat. However, civilian supremacy
must always be rooted in the fundamental principles of justice, merit and
fairness. Violation of this in any form must be resisted if we are to protect the
institutional integrity of our Armed Forces.”
The combined views of the former Navy and Army Chiefs set
forth certain non-negotiable imperatives for the civil-military relationship:
democracy as a vibrant and functioning entity with the ‘elected representatives
of the people’ running the government as per established democratic norms;
military profession existing as part of such government; civilian supremacy to
be exercised by the ‘elected representatives of the people’; such supremacy to
be rooted on the principles of justice, merit and fairness; violation of this
can be resisted to protect the institutional integrity of the armed forces.
Whether governments in India are being run as per
established democratic norms is a burning question! Even so, India’s
professional military is meant to protect, safeguard and sustain our Democratic
Republic wherein lives one-sixth of the human race. Therefore, it is imperative
that a democratic civil-military relationship framework exists, is practised
and sustained. But, unfortunately, this has not even been attempted and the
civil-military relationship is not mandated in the governance system. It has
been continuously and dangerously drifting.
In the colonial and aristocratic past, when soldiers were
illiterate, Alfred Lord Tennyson’s dictum—‘Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but
to do and die’ (“The Charge of the Light Brigade”, 1854)—prevailed. But
today’s military comprises well-educated and highly skilled men, who have a
mind of their own to distinguish good from bad and right from wrong. Officers
who command them come through a rigorous selection process based on merit. So,
it is difficult to stomach the statement of a former Union Minister of State of
Defence, in the ‘august’ presence of then Army Chief General Bikram Singh, that
military forces have remained loyal and ‘obedient servant’ of governments! Had it been so, India could have turned into a dynastic
dictatorship following the Emergency of the mid-Seventies. Why this did not
happen is aptly described in an article in Time magazine of
August 11, 1975, written by Claire Sterling after visiting India. This is
better reproduced verbatim:
The letter by four former service chiefs to the President
expressed the suspicion that there has been a sustained effort to bring
the armed forces on a par with the police and paramilitary forces and make the
Indian army subservient to the bureaucracy
“Indira Gandhi is perhaps more powerful than ever before,
but she is also more alone. There is no one left to share with her the blame of
the regime’s failings, no one of any stature to partake with her the task of
running her vast benighted nation….. “India’s standing Army of nearly a million men has been
resolutely non-political since Independence. But it is also sensitive to the
smallest slight to its honour, dignity and military independence, not to
mention the nation’s sovereignty; and it is steeped in loyalty to
constitutional principles. It was altogether her Army when she enjoyed
unquestioned legitimacy of constitutional rule. It may not be, should its
ranking officers conclude that she has become something else. More than ever
now her fate hangs on the Army’s loyalty…“Depending on how fast and how far she goes in changing from
a traditional Prime Minister to the one-woman ruler of a police state, the
Indian Army - the one group with the power to stop the process - could intervene.
If it were to do so, it would almost certainly be not to replace her with a
military dictator, but to restore the institutions (of democracy) it has been
drilled into defending since birth.”
I know this for sure since as the then District Magistrate
of Chandigarh and custodian of JP, the enemy-number-one of the State, I was
abreast of what has been happening in Delhi. This had also been confirmed by
Lt. General SK Sinha, then Director, Military Intelligence. In a recent
article, he gave credit for this to the then Army Chief, General TN Raina.
Compared to these men, where does the present top brass of the Army stand? All said, as of now, the words of Rudyard Kipling written
about a century ago can be altered and applied to today’s civil-military
relationship: “Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall
meet.” This can be so only at the nation’s peril. This will be so even if the
OROP tangle is resolved. There is much more that needs to be done for the
‘twain’ to really meet. The sooner, the better.
The writer is a former Army and IAS officer.
Across the aisle - P Chidambaram
Whatever it takes to implement OROP, the resources must
be found. In 2010-11, the RBI transferred to Government a surplus of Rs 15,009
crore. Who thought RBI would transfer Rs 65,896 crore in 2015-16? If there is
will, a way can be found... in the race to claim credit (and disown criticism),
the OROP issue is being presented as a big controversy shrouded in mystery.
Get facts right: Let’s get the facts right. The Indian Armed Forces are
voluntary forces. There is no conscription. Men and women join the forces as
jawans or officers for a variety of reasons and, among them, is the security of
a job. While the job is reasonably secure, it is not a job for the entire
working life. According to the report of the Koshiyari Committee, 85 per cent
of the Armed Forces personnel retire by the age of 38 years and another 10 per
cent retire by the age of 46 years. They have to work for a living for many
more years, but there is no guarantee of a post-retirement job. Retirement at an early age is good and necessary to keep the forces young and
fighting fit. Hence the case for an honourable pension.
There is another reason to make pension
an attractive term of service that has not been noticed adequately: it is to
attract new volunteers. The attrition rates, and the vacancy levels, are
alarmingly high and, if the Armed Forces have to remain voluntary forces,
recruitment must remain robust. The promise of an honourable pension is an
important factor in recruitment. OROP is an honourable pension. The time to debate the merits
and demerits of OROP is over... read more:
This India Today article is reported by a retired service officer as "very short on facts. E.g. It talks about a few hundred veterans in the 12 Sep rally when there were clearly several thousand. Some other questionable issues like rift in the ranks of the veterans, which are not correct and more an attempt by vested interests in the govt. to tarnish the leadership and image of the UFESM.."
Also see
