No bonanza for the Armed Forces

The Sixth Pay Commission presented its recommendations to the government on March 24 as expected. What was not expected, however, was the measly hike in emoluments of the defence forces. Nonetheless, all major newspapers on March 25 praised the Pay Commission for the bonanza given to government servants; the electronic media had preceded them with similar comments.

This hype is perhaps understandable as there was lack of time for a detailed analysis. This piece will attempt to highlight some aspects of how the defence forces have been taken for a royal ride!

Before the Pay Commission was set up, the service chiefs had again pointed out to the government the necessity to set up a separate pay commission for the defence forces, as there was no commonality in the conditions of service of the military vis-a-vis the civil government servants of all categories. The request of the service chiefs was not accepted and no reasons were assigned for this.

The service chiefs then suggested that at least a member from the defence forces should be appointed as part of the pay commission. This too was brushed aside. The third request made to the government was to at least ensure that the issue of ‘relativity’ was not made applicable to the military, again on the same grounds that no other cadre/ section of government had anything in common with the conditions of service of the defence forces.

Now that the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission have been made public, even this request has been negated. The military has once again been given the wrong end of the stick, by not only equating but diminishing the status of the officers and men of the defence forces.

The concept of the running pay band for all ranks was mooted by the defence forces and was incorporated in the Fourth Pay Commission, but was not recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission. Now, it has come back, but with a twist. The present commission states that it is a good concept to adopt for the civilian employees and consequently let the military also follow suit! How kind! Linked to this is the question of status, or in other words ‘relativity’.

The recommendations of the commission state that the status of all government employees would be determined by the ‘grade pay’ as fixed for civilian employees. A cursory look at the relevant tables will show that we are back to square one, wherein a colonel of 16 to 18 years service is being equated with a civilian in the PB-3 category, having 7 to 10 years service.

In addition, while a major or equivalent in the defence forces has been given a status of 6100 and a lieutenant colonel of 6600, there are four different grades squeezed in this at 6100, 6500 and 6600 from the civil side. Thereafter, between a colonel (7600) and brigadier (8400), an additional grade of 8300 has been squeezed in.

The biggest anomaly however is at the lieutenant-general level (11000). Till now, lieutenant-general and equivalent officer was equated with the S-30 grade on the civilian side i.e. equivalent to an additional secretary or the Director General Police (DGP). There is an obvious attempt now in the Sixth Pay Commission to deliberately downgrade the status of a lieutenant-general by interposing two more grades (S-31 and S-32 at 13000) between a lieutenant-general and the apex level of army commanders and equivalent (80,000 fixed). This is a typical ploy of the bureaucrats to sneakily upgrade themselves, as they have done in the past.

A good point from the point of view of the defence forces is the recommendation accepting the necessity for the grant of military service pay (MSP), but associated with it is that the rank pay, which all officers up to the rank of brigadier are getting (from Rs. 400 for captains to Rs 2400 for brigadiers) has been withdrawn. By extrapolation, this rank pay at today’s prices would have been equal to if not greater than the MSP of Rs 6000 for all ranks. So, what have the defence forces gained?

I also do not understand the rationale of a fixed sum of Rs 6000 as MSP for all officers up to the rank of brigadier and Rs. 1000 for all Personnel Below Officers Rank (PBOR). MSP is meant to compensate military personnel from the privations which a career in the defence forces entails. Whether in peace stations or in field areas, a soldier is ready twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. There are no defined working hours for them. In addition, they are the only citizens of the nation who have restrictions on their fundamental rights.

The defence forces are constantly and continuously exposed to hazardous situations and there is always a threat to their lives and limbs. On an average, the number of army personnel killed in active operations is nearly 415 annually; a very high figure indeed, when there is no war being waged.

Throughout their careers, they have to maintain stringent physical standards. This is as much applicable to a jawan as to those holding the highest ranks in service. This takes its toll in terms of nearly 5000 personnel being invalidated out on medical grounds every year.

There are many drawbacks in family-related and professional aspects. Military personnel have frequent dislocations to family life, children’s education, as well as additional expenditure on account of regular transfers. Over half the service of defence personnel, particularly those from the army, is spent in field areas, where families are not permitted, resulting in long separation of soldiers and officers from their wives, children, parents and other kin.

Statistically, army personnel suffer separation of nearly 18 years in a career span of 24 years. An extremely turbulent life by any standards! The Indian Army’s heavy commitments in counter insurgency and counter terrorism operations and their effect on the quality of life on all ranks are too well known to need any elaboration.

It is for these reasons that the defence forces had projected the dire need for MSP. However, what has been recommended is highly inadequate. I also do not understand why officers above the rank of brigadier have been excluded. There is also no rationale for having only one fixed scale for officers and another for PBOR. A reasonable and just amount would be 25 per cent of the basic pay, encompassing all ranks from a jawan to the Chief of the Army.

One additional point needs to be stated. The Commission has given a plethora of recommendations on both small and big points, but when it came to an extremely legitimate request of the defence forces relating to enhancement of pay of lieutenant-generals -- who though otherwise fit to become army commanders cannot be promoted, as they have less than two years of residual service – they have shied away by leaving it for the government to decide. This, when the same system has been in vogue in the civil services for decades!

Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi, PVSM, AVSM, VSM

The writer is a former Vice Chief of Army Staff
Reproduced from The Tribune 31 March 2008
SCPC has taken the military for a ride