SCPC: Why not go in for one rank, one pension?

It needs reiteration that security and safety of a country is the prime prerequisite for its progress. No price is too great to pay to ensure that security. The military plays the most active role in contributing to a nation’s security against external threats and — as is evident in India — internal divisiveness.

It is, therefore, mandatory that the defence forces of a country are kept in a high state of health, both professionally by giving them the latest war ware as well as materially. If we want to attract the right material for the military service, their care has to be ensured right till the grave, figuratively speaking. The military is unique and bears no similarity with any other government service. It is literally impossible for any civilian to understand their way of functioning and to read the pulse of their morale.

There is, therefore, a strong case to treat them differently in pay commissions so that their structural peculiarities are taken into account while deciding their salaries and emoluments. Putting them in one common basket is bound to create angularities.

In a democracy the armed forces must remain under civilian control. No one has ever disputed this incontrovertible precept. The difference lies in translating this into practicable norms. The armed forces rightly understand this to be the control by elected representatives who in a democracy are the real power holders.

However, de facto it results in control by the bureaucracy. The institutionalised system of exercising civilian control over the armed forces gets translated into exercising of this control through and by the bureaucracy. The bureaucrats, who are the secretarial staff of politicians and cannot be wished away, end up becoming masters.

To substantiate the point I quote an incident from the mid-nineties. The Defence Secretary was visiting Paris as part of the Prime Minister’s large entourage. I, as the Military Attaché, spent enough time with him and got a chance to discuss various issues.

One day I asked him who takes the final decision in case there was a difference of opinion on selection board proceedings between the Army Chief and the MoD.
“I take the final decision and keep the Raksha Mantri informed,” he said, without even pausing to think. I wasn’t sure I had heard him right. “You mean the Raksha Mantri takes the final decision?” I asked. “No,” he shot back snappily, “I take the final decision and keep the RM informed.” The emphasis on ‘I’ was unmistakable.

That is where the rub lies. A decision, taken by the Army Chief with the consent of several other senior Lt Generals who constitute the selection board and on a matter of military profession, gets overruled by a bureaucrat, who is not only his junior in the national pecking order but has never himself worn a uniform. Of late there has been a discontent deluge among the otherwise quiet and keep-aloof military veterans. This has manifested itself even in public outpouring of their grievances.

It is, perhaps, for the first time in India that the veterans in such large numbers have aired their voice publicly. The highly damaging and skewed report of the Sixth Pay Commission has provided them with the much needed common cause. One rank, one pension (OROP) has become their clarion call. They want that two military pensioners who retired after equal service and in the same rank should get equal pension irrespective of the time span separating their retirement date. It literally means “same rank— equal service — equal pension”. This demand has been pending since 1984. Prima facie logic for OROP is irrefutable; at least till date no one has given any cogent or convincing argument against it.

Almost all mainstream political parties have been including this in their election manifesto and then dumping it. OROP was also included in the President’s opening Address to Parliament in 2004, which makes it a stated government policy. The Sixth Pay Commission has tried to bury the issue. Military veterans feel cheated. For military veterans to take to airing their grievances publicly has been a compulsion rather than a choice. The point was first projected to all the decision-makers of the country through letters and through personal meetings. Reasons for government reluctance in accepting OROP are not comprehensible. Their possible fear that it might lead to a similar demand from others would be unfounded.

First, because it is only in the military service that an employee is retired early (80 per cent retirees are in their late thirties). Every other government employee serves up to the age of 60 years. Therefore, an ex-serviceman has to see at least four to five pay commissions — when OROP becomes relevant — in his life time as against one or two such commissions by others. His stakes in OROP are thus much higher.

Secondly, the concept of rank is only peculiar to the defence forces. A military person is always referred to by his/her rank even after death. Others only hold posts and have designations but not ranks.

Thirdly, whereas other government employees retire by age, the military persons retire by rank; with each promotion to a higher rank getting them two additional years of service.

Therefore, the fear of all others also seeking a provision sanctioned for the defence personnel lacks logic. Otherwise, they should have been agitating for free rations too. In fact, when the government some time back gave a“one time increment” to the military pensioners, there was not even a whimper from any other service. Nor could financial outlay be a strong inhibiting factor. The Parliamentary Standing Committee in its 2004 report had computed the annual cost of OROP to be Rs 613.78 crore. Even if inflation is factored in, the amount today cannot be too large for the government to handle.

Lt Gen Raj Kadyan (Retd)
The writer is the Chairman, Steering Committee, Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement.
Orignal article in The Tribune: Why not go in for one rank, one pension?