The SCPC Fiasco

Defence forces are designed to work in seclusion. Soldiers intrinsically are shy of publicity. This is part of their ethos. They work unnoticed. They die unsung. The recent Pay Commission controversy has pushed them in limelight. This could be foreseen when their request for inclusion of a defence member was rejected. The economic experts comprising the commission could not understand a soldier’s problems. No civilian can. Military life can only be experienced; it cannot be explained. Previous pay commissions had been pushing the military down, both in status and salaries. The 6th PC further widened the gap. The report drew immediate negative response; muted from the serving, vociferous from the veterans. The report was then put before a committee of secretaries. The disparities were too stark to escape even an untrained eye. The senior, experienced Secretaries knew what should have been done to restore balance. But they did not. While making some cosmetic alterations they in fact injected some more serious disparities. The cabinet endorsed the report. It is doubtful they got involved in the nitty-gritty.

The defence forces cannot form unions and associations. The soldiery’s problems are projected up the established chain of command. Those beyond the purview of intermediary levels reach the Service Chiefs. The latter in turn approach the government. This is part of their function. This was done for the PC disparities too. Going by media reports the defence minister supported the demands. With the finance minister stonewalling the recommendations and the PM being out of the country, the issue remained in limbo. Time was running out for the October 1, 2008 deadline. The delay in implementation of the PC report could cause disquiet. Rumours resulting from heightened media reporting could fan discontent. The Chiefs would have got inputs of the rank and file edginess. The memory of Jamnagar Air Force base disturbance during the 5th PC would have come to their recall. They had to act. Inaction was not an option. Various options would have been examined. Should they implement the PC report on the assurance that the disparities would be resolved later? That the anomalies of the 5th PC have remained unresolved for over 12 years foreclosed this option. The fact of the Defence Minister still batting for amendments rendered the cabinet decision ‘under review’. A message down the command chain to forestall any possible brewing problem was the obvious choice. It was rightly followed by all three Chiefs. The Naval Chief was the first to do so. His message said, “We are in the process of resolving all pending issues and this may take a little longer than we had earlier expected...” He then exhorted his command, “...In the meanwhile I am certain that one and all will display maturity and patience and not be swayed by hearsay or speculative reports from any quarter”. There is nothing palpably wrong with what he told the Navy. He was chastised for sending an unclassified message. That is absurd. The lowest military security classification is ‘Restricted’. Its very name suggests that its circulation be restricted to the intended few. When a message is meant for dissemination to every sailor in the Navy, where is the need for making it ‘Restricted’? Nor do the contents reveal any State secret. The disquiet on the PC report has even appeared in the Pakistani Press. The three Chiefs should actually be complimented for displaying foresight and for taking pre-emptive action.

The Service heads are being questioned – even editorially - for not implementing the cabinet decision. They are told it was ‘not expected of them’. This is the common whip the government uses to browbeat soldiers. It raises two important points. If ‘expectations’ from the mlitary are different and much higher than from other government organs, then why are they not also distinct for salary and perks? Putting them in a common basket is a clear case of equal treatment and unequal obligations. Secondly, can the soldiers also have some reciprocal expectations from the government? Is the government expected to empower the bureaucracy and let them loose to ride roughshod over the defence forces? Is the civil control to be taken to mean control by bureaucracy instead of by the elected representatives? Is the government expected to push down an unacceptable and patently biased PC report down the military throats despite clear disparities that have been accepted by the Defence Minister himself?

Over the years governments have been routinely ignoring defence forces’ plea against discrimination. This has left scars of distrust and frustration. The grouses have accumulated. Even a small wound becomes a festering sore if ignored. That the 6th PC report was unacceptable to the defence forces has been blindingly clear to all. The unequal emoluments hurt their pockets. What is even more important, the skewed parity also hurt their pride. Military is one organisation that has been doing its job with sincerity, dedication and with success. Why does the bureaucracy-dominated government keep constantly gnawing at their roots? Considerable damage has already been done. Further damage needs to be controlled. The committee of ministers needs to accept their four pending demands without delay.

The reported stand- off between the government and the Services has pushed the Ex-Servicemen (ESM) issue on the back burner. The ESM remain steadfast on their four demands; One-Rank-One-Pension (OROP), resettlement till age of sixty, constitution of an ESM Commission and their representation on all committees deciding issues of their concern. Out of these the most emotive is the OROP, repeatedly promised but never unfulfilled. Pension is a reward for services already rendered. Logic suggests that two individuals rendering equal service and reaching the same rank - and thus same level of responsibility – should get equal pension, irrespective of their date of retirement. The ESM are demanding equity and justice, not necessarily more money. If the government cannot afford, let them pay less pension, but uniformly to all. The 6th PC recommendations are extremely harsh on the old pensioners, who constitute the majority. They have actually created One-Rank-Several-Pensions, an extremely retrograde step. If OROP remains unresolved, the ESM intend to continue their fight for it. They have already put the government on notice for a relay hunger strike beginning October 20, 2008. The ball is in the government’s court.

Lt Gen Raj Kadyan (Retd)
Chairman, Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement