SCPC: Mumbai Mayhem concern for strengthening National Security

Date: Tuesday, 23 December, 2008, 11:02 AM

Dear Friends,
As you would know, Gen YN Sharma was Chairman, Pay Cell during the Fourth Pay Commission. This letter has been addressed to the PM with a copy to every one who matters.
Regards,
Maj gen Surjit Singh (Retd)

LETTER FROM GEN YN SHARMA TO THE PM
1. I am a former GOC in C and an erstwhile Chairman of Army Pay Commission Cell (4th PC-1985) and a veteran of 1971 war.

2. I am conscious that you are presently engaged in making the most crucial decisions related to National security, consequent to the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. India’s honour and integrity have been challenged and those must be forcefully defended. Indeed, the Armed Forces shall deliver, in whatever manner required, consistent with their tradition of trustworthiness and sacrifice. In return all they expect is ‘Izzat’ and a fair deal in their compensation package. Sadly they are being ‘begrudged’ even that.
3. At this juncture, raising issues related to the inequities of the 6th Pay Commission award may seem inopportune. But here too ‘honour’ and ‘integrity’ of the Armed Forces are at stake. Anything that impinges on the morale of the military fraternity and their faith in the National leadership cannot be neglected. The lack of responsiveness, so far, has ‘spiralled’ the sentiment so negatively that highly undesirable forms of Veterans protests like fasts (in one case, unto death) are being resorted to. The angst and the sense of grievance are indeed pervasive. It is a sad lesson of history that a deep sense of Veterans’ disaffection can transform, what is otherwise a national asset, into a security risk. Nor would their future generations remain motivated to take up the traditional military career. It is in this context that I seek your sagacious intervention.

4. The Service Chiefs, and many former higher Commanders/ other leaders, have already conveyed their views to you. Nothing in my suggestions, given below, negates any of those. I have, however, chosen to selectively highlight some critical problems and a pragmatic way out, based on my experience and perceptions.

5. I do believe that the problem is not due to any ‘perversity of principles’ on which the Award is based-these are essentially progressive and laudable. The ‘devil’ lies in the ‘indiscriminate implementation’ and absence of ‘safeguards’ to provide for unique features of the Defence Services. This has been compounded by the insensitivity of the ‘bureaucratic system’. Let me illustrate:-

Military ranks are an exclusive and ‘unique institution’ of the Services; fundamental to their command structure and ethos. Any pay/pension change that tinkers with this ‘hierarchy’ and its horizontal equivalences, is antithetical to the very fabric of the Service. Likewise, in the psyche of the soldier a disability due to ‘war injury’ can never be equated with one due to a motor cycle accident or hypertension. In the absence of integral military advice such nuances have been overlooked in the Pay Commission award.

In the absence of necessary implementation safeguards major distortions have arisen, as illustrated below:-

Four ranks ranging between Cols to Lt Gens which are clubbed under PB4 have been entitled pensions which are almost the same. This is because the floor level of PB4 is the common start point. The gross inequity stands out when viewed in the context that a Col (TS) may have commanded no more than a Coy (str100+) whereas a Lt Gen would have led a 100,000+ strong Corps. To add insult to injury a post 6th PC retiree Col would attract a higher pension than the Lt Gen who may have retired a day before 1/1/2006. In the military culture such things are blasphemy. Even by modern management norms, quantum of pension which is a deferred wage cannot be delinked from job status/spectrum of responsibility held while in service. Similar distortions exist in the case of PBOR also. This problem does not exist in the case of Sub Maj, Army Cdrs or the Chiefs. The solution lies in fixing rank-based floor levels in the running Pay Bands, so that perverse relativities can be avoided. I may mention here that the innovation of a running pay band was introduced for Lts to Brigs by the 4th Pay Commission. Initially it had created similar problems, which were administratively resolved. The deviance in the horizontal equations of Lt Col (misplaced in PB3) and Lt Gens is well known, hence not dwelt upon any further. They must be upgraded.

The sensitivity to pay-based status equations is very real and sharp. Over the years this matter has become highly convoluted due to profligacy of cadre reviews and ‘empire building’. In my view the solution lies in evolving a new status matrix and need-based working models. This should decouple military ranks-civil status-pay scale nexus. A rationalised warrant of precedence which restores some of the historical dignity and lays down joint working norms is needed.

6. In the preceding paragraphs some approaches have been indicated for your consideration. I appeal to you to restore the perception of good faith and be the leader who is responsive to the needs of the Veterans and Serving soldiers. Some decisions may be taken soon and others can follow. Prime Minister, a healing touch is needed at this stage and we know that you are ideally equipped to provide that.

Dr. Manmohan Singh
Hon’ble Prime Minister of India
Prime Minister’s Office
New Delhi-110011