SCPC: PM skips OROP issue

Date: Saturday, 15 August, 2009, 9:49 PM
Dear Colleagues,
The Prime Minister in his traditional Independence Day address from the Red Fort, made a brief complimentary reference to the country’s armed forces for guarding the borders. For the ESM he quoted from and part-repeated extracts from the budget speech of the Finance Minister. In so doing he highlighted that 12 lac PBOR including Junior Commissioned Officers would benefit from government allocation. However, any reference to the term ‘one rank one pension’ was missing. Copy of a related article sent to the papers later during the day is reproduced below:
Quote
The Red Fort Speech
Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh delivered the customary address from the ramparts of the historic Red Fort on the country’s Independence Day. India is 63 years old and is celebrating her birthday with the usual joy and festivities.
What exactly is the significance of the Prime Minister’s speech on the occasion? Broadly speaking the speech has three components. First it is a kind of stock taking of the government’s performance vis-à-vis the targets set for it. Second, it lays out a roadmap for future schemes and policies needed for maintaining the pace of progress. And lastly, like any other speech by a national leader it ends in exhorting people to rise above parochial and narrow considerations and work united for the country.
On many accounts 2009 is a difficult year. The threat of terrorism continues to loom large and celebration of any major event stretches the security mechanism to the maximum. The spiralling prices of essential commodities continue to cause concern. In fact with the per kilo prices of pulses running nearly into a three digit figure, the traditional theory of daal roti being a poor man’s food has been turned on its head. The truant monsoons have further added to the woes of the country where agriculture continues to be largely rain-dependent.
It is perhaps a compulsion of democracy for the Prime Minister to address maximum sections of the society on such occasions. This is precisely what he did, touching on myriad issues of contemporary concern, and he deserves to be complimented for an all-inclusive speech. However, the downside of such a large bill of fare is that with time constraints, there is only a cursory mention possible of each issue with the grain and the chaff getting almost equal priority.
The main issue that needed greater emphasis is the continued threat of terrorism and Pakistan ’s role, willingly or otherwise, in letting her territory being used for planning and launching terror strikes against India . The Mumbai 26/11 is nearly nine months old. There is not an iota of doubt in anyone’s mind that these attacks were planned in Karachi and were launched by Pakistani nationals. Involvement of the ISI is almost certain. Have we done enough to ensure that Pakistan does not permit repetition of such acts? Apparently not. Even today our Hon’ble Ministers continue to allege that Pakistan ’s response has been less than adequate. What do we intend to do to ‘persuade’ Pakistan into doing that ‘enough’ and falling in line in this regard? Unfortunately, this did not figure in the Prime Minister’s address. A simple one liner to the effect that we wish to live in peace with our neighbours does not go far enough to assuage the anger of the Indians and to ameliorate the suffering of those who lost their kith and kin during the carnage. In fact this might restart the debate on the Sharm el Sheikh joint declaration, Prime Minister’s clarification to the Parliament notwithstanding. Inclusion of India ’s alleged involvement in Balochistan is considered a faux pas by many. This is likely to be used as a diversion by Pakistan in any and all future parleys. The Foreign Secretary’s admission of it being a case of bad drafting is not a credible alibi. This was one occasion where the Prime Minister could have spoken some reassuring words to an apprehensive nation, but the opportunity was not taken.
Another subject that needed added emphasis was the role of the defence forces in keeping the country united. He did make a complimentary reference to the contribution our soldiers are making in maintaining vigil at the border. However, what needed to be also acknowledged was the immense contribution that our defence forces have been making since lndependence, in effectively countering domestic disruptiveness in various parts. Yet another omission was the subject of erecting an appropriate war memorial. Every soldier who is lucky and willing to make the supreme sacrifice for his country would like to be assured that the country and the history will recognise his contribution and honour his memory. This is a great motivational factor in facing danger. We have fought five wars since our Independence and have lost thousands of our officers and men. However, till date we only have the First World War memorial at India Gate, erected during the British rule. In a country of statue culture this is indeed a sad commentary.
The Prime Minister’s reference to the welfare of Ex Servicemen was also cursory. Mere repetition of the statistics given out by the Finance Minister in his budget speech, while conspicuously omitting mention of the emotive ‘one rank one pension’ issue that even the President had included in her address to the Parliament, is not likely to be reassuring enough to the two million Ex Servicemen to suspend their efforts. Omitting mention of a problem is never an effective method of solving it. Considering that every serving soldier is tomorrow’s Ex Serviceman and has a great stake in the issue cannot also be ignored. Unquote
Best regards,
Lt Gen (Emeritus) Raj Kadyan, PVSM, AVSM, VSM
Chairman IESM