‘Redressal’ Needed for AFGRC

Significance of Supreme Court direction for formation of an Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission (AFGRC) lies in two matters. Firstly, recognition by country’s Apex Court of the injustice and ill treatment meted out to India’s armed forces at the hands of our government(s) for the last sixty years. Legal luminaries heading different benches of Armed Forces Tribunal, deal with it on daily basis. Secondly, pointing out futility of mindless filing of appeals by the government for reversal of verdicts of apex body on issues concerning defence forces by refusing to consign wrong implementation of rank pay in 4th Pay Commission to AFGRC. Finally, frustration and also severity of court’s indictment is reflect in its quote of Chanakya’s advice to Emperor Chandragupt Mauraya.
Serving and retired soldiers must feel grateful to the Supreme Court for its utmost effort in securing justice for the brave Indian soldier, to the extent of stipulating AFGRC composition and charter and nominating the first members to head the organisation. It could not have done more. But has the proposed AFGRC brought cheer to our soldiers?
Naive as soldiers are in matters real politics and governance, initially there was euphoria. Sooner than imagined it gave way to despair. They realised that the slated AFGRC, in its charter and composition, was to be merely a recommendatory body and therefore toothless, in real terms. It would be subjected to mercy, wishes and pleasure of the government (read bureaucrats). And that perhaps its creation was to deflect the attention of the nation from the ongoing agitation by veteran soldiers and ESM organisations. Many felt t that respected and venerable retired generals were being ‘used’ by bringing them on board of AFGRC, with close to 4 million serving and retires soldiers’ eye riveted on them to deliver. They would serve only as future scapegoats for failures of AFGRC, in providing any meaningful succour.
Soldiers’ cynicism is based on the facts and track record of government actions on past ‘empowered’ committees and commission. Most were gathering dust. Not only that but also the fact that government(s) deliberately soft pedalled on Supreme Court directions and observations by filing meaningless revision appeals so as not to implement, buy time and fossilise issues
The ball is squarely in the government’s court to prove their sincerity and firm commitment towards implementation of AFGRC recommendations, within stipulated time period. Till that happens, stillborn status of the proposed AFGRC can safely be predicted.
Maj Gen (Retd) K Khorana