SCPC: Heed the silent protest

Pay scales are important to soldiers- this term includes all personnel of India's army, navy and air force- but status (or, more meaningfully, izzat) is any day more important. The first is important to satisfy the corporal and temporal needs of the fighting man and his family, and the second is what motivates him to fight for his country and if need be, sacrifice his life. In our increasingly materialistic society, the two are inextricably linked. The way a soldier is treated by the public at large and by bureaucracy in particular when he is on duty (official interactions) and off duty (on leave, at a personal level) is a part of how the soldier understands where and how he fits into India's society.

The public is not, in general, sufficiently interested in the soldier to understand the reason for the rank structure, and couldn't be bothered to understand what the soldier does or the stresses and risks that he undergoes, or that 90% of them retire before they are 40 years of age. And then there are (admittedly few but influential) people who think that the defence budget is a waste of money. The bureaucrat is known for harbouring a sense of being superior to the soldier. The fact of a Brigadierwith 24 years service having to deal with a Deputy Comissioner with half that service but equivalent pay only adds to that sense, while the bureaucrat usually treatsthe ordinary Jawan who gets paid less than a police constable, dismissively. Public disinterest and thinly veiled bureaucratic hostility rankle in soldiers' minds, but the discipline of military training keeps the soldier silent.
Successive Central Pay Commissions (CPCs) have brought down the inter se status of all ranks of the Defence Services with respect to the bureaucracy and police.

The recent Sixth CPC is consistent in that respect, with yet another step downwards. For many years, the Defence Services have been asking that since the soldier and the ex-soldier form by far the largest chunk of all government employees and pensioners respectively, the CPC should have representation of at least one serving soldier, but the request has been routinely, even contemptuously, brushed aside. Because of the consistent degradation of the pay and status of the soldier, and the lack of understanding or the need to remain "one-up" of the bureaucrat, the status of senior Defence Services officers vis-a-vis civilian officials has been falling with every CPC. This is nothing but repeated slaps on the face of the soldier amounting to, "Yours not to reason why, yours but to do and die". All this has been borne patiently and silently by the soldier, under successive insensitive, uncaring or apathetic governments.

The soldier is routinely called out in his secondary role of aid to civil power for insurgency, social unrest or natural or man-made disasters, almost always because the civil administration (bureaucrats and the police under their control) has proved incompetent in its primary role. If this situation is exacerbated by degrading the soldiers' status vis-a-vis the bureaucracy and police, it cannot be viewed by the soldier as otherwise than deliberate insult.

The three Service Chiefs conveyed to the Defence Minister that the 6CPC Review Committee that went into the anomalies of soldiers' pay once again without Defence Service representation, actually heightened the anomalous situation rather than remedying it. This culminated in their stating that the implementation of the 6CPC may not be possible because of the sensiblities of soldiers constrained to silence, but this was interpreted as breach of discipline. As reported in the Indian Express e-newspaper article on 28.9.2008, "Service Chiefs back off after Antony tough talk", the Defence Minister said words to the effect that "... the armed forces cannot unilaterally decide not to implement a Union Cabinet decision and that there was no way the UPA government would let them get away with it". If the Defence Minister imagines that the 6CPC recommendations will bring cheer to the soldier for Diwali he is sadly misinformed, because it has actually further diminished soldiers' status. On the other hand, it further heightens the soldiers' dismay with the manner in which his General, Admiral and Air Chief Marshal have been collectively disciplined. The Defence Service Chiefs' acquiescence is not because they were intimidated into submission by the Defence Minister's "tough talk", but because of their mature understanding of India's democracy, so as not to cause a constitutional crisis. Again, evidence of the patience and silence of the strong, with the thoughtless actions of the feckless and the weak.

Mr.Veerappa Moily's off-the-cuff remark on NDTV's program on 28 September 2008, "Men in arms, Up in arms", that the soldier appears to speak about these issues only after he retires, is evidence of his unforgivable ignorance of the conditions of military service that (necessarily) deny the serving soldier the right of freedom of speech and expression and freedom to form associations or unions under Article 19 (a) and (c) of the Constitution of India. He might like to cogitate on what might happen to India if, God forbid, the suggestive title of NDTV's program came true. Soldiers who have the experience and honour of commanding men in the risky and life-threatening circumstances of military operations understand human nature in general, and in particular of the fighting man, much better than pen-pushing bureaucrats orsome politicians. It is mature understanding of human nature that a patient and silent man is not weak. Rather, he is patient and silent because he is strong. Testing the patience and misinterpreting the silence of the Indian soldier with respect to the 6CPC cannot be in the best interests of the Indian nation.

Maj Gen S.G.Vombatkere (Retd)

Maj Gen S.G.Vombatkere, VSM, retired from active service on 30 September 1996, when he was Additional Director General (Discipline & Vigilance) in Adjutant General's Branch, Army HQ, New Delhi. He is settled in Mysore where he is engaged in voluntary social work as member of Mysore Grahakara Parishat (MGP), National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM) and People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL).

Military Service Pay

The sixth pay commission is now about midway in their task of preparing their recommendations for the revision of wages of more than 33 lakh central government employees, including the personnel of the defence forces. The latter constitute the biggest chunk of employees, at nearly 40 per cent, yet they have no representation in the commission. This is despite a long standing demand of the defence forces for military representation in the commission and its reiteration at the highest military levels before the commission was appointed. This not only indicates the lack of concern of the government for the welfare of the defence forces, but also the disdain with which legitimate demands of the military are treated, even when they are articulated at the highest military levels.

WORLD OVER
Country: Nomenclature
UK: X factor
USA: Additional Pay for Difficulties of Military Life
Australia: Service Allowance
Japan: Service Pay Supplement
Iraq: Special Allowance
Yugoslavia: Army Supplement
Nigeria: Hazard Pay
France: Special Pay
Overtime Allowance for Units
West Germany (1988)
Overtime Allowance for individuals
Harmonization Allowance
Bangladesh Defence Services Allowance
In addition, Canada, Netherland, New Zealand also have an additional pay for the difficulties of Military Life.
TABLE I

This article is meant to focus on the justified demands of the defence forces, with the hope that these would be taken note of, both by the pay commission as well as the government. Although the expectations of the defence forces are in many spheres, I will confine myself to discussing only a few inter-related but major issues, which I feel form the core of the expectations of the defence forces.

Let me start with the contentious issue of ‘relativities’, which rankles everyone in the defence forces. Despite the absolutely different conditions of service of the defence forces and no similarity with their civilian counterparts, the defence forces have always been clubbed with civilians by all past pay commissions. Despite repeatedly raising the issue, the sixth pay commission is also mandated to follow this oft-travelled path! Military life bears no comparison to any other category of government employees. Yet, each successive pay commission has made comparisons artificially. In the bargain, defence personnel have suffered. The dissatisfaction is clearly reflected in the huge shortages in the officer’s cadre, as the current emoluments are not at all attractive to young aspirants. As far as personnel below officer rank (PBOR) are concerned, although there are no shortages, more and more personnel are refusing promotions as they want to leave as soon as they earn their pension. In addition, the services no longer get the best and the brightest, both in the officers ranks, as well as the PBOR. The adverse effect on the professionalism and efficiency of the defence forces and as a consequence on the security of the nation needs no elaboration.

Most advanced countries recognize that military life bears no comparison to any other employment. Accordingly, suitable compensation and enhanced emoluments are built-in while fixing the pay and allowances of the military. Table I shows details of special provisions made for the defence forces by a cross-section of countries the world over. The defence forces had projected the need for an ‘X’ Factor, on the lines of the UK military, for their pay and allowance in earlier pay commissions, but it was not considered. It is hoped that this lacuna will be set right in the recommendations of the sixth pay commission. The defence forces are believed to have projected it as ‘military service pay’. This is the second important issue that needs to be understood; an elaboration is being attempted in the succeeding paragraphs.

The defence forces are unique as they view service in the different wings of the military as a commitment, not a job. They are also aware that they are the last bastion of hope and hence have neither the liberty nor the luxury to fail. Whether in peace stations or in field areas, a soldier is ready twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. There are no defined working hours for them. In addition, they are the only citizens of the nation who have restrictions on their fundamental rights.

Two other aspects need to be highlighted here. Firstly, the defence forces are constantly and continuously exposed to hazardous situations and there is always a threat to their lives and limbs. On an average, the number of army personnel killed in active operations is nearly 415 annually; a very high figure indeed, when there is no war being waged. Secondly, throughout their careers, they have to maintain stringent physical standards. This is as much applicable to a jawan as to those holding the highest ranks in the service. On account of the stringent physical standards the services demand, a large number of personnel are invalidated out on medical grounds; the average is over 5000 personnel every year. Here again, there are no comparisons with any other service, including the central police forces.

There are many drawbacks in family related and professional aspects as well. Military personnel have regular transfers and consequently frequent dislocations to family life, children’s education, as well as additional expenditure. Over half the service of defence personnel, particularly those from the army, is spent in field areas, where families are not permitted, resulting in long separation of soldiers and officers from their wives, children, parents and other kin. Even in peace stations, family life is disrupted on account of lack of married accommodation. Statistically, the average separations endured during their army careers work out to nearly 78% for jawans and nearly 68% for officers. Another way of putting it is that army personnel suffer separation of nearly 18 years in a career span of 24 years. An extremely turbulent life by any standards! It is a miracle that our officers and soldiers, as well as their families ‘soldier on’ regardless. What is worse is that there is no monetary compensation for this dismal quality of life.

The impact of separation, non-participation in social and family events and inadequate upbringing of children in their formative years, leading to psychological problems, hardly needs any elaboration. Well documented data relating to stress caused by separation and a low quality of life makes startling reading indeed.The Indian Army has heavy commitments in counter insurgency and counter terrorism operations. Average length of service of soldiers in such operations amounts to 10.87 years, when compared to soldiers of most Western nations, where it is not more than one year. Even those who volunteer for additional duties in some western countries, do so for a maximum of two to three years throughout their career.

A look at how military personnel meet their personal responsibilities is revealing. Although personal responsibilities of both military and civilian personnel are similar, but unlike the civilians, the bulk of military personnel have to retire when their responsibilities relating to their children, as well as aging parents are at their peak. Our PBOR generally retire between the ages of 35 and 40 years and the bulk of officers around 50 years of age, while their civilian counterparts continue to serve, get extra emoluments and promotions and retire at the age of 60 years. Thereafter, because of their longer service, they also earn higher pensionary benefits. Thus, defence forces personnel lose out both in pay as well as pension.

Let us briefly focus on the career prospects of defence personnel. All defence personnel undergo a most rigorous selection process, in an organisation that is so pyramidal that large numbers keep falling out at every rank. The reason is not that they are professionally inadequate, or are found wanting in personal qualities, but because of the acutely declining number of vacancies as they progress in their careers. The result, for a very large number of personnel is bleak in career prospects.

The pyramidal structure of the army can be gauged from Table II. From a total cadre of 46,615 officers, only 4239 make it to the rank of colonel, i.e., a mere 10 per cent. For the next rank, only 20 per cent are selected. Thereafter too, the attrition rate is extremely high. Out of a total of 866 brigadiers, as many as 650 are weeded out. Such statistics bear no comparison to persons serving is any other service, government or private. This state of affairs continues at each successive rank, till only one out of 67 lieutenant generals attains the rank of General. Need one convert it into a percentage!?!

AUTHORISED RANKS - ARMY
General- 1
Lieutenant General- 67
Major General- 216
Brigadier- 866
Colonel- 4239
Lt Col and below- 41226
Total- 46615
TABLE II


The acute pyramidal structure is best highlighted at Table III, wherein 90.32 per cent of officers are of the rank of lieutenant colonel and below. All higher ranks thereafter keep reducing drastically as one goes up the so called ‘ladder of success’. The lot of PBOR is similar, as can also be seen in the same Table. Although comparisons are said to be odious, the fact remains that when compared to most all India services, the numbers and percentages of defence forces personnel are ridiculously low at the senior ranks. This is also graphically illustrated at Table III.

Recent trends like stress; reduced life expectancy; suicides, desertions and soldiers running amok; fragging and indiscipline; weakening of the moral fibre and vastly increased numbers applying for pre-mature discharge are highly disquietening and the portents are fairly dismal, unless corrective steps are taken at the earliest. Many uninformed persons cite minuscule advantages of service in the defence forces, like canteen facilities, railway concessions while going on leave, rations, enhanced leave, in-house welfare measures, amenities, etc, to argue that the defence forces are well looked after. However, can these even in one’s wildest imagination, substitute for threat to life and limbs, truncated careers, long periods of separation from families, frequent transfers & dislocations, bleak career prospects, curtailment of fundamental rights, unlimited working hours, stringent physical requirements, exposure to hazardous situations and even a reserve liability of 2 to 5 years after retirement. It can thus be seen that the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

It is understood that the projections of the defence forces to the Sixth Pay Commission are in two broad areas. Firstly, the defence forces have bid for approximately a five fold increase in emoluments from the pay and allowances they were sanctioned after the fifth pay commission award. It is an extremely conservative projection, as it is unlikely to meet the aspirations of those wanting to adopt the military as a career. Anyway, as the pay commission is mandated to ensure some kind of parity between the various categories of employees, the defence forces will probably get similar pay and allowances as the others. This may be five, six or even ten times what was sanctioned at the end of the fifth pay commission recommendations, depending on the projections of the other categories of central government employees and the analysis of the commission.

In earlier pay commissions, the defence forces were always the losers as their pay and allowances were decided after first artificially equating them with ranks in the police and the administrative services. Such equations resulted in equating a colonel having 18-20 years service with a superintendent of police or a deputy commissioner of a district, both of whom had less than eight years service, if that. The services must not fall in this bureaucratic trap again. Firstly, the military must not be equated with any other category, as their conditions of service are unique and secondly, if at all an equation is mandatory, then it must be in accordance with the length of service and no other criteria. What is important for all ranks of the defence forces, however, is the second major re-commendation, viz. the one related to military service pay. This must be sanctioned over and above the other increase and this must be substantial.

The two aspects discussed above, relating to the governments insistence on ‘relativities’ and the dire need to compensate the defence forces for their low quality of life, their bleak career prospects and the constant and ever-present danger to their life and limbs are the most important issues, which need the attention of both the government and the sixth pay commission

The pay commission needs to look beyond emoluments too, especially suggesting measures for ameliorating the massive shortage of officers in the army; the inadequacy of the defence budget, which continues to hover at the lowly level of 2.0 to 2.5 per cent of the GDP, which is barely enough to meet revenue expenditure, with little left for modernization of forces; the dire need for enhanced levels of jointmanship, including the appointment of a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS); lateral induction of defence personnel to para military and central police organizations (CPO’s); an assured second career for all ranks, as they retire at such young ages; enhanced pensionary benefits to compensate for early retirements and measures for reducing the extremely steep pyramid-like structure of the officers cadre, which results in weeding out of highly talented officers of the three services, for want of sufficient vacancies and avenues for promotion.
The time for platitudes, assurances and homilies is now over. The pay commission and the government need to seriously address the inadequate compensation being paid to the soldiers and officers of the defence forces. Military service pay is an essential component of this compensation. It must be paid and it must be paid generously. The nation cannot hope to have a first class military, if it is paid shabbily and compensated inadequately.

Vijay Oberoi
Lt Gen (Retd)

Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi, PVSM, AVSM, VSM was former Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS).
December 4th, 2007.
Indian Defence Review Issue: Vol 22.4
Reproduced: http://www.indiandefencereview.com/?p=136#more-136