Author: Inder Malhotra
Publication: The Asian Age
Date: October 7, 2008
URL: http://www.asianage.com/presentation/leftnavigation/opinion/opinion/how-not-to-deal-with-defence-services.aspx
Mercifully, The ugly imbroglio over the armed
forces' grievances about salaries and status of their officers and men, following
the release of the Sixth Pay Commission report, has been resolved at the 11th
hour. But the respite is for the time being only, as much would depend on
what the three-man ministerial committee decides before the end of October.
However, the painful and avoidable episode has underscored the insensitivity
with which the government treats the defenders of our freedom and frontiers.
The other side of the coin is that in the present case, the three service
chiefs - headed by the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, Admiral
Sureesh Mehta - did cross the Lakshman Rekha of discipline that Indian military
usually respects.
It was perfectly legitimate for Admiral Mehta,
General Deepak Kapoor and Air Chief Marshal Homi Major to take a firm stand
in defence of their demand for removal of grave anomalies in the Pay Commission's
recommendations, which had been endorsed by the Union Cabinet. They were also
right to forcefully present their view to the government through defence minister
A.K. Antony. But the letter that the Army Chief wrote to the jawans, and the
unclassified signal that the Navy Chief issued to all ranks - assuring them
that in refusing to implement the directive on pay they were watchful of the
interests of other ranks - were uncalled for and unacceptable.
The defence minister rightly drove this point
home to the three chiefs. Public statements emanating from them after the
"compromise" indicate that Mr Antony's plain speaking had the desired
effect. Civilian control on military is one of the foundations of the Indian
democratic system. There cannot be any compromise on this. Jawaharlal Nehru
had asserted this most emphatically way back in 1959 in the midst of an embarrassing
and complex incident. General K.S. Thimayya, arguably the most popular Army
Chief this country has had, had resigned in protest against the arrogant behaviour
of Krishna Menon, the brilliant but waspish defence minister and a friend
of Nehru's. The Prime Minister had persuaded Thimayya to withdraw his resignation.
During a parliamentary debate, that coincided with the stopover in Delhi of
Pakistan's first military dictator Ayub Khan, there was trenchant criticism
of Menon and great support for Thimayya. That was when Nehru thundered about
the doctrine of civilian control over the armed forces. He also said that
while he liked and respected Thimayya, he "could not congratulate the
general on the manner in which he has acted".
For their part, military leaders over the
decades have been complaining that the perfectly unexceptionable principle
of civilian control has been converted in this country into "civil servants'
control". The grouse is both right and wrong. Right because the services'
headquarters get brusque directives only from the IAS officers manning the
ministry of defence (MoD), and wrong because military leaders ought to know
that no bureaucrat can dare issue an order that does not have the backing
of his political master. The tragedy with the Indian political class is that
it is not just insensitive to the needs and feelings of our uniformed forces
but also ignorant of them. One reason for this may be that, barring some honourable
exceptions, politicians here have never served in the armed forces nor do
they let their children do so.
It is a measure of this indifference that
in the six Pay Commissions appointed so far, there has never been a single
military officer, serving or retired. Worse, the committee formed to look
into the military's dissatisfaction and demands after the latest commission's
report, consists of four IAS secretaries. It never occurred to the United
Progressive Alliance government to include a senior military officer.
In most mature democracies, not only are the
salaries and perks of military and civilian officers decided separately, but
there is also a permanent pay commission for the armed forces. No wonder an
SMS doing the rounds in Delhi says: "The winner of an Olympic gold has
been given crores of rupees. Even the winners of bronze have got tens of lakhs.
But the reward for the soldier laying down his life for the country is Rs
15 lakh".
Strangely, there is little realisation of
the high risk, harsh working conditions - from the Siachen Glacier to the
burning deserts of Rajasthan - and long separation from families that military
personnel, especially Army men, have to face even in peacetime. Counter-insurgency
operations have taken a larger toll than the casualties in the all the wars
India has fought.
It is in this context that military men across
the country have been seething with discontent, even anger, ever since the
government put its stamp of approval on the biased recommendations of the
four IAS officers. No fair-minded person can deny that the military's complaints
are justified. Isn't it ridiculous that lieutenant generals, who work as Army
Commanders or Corps Commanders or Principal Staff Officers, should be made
junior to director general of police (DGPs) in the states, as well as to officers
of paramilitary organisations, including the Coast Guards. Already there have
been incidents in which higher-paid paramilitary officers have felt emboldened
to tell their commanders in the Army or the Navy to "go take a walk".
For the Indian Army, izzat has always taken precedence over pay.
However, in all fairness, the Army and the
other two services must accept their share of blame for the situation in which
a brigadier, with 30 years of service, has to report to a civilian director
in the MoD with only 13 years of service, and so on. While full allowance
has been made for the pyramidal structure of the armed forces and fewer avenues
of promotion, why can't the defence services accelerate promotions in their
ranks? A thorough restructuring of all three services is long overdue. Let
the government appoint what the Americans call a "blue ribbon commission"
for this purpose.
