Feel free to contribute on burning issues concerning the armed forces. Contributions would be acknowledged - Use the 'Comments' tab or email navdeepsingh.india[at]gmail.com. No operational/business/commercial matters to be discussed please. Legal advice/litigation related issues would strictly NOT be published or discussed or entertained. Information on this blog is opinion based and is neither official nor in the form of an advice. This is a pro bono online journal in public service related to issues, policies and benefits, and the idea behind it is to educate and not to create controversy or to incite. Be soft in your language, respect Copyrights.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

In defence of the IAS. Well, sort of !!

-

"What distortion could you let your pen forget today? What misfortune left your heart so broken you only say Words intended to belittle or dismay? What if I say you lie?" : Prince, in Billy Jack B from 'The Gold Experience' (1996)

Oft you may have seen and heard serving and retired personnel lamenting that the IAS lobby is responsible for bringing down the status and dignity of the military and that the same is singularly responsible for the Pay Com fiasco.

I beg to differ.

In my humble opinion, it is those innocuous looking notes and file notings and recommendations and clerical remarks by the lower echelons of bureaucracy which ultimately wreck havoc upon reaching their respective destinations. It is the army of desk officers, section officers, under and deputy secretaries who do not want the status of the military to be enhanced since they would not like to let go of the self-propagated control wielded by them. The problem is that once a proposal is mooted or moved by the forces, before it reaches the decision makers it has to go through a sieve of secretarial staff, who with their limited outlook and expertise in nuisance value, place their veiled comments in such a nasty manner that the thinking process of the decision makers gets clouded. It is not the IAS or the political executive which is to blame, the malaise derives its origin from much lower places.

In law, there is a concept called ‘opportunity of hearing’ and ‘Audi Alterm Partem' which in plain parlance means ‘nobody can be condemned unheard’. Now this is what is lacking in our system when it comes to the military. Whenever any proposal is forwarded to the decision makers (for example, the GoM and MoF in the case of 6th CPC), it goes through a labyrinth of lower bureaucracy the comments and notings of whom the forces are not privy to. Such unilateral comments are taken as gospel truth by the powers that be without giving any opportunity of clarification to the forces and eventually resulting in adverse and sometimes perverse decisions based on incorrect feedback & analysis of a particular situation. The IAS lobby does not give a damn if the status of the military is enhanced or maintained, come to think about it, it does not matter to them, but my friends it does matter to the Central Secretariat Service (CSS), AFHQCS, IDAS, IDAS et al.

When the four core anomalies (Placing of Lt Colonels in PB-4 / Placing of Lt Gens in HAG+ / Uniform Grade Pay / Enhancement of Pension of PBOR) were forwarded to the highest of political executive and earlier to the Committee of Secretaries, the proposals of the forces were reportedly unfortunately saddled with notes (‘analysis’) by old hands at the MoD and some of these may have been blatantly incorrect to say the least. It is common knowledge that certain notes having no official basis may have been placed on files dealing with the 6th CPC, some examples :

While admitting that rank pay was carved out of basic pay, it was reportedly noted on the file forwarded by certain officials at MoD that ‘a view was later taken by the Ministry that rank pay was not a part of basic pay’. Now it fails common sense as to how can a junior official sitting in the ministry take a ‘view’ on something recommended by the 4th and 5th CPCs and approved by the Cabinet. Elsewhere the same officials have reportedly also stated in writing that ‘rank pay is not a part of basic pay’, of course paragraphs of SAI 2/S/87 or 2/S/98 notified by the MoD which say that ‘rank pay is a part of basic pay’ were not in all probability referred to in the ibid note. The same officials also reportedly made a categorical statement that the pay of a Lt Col had been equated with the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) since the 3rd CPC. Of course it was not mentioned that the pay scale of a Lt Col (1750-1950) was higher than even the civil Selection Grade of Rs 1650-1800 which is now in Pay Band-4. It was also not mentioned that the erstwhile rank of Major (Selection Grade) with a scale of 1550-1900 was also akin to the civil Selection Grade. An example of what certain people would like the status of military to be is reflected from the following comment on the official 6th CPC portal by AFHQ ISOs organization :-

“To compensate their risky and strenuous assignment they should be granted Combatant Allowance. In this way we can ensure, first, equity of pay and, secondly, avoid clash of equivalence with civilian posts which is rampant these days. The pay of a Lieutenant should be at par with civilian equivalent i.e. Section Officer, in the new grade.”

Imaginary equivalence at work again. Needless to say, a Section Officer has been equated with a JCO by even the 6th CPC. Erstwhile Civilian Staff Officers (CSOs) in the Services Headquarters have also been re-designated as Section Officers.


My point is that the issues concerning the forces should not suffer merely because they (the forces) have no control over unilateral comments noted on minute sheets by others who are hell bent on exercising control even in spheres which should remain inert from such control. Now there is no mechanism in place where the forces could have enlightened the powers that be about the incorrectness of the above mentioned observations. Had that happened, the situation may have been entirely different than today. Now where does the role of IAS come into play ? The IAS lobby and the senior bureaucracy have to share the limited blame of not applying proper mind to notes originating from below. In India, power is directly linked to nuisance value and people try to derive such power through ego brownie points and creating hurdles in public life. It is not just in bureaucratic circles that such tendencies exist, such things happen closer at home too. To take a military example, I’m sure serving officers may have experienced situations wherein proposals sent by senior officers on various issues to Record Offices are scuttled by junior military staff by intelligently worded notes or how most of us must have experienced Head Clerks misguiding COs. IAS officers face the same problems in DoPT, IPS officers face the same in MHA. Officers, whether civilian or military, have a bounden duty to apply mind to notes and recommendations coming from below, that is why they are that – ‘recommendations’. These are not binding and one must not blink an eye while disagreeing with such ‘recommendations’ or overruling them with proper logic and that my friends is what distinguishes officers from officials whether the backdrop is civil or military.

-

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir

The role of subordinate personnel in briefing superiors may be to a certain extent correct, but that in itself, does not stop the competent authorities, in weighing matters in the right perspective and arrive at correct and effective decision

This happens virtually in every organisation and in every country, and that does not mean that sound and good decision making are not taken by the competent authorities

Naach Na Ayya Aangan Tedda

The issues brought out are in no way reasons for bad decision making at any level

I am afraid if decision making was such a difficult task and can be influenced by lower echelon personnel, as is being highlighted now, then something is drastically wrong with the top brass in every cadre, whether it is IAS,IPS, IFS,armed Forces etc

I don't buy the views expressed in the editorial, as these are much aainst the principles of effective management or decision making process in any organisation including the Services

Just because certain decisions are un-palatable to many, hence to conclude that something is wrong at the bottom of hierarchy is totally wrong

I have made these observations purely as a management student without taking sides for any cadre

Thanks

Anonymous said...

@Anony - 5.49

Anony, probaby you have not read the whole post.

That is what the whole post is saying that the decision makers have to apply their mind and see that the lower level people do not mislead them.

Exactly what you say in your comment is said in the post.

Disagreeing for the sake of it, are you ?

rgkadam said...

thanks

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir 6.02

The undercurrent of the whole issue is no doubt that certain unpalatable decisions were taken in the 6th CPC

In all probability reasons that lead to such or similiar decisions have been highted in the editorial

My point is that there could be have been many such reasons, but the competent authorities cannot absolve themselves of the actions of commissions and omissions commited by them.

The editorial appeared to be in a subtle way informing that all was not wrong with the Top Brass, excepting that the blunders were on account of the lower echelons not properly advising the Top Brass.

The editorial's line of argument appeared to be soft pedalling with the Top Brass,and conveying a message that the Top Brass, actually, did not commit any mistakes, but took decisions, based only on the advise given by the lower echelons.

I simply said that I do not buy this argument, as I felt that the Top Brass, took all decisions and actions deliberately and not merely, on advise from subordinate personnel

I do not derive any morbid pleasure in disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

I just wanted to share my views as such an option existed

Sorry if I have put you into any inconvenience.

Thanks

rgkadam said...

Dear Sir,
Armed Forces are generally aware about issues and the discrepancies introduced therein. A clear cut fact finding folder bringing out the factual positions based on official decisions ( cabinet decisions, various pay commissions, etc ) on the left hand side and the so called percepted positions (lied positions ) by the civilian staff at MoD on the right hand side should be brought out clearly to the notice of not only the so called final decision makers but also in the public domain.
Its high time, that these self serving people are exposed as they are responsible for many a catastropic decisions most of the time in the past also. This callous attitude on the part of civilian staff will definitely cost the country dearly one day if not checked atleast now.

Anonymous said...

In the instant case, IAS,COS and
Expenditure Secy have no defence
whatsoever because 3 of the 4 anomalies were introduced by them
against the recommendations of the
pay commission without consulting
Services.In fact the lapse is so
serious that a judicial inquiry is needed .What is more worrisome is that this country is being run by
ppl lacking basic intellingence and common sense.


being run by ppl lacking even basic intelligence and common sense.

Anonymous said...

anony at 7.37PM

'because 3 of the 4 anomalies were introduced by them
against the recommendations of the
pay commission without consulting
Services'

Abolve is exactly what navdeep is saying.
Services are not privy to what goes on the files dealing with their proposals. They at least should be given an opportunity to defend and comment on what goes on behind the scenes. When they are not there to defend themselves, civilian staff has a free run.

rgkadam said...

@ anonymous November 19, 2008 5:49 PM
Its not a question of un-palatable or agreeable.
After your management graduation most probably you will not be a aspiring candidate for a government job. Fortunately, you will not have a misfortune of witnessing first hand, the actual functioning and decision making in the ministries. Just to give you an example, the chief secretary of Maharashtra ( supposed to be one of the better administered state ) is heading 1026 committees instituted by the state government. Do you think, it is humanly possible even for an efficient, effective and highly intelligent IAS officer who has reached to a level of chief secretary to take informed and wise decision, after verifying all the facts put up to him for their correctness. Have a heart ( before suffering a heart attack ).
Never even venture to enter any ministry if you want remain ignorant about functioning of our government(s). Ignorance is blessing.

rgkadam said...

anonymous November 19, 2008 7:18 PM
Dear friend, one has to be pragmatic in his/her approach towards problem solving in the real world. That too in a country like India, where no one has to spell out the high headedness of bureaucracy and insensitivity and handedness of police forces. Donot worry, you will learn about negotiation tactics ( which is an important trait for any successful manager )in your class room lectures as well as mock up exercises.
Donot forget, so called editor of this blog is a eminent lawyer of Punjab and Haryana High Court and These sort of tactical and strategic arguments are part of his daily profession.
Well, one learns these traits in classroom but, necessarily requires to sharpens them with experience. Good Luck and Good Bye.

Anonymous said...

Oh! So it is now not this pusillanimous govt or cabinet but a band of lowly clerks that have degraded commissioned officers, is it?!
What balderdash!

Anonymous said...

Well said Navdeep, the people at lower echelons are there because thier understanding is limited to facts and directions given in the files. Where ever they tend to be judgemental, that is the time the officer worth his/her salt will step into and give a solution which no lesser mortal can give. By the way the mlaise is not only in Civil;Are we certain the notings on files being put upto our chiefs are not biased or incorrect? Don't we always show greener side to visiting dignitaries, even if it is at the cost of cutting OTHER side's grass?

Anonymous said...

No dilution on demands concerning Armed Forces says officers

New Delhi, Nov 18: With a ministerial committee set up to resolve the four pay commission issues delaying a decision, the Armed Forces have strongly conveyed to the government that there should be "no dilution" on their demands concerning their officers and jawans.

"We have re-conveyed to the government that there should be no dilution as far as the four core issues are concerned relating to the Sixth Pay Commission notification issued in August this year," Armed Forces officers told reporters today.

The assertion comes in the wake of reports that the government was trying to find a "middle path" to break the deadlock over the armed forces' demands that included placing Army Lieutenant Colonels and their equivalents in the Navy and Air Force in Pay Band-4.

The government had a fortnight ago sent a top-ranking officers to the Armed Forces headquarters for talks to assess if the three Services would accept a "compromise formula" to resolve the four issues when this strong sentiment was conveyed to the government.

The other three demands from the Armed Forces included parity of Grade Pay to officers from Captains to Brigadiers with that of their civilian counterparts, placing Lieutenant Generals and their equivalents in Higher Administrative Grade Plus pay band and restoring the 70 percent pensionary weightage for jawans.

It is learned that the government was considering a "middle path" under which it would accept the Armed Forces' demand relating to Lieutenant Colonels.

But, instead of placing them in Pay Band-4 scales after 13 years of service when they actually picked up the Lieutenant Colonel rank, these officers would be placed in the Pay Band two years after getting the rank (after 15 years of service).

That would translate into Lieutenant Colonels remaining in Pay Band-3, as recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission, for two years after picking up the rank and achieving parity with their civilian counterparts later in their service (after 15 years) when they would be placed in Pay Band-4.

"This is not acceptable to the armed forces. The Ajai Vikram Singh Committee Phase-I on cadre restructuring implemented in 2004 has already fixed that Majors pick up their Lt Col rank after 13 years of service. Now, by introducing this clause in the Pay Commission, the bureaucrats were actually trying to dilute what AVS Committee had already granted," officers said.

They also lamented that in the month-and-a-half since the government set up the ministerial committee under External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee to consider their grievances, the delay was leading to counter demands from the paramilitary forces.

Also, the delay led to some sections of the bureaucracy introducing seven new anomalies in the pay commission through the services instructions issued by the Defence Ministry on the pay commission notification, they said.

They pointed out that the Defence Ministry bureaucrats had arbitrarily introduced amendments in Draft Government Letter on the pay commission and issued the special instructions governing the armed forces' pay on October 20 under which the 'military service pay' and 'rank pay' were re-defined, subverting the purpose for which it was recommended in the first place.

"The changes in the definition and meaning of key pay commission recommendations have been done on the sly to deal a blow to the armed forces' morale and to deny them their due," the Services headquarters informed the government.

Officers said the subversion of the definition of rank pay would mean the armed forces officers would take home less pay than what was intended to by the hikes provided in the pay commission notification.

The Services have pointed out that since the 4th pay commission, the rank pay was calculated as part of the basic pay of the armed forces personnel.

"This government policy provided the personnel a higher house rent, travel and dearness allowances. However, by re-defining the rank pay and de-linking it from the basic pay, the bureaucrats have ensured that the armed forces personnel take home less amount as allowances," sources claimed.

The military service pay (MSP), introduced by the 6th pay commission for the first time, was meant to be a "compensation for difficulties specific to military life".

However, the Defence Ministry instructions, referred to it as a "hardship allowance" to security forces in forward areas.

The Services have questioned the rationale behind this re-defining of the MSP, wondering if it was meant to be provided to other security forces too working in counter-insurgency areas.

One other issue brought out was fixing basic pay for Colonels and Brigadiers at scales lower than what was awarded by the 6th pay commission.

The basic pay fixation for Colonels and Brigadiers was to be done under S-25 pay scales. Under the new Defence Ministry instructions, the two sets of officers would be provided only S-24 pay scales.

Bureau Report

danny said...

dear sir,

your efforts in discovering the dark pahses of decision making process in the government (MoD) are indeed praiseworthy, novel and innovative.

Any proposal mooted by the services goes to MoD for processing. After that there is a DARK HOLE where the initiatior of the proposal is unaware of the proceedings and is totally out of the decision making loop. The initiator is generally given the decision which in NOT A SPEAKING ORDER( a speaking order weighs pros and cons and gives reasons for the decision) and is therefore becomes fate accomplie.

Why the proposal has not been accepted or why it has been ammended is, in most cases, not known to the initiator. Only in some exceptional cases, where the decision making mechanism is not having even basic knowledge on the issue and the decision does not even remotely effect the interesrts of anyone in the decision making loop, it comes back for clarifications, to the initiator of the proposal.

The bottom line is that why a proposal has not been accepted is not told to Services. It is, in my opinion, only to hold, retain and and make an unjust decision prevail . This type of working within the government can not be justified.

Should the letter and spirit of RTI not be applicable even within the government, specially between MoD and Service HQs?

The question is what should, then be done?

In my humble opinion the proposal(file) after its processing by all the experts in Ministry should come back to the initiator for his comments before the decision maker finally decides the issue. This will ensure that all comments, facts and the logic by the initiator as well as the expert advisors in the ministry get to see the other side of the coin. Also the FACTS, LOGIC AND CONTENTIONS BY ALL THE PARTIES is seen and commented upon/exposed by the other party to the decision.

This is how the most respectable profession in civil i.e. the judiciary works.

Anonymous said...

Oh thats great!!! Till now we have been defending our backside beside fighting the outer and inner enemy. Now we have to save the IAS from their smaller Babus. Where will it end. The plot is getting thicker. But who said the soldiers are the heros. We are the ultimate suckers.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 9.52 PM

The write up brings up a much larger issue than just degradation of officers. All of us working here completely agree with what has been written in a totally unbiased manner. It is undisputably lower staff which misleads IAS officers and even army officers sitting in important positions. Mr Anonymous, do you know how SCSOs had self assumed an equation equal to Lt Col/Col in the MOD and how Directors of AFHQ Cadre had self designated themselves as DDGs claiming equivalence to Brigs when they were in reality equal to Lt Cols ?
This is what this Group B JCO equal army of babus can do.

I agree with every word said in the post. Thank you navdeep sir

Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh said...

Danny @ 10:12 PM

I concur.
In fact, if a man on the street has the power of RTI and can access any file of the govt, why should the same right be denied to uniformed officers and that too on decisions directly affecting them ?

Or perhaps we should now ask serving officers of the military to pay Rs 10/- as RTI fee and inspect notings recorded on every file moved by them :-)

It is time for the system to change for the better.

Anonymous said...

My God!! Then these junior babus are great. If they can fool the Army top brass( any way anybody can do that) and can even fool the Senior IAS people, then I fully believe that they desreve the high order of precedence that they have been trying to attain and project. NOOOO????

Anonymous said...

Anonymus at 10:18
Dear sir, Its apparent that THEY are working right under your nose and you couldn't do any thing when they proclaimed their unfair equivalence to Lt Cols and Brigs. Who are you blaming? Them or Your lack of action? Or should I say lack of knowledge which makes you so dependant on them that you accept their non sense with a smile !!!! Reassess your blame please.

Anonymous said...

Dear Navdeep,

The defence provided by you is simply uncorking simplistic and unbelievable...against the history and known facts and behaviour of IAS...

Tirkey is not a Koot to have signed the SAI nor Sushma Nath is a paragon of IAS virtues..weded into IPS.. and NoT to an Under secy...

Some IAS speaking to you nicely has no meaning...they are as dangerous as snakes...as poisoniuos as Cobras..

In MoD they are instigators and it is because of them that all cadres ill treat and misbehave even on files with the services HQ...

It is a long and sad story narrated by so many...they all could not have been baised and wrong...including thousands of Foreign writters and commentetors..

On this account you are one thousand per cent wrong...

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous with the last comment.

You have no right to proclaim anybody as being 100% wrong. Navdeep has his own opinion and you are entitled to yours.
How can you be so black and white ? I have worked in mixed organisations and I personally known that what he has said is correct. Senior bureaucrats or for that matter senior military officers have no time to go into nitty gritties and they tend to overtrust their junior staff.

Regarding your comment on IAS officers being cobras and snakes, my dear sir, the same argument must also be prevalent in the services. In the IAF, Gd duty officers must be having the same opinion about flying branch, in the Army SL / RCOs/SCOs must be thinking the same about direct entry officers, in the MES the civil staff must be thinking the same about combatised staff. The list continues.

In fact navdeep is not being simplistic he has given a very practical and true example, it is you who is being simplistic by calling names such as cobras and poisonous snakes. Believe me, even snakes and reptiles are not bad, depends on how you look at it. Maybe Maneka Gandhi would be able to tell you more. Your post and previous ones speak of an unimaginable bias against a well written truthful article on this blog.

Anonymous said...

I fully agree with Maj Navdeep that senior officers are too dependent on these lower staff. The problem atleast at AFHQ is that these babus are a permanant commodity and the officers are there for only a short tenure of 2-3 yrs. As one comes on posting to delhi, first priorities are house, child education and so on. With no overlap provided, the incumbant has no choice but to depend wholly on that cunning babu, who has seen MANY officers come and go. We must change the posting policy at AFHQ. There needs to be a permanant set of officers and JCOs trained to handle HQ jobs with limited rotation to field after every 5-7 yrs. I think thats how we can get rid of their dominance over Lt Cols/Wg Cdrs/Cdrs.

Anonymous said...

it seems the mighty IAS lobby has been able to influence Maj Navdeep
do'nt forget they put a minister also in jail. it is just an excuse to pass the blame on junior officers.
the govt and ias is sure shot that no fullfedged war is possible now so army can be dispensed with that is why none is bothered about defence forces. that is the reason three chiefs are shunting at one station for the last 50 days due to just a finance sec.
this is the regard given by this country to three chiefs. pranab mukherjii not even speaking to them directly and now Navdeep is giving an writeup to defend IAS lobby.

Navdeep / Maj Navdeep Singh said...

Anonymous @ 8.52

Unfortunately or fortunately, neither the military nor the IAS lobby can influence me.

I try my best to remain objective in my comments but you have a right to your opinion of course.

This post is not a defence for the IAS lobby and the rider to the heading says it all. Till the time you are able to actually identify those creating mischief, you would not be able to effectively tackle their nuisance. Grope in the dark if you must.

Anonymous said...

@ Navdeep. A good write up. But next the junior officer will now cook up a story that it is the clerks who are the real villians and the next will be the peons. Who ever is creating mischief is immaterial ;the issue is who is putting the final signature. Can a general put his signature on an oprational order and then put the blame on the staff officer or worst the clerk. If the IAS is benign it is very heartening but if it is so incompetent that it permits itself to be led up the garden path on issues of National Security by minions we are in for more problems. I beg to disagree with your opinion that the IAS can be absolved of the wrong doing ; the evidence is overwhelming which an advocate could not have missed. Warm regards. Keep up the good work. yours is one of the best and most balanced blogs and I can imagine how much work would be going in to this.

Anonymous said...

@NAVADEEP,
iT IS THE basic and primary duty of officers at higher ehlons to satisfy themselves before taking any policy decisions. present attitude of officers at the top is , if every thing goes well it is because of them.IF any thing goes wrong then blame the subordinates. CAN ANY OF THE COS MEMBERS KNOW HOW TO FIX THEIR OWN PAY AS PER 6TH PAY COMMISSION AND CALUCULATE THIR ARREARS, NONE KNOW IT . THIS IAM SAYING AUTHENTICALLY.BUT THEY HAVE DECIDED THE PAY SCALES OF MILLIONS OF EMPLOYEES.SEE THE MESS CEAREATD IN RANK PAY AND NPA.BOTH ARE PART OF BASIC FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES,FOR CALUCULATION OF DA ,HRA ,PENSION,TA AND OTHERS .BUT WHILE FIXING PAY AS PER 6TH PAY COMMISSION RANK PAY AND NPA HAS NOT BE TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION.AND LOSER IS AGIAN GOING TO BE OFFICERS OF THE RANK OF LT.COL AND BELOW .IAS LOBBY CANT ESCAPE .

Lt Col R S Dasila(Retd) said...

Major Navdeep,
To some extend I share with your views but that cannot be an excuse for senior officers up the chain and political leadership who are making decision. The basic fundamental of arriving at any decision is, bear in mind the matter in question, relating inputs provided by the various officials in the chain and most suitable course out of available options. Barely taking the inputs as provided by staff in the chain as gospel truth is incorrect for the decision making authority. In case the inputs are factual then no problem. In case these are otherwise, then I can say with common knowledge that it would be cought by such highly experienced officials/political leadership if they wanted/willing. Therefore, notwithstanding the probable excuse
explained in the article, I am of the opinion that the decision making authority only be held responsible.

For example, feeding wrong input about the rank pay whether or not it form part of basic pay is
the route cause for lower grade pay from Capt to Brig and placing lt col in PB 3. Who should be held responsible for this intentional or otherwise mistake ? Of course,
the member secy of the 6CPC and certainly not the lower staff. With similar analogy, chairman 6CPC also responsible who allowed such mistake at that level to the detriment of Armed Forces. In fact,
GoI should conduct an inquery and whosoever is held responsible should be fixed so that such thing shouldn't repeat in future. Now question is who would tell the Govt at this fag end of its tenure. I could be a parliament question. Its just a food for thought. Environment may like to comment.

Any way Navdeep, good job done and keep it up. Please keep the issue alive till final positive decision taken by the Govt.
Wish u all good luck.
Regards
sincerely
lt col R S Dasila(retd)

Anonymous said...

@Col Dasila

Quoting Col Dasila "The basic fundamental of arriving at any decision is, bear in mind the matter in question, relating inputs provided by the various officials in the chain and most suitable course out of available options. Barely taking the inputs as provided by staff in the chain as gospel truth is incorrect for the decision making authority"

Now see what Navdeep had written :
" Officers, whether civilian or military, have a bounden duty to apply mind to notes and recommendations coming from below, that is why they are that – ‘recommendations’. These are not binding and one must not blink an eye while disagreeing with such ‘recommendations’ or overruling them with proper logic and that my friends is what distinguishes officers from officials whether the backdrop is civil or military"

Exactly what you had said Col Dasila. Then where is the scope for this quote of yours :
"To some extend I share with your views but that cannot be an excuse for senior officers up the chain and political leadership who are making decision. The basic fundamental of arriving at any decision is, bear in mind the matter in question, relating inputs provided by the various officials in the chain and most suitable course out of available options"

??

Anonymous said...

Reputation of three service chiefs is now at stake.

pawan said...

Request to all bloggers sympathetic to the cause of Defence Forces. Please forget parity with CPOs. Defence Officers will always stay at least One/Two years behind CPO Officers as Trg Period is NOT counted against Service. Parity can only be achieved if PB4 for CPOs Officers is granted after 15 years of service and to Defence Officers after 13 years which has a very slim chance.

Anonymous said...

@ Lt.Col.R.S Dasila. Your ".....For example, feeding wrong input about the rank pay whether or not it form part of basic pay is
the route cause for lower grade pay from Capt to Brig and placing lt col in PB 3. Who should be held responsible for this intentional or otherwise mistake ?....."

Not Exactly is that the reason.

The genesis of the current problem of mis placed parity and consequent lower Pay Band and Grade Pays is the asuumption by the Sixth Central Pay Commission that all Short Service Commissioned Officers would be moved to CPOs after 7 yeras of service. And hence a Major of 7 years service should be equated with a Deputy Commandant of CPOs.
All other equations above and below Major have been generated
from this assumption and consequent Pay Fixation( of a Major at 10,000/- of 5th CPC Scale).

Even the lower fixation of PBOR Pension at 50% of Emoluments, rather than at 70% of Max of Scale is also on the assumption that PBORs will not retire but will move to CPO to equivalent grades.

Since it has been assumed that a Major's Pay Scale should start at Rs.10000/- of 5 CPC Scales, the excess of Basic Pay and also the Rank Pay both, have been not considered Basic Pay.

That is the actual beginning of the problem.

Please see Chapters in 3 of 6th CPC Report.

Anonymous said...

recd this from friend thought worth sharing. hats off to you guys

Dear Madame President,

Should I severe the ties that are almost a decade strong?
Should I chew my words and call my decision wrong?
Should I return my trousseau that my mother chose?
Should I turn all the festivities to an affair morose?
Should I go and tell him that I love him no more?
Shattering him again and making his heart sore?
Whose fault is it, dear Madame, that I decide thus?
Would you say that it's personal and I should not fuss?
Nothing, my dear lady, is personal about a soldier's life.
For when has he thought of his mom, dada, kid and wife?
He, whose only call is the Call of Honour, forgets what he was
And becomes what he's forced to be - a number among the Olive Green mass.

He demands nothing and goes about in silence.
Drinking and smoking, when clouds of desolation grow dense.
His mother awaits him and calls up time and again,
He switches off the phone to avoid that voiced pain.
His friends ask him to come (along with two Black Labels)
And see their plush houses and read therein their success' tales.

His wife will wait for months to get some surgery done
As, in that dilapidated SF accn, caring enough she finds none.
She would remember sadly the starry-eyed days
When what attracted her were his gallant ways.
Never did she realize, that foregoing her Doctorate in the UK
All she would get is this battered house, stale ration and his meagre pay.

He was no less, in fact, better than some now white-collared ones.
Only, he thuoght romantically as one of Mother India's sons,
And chose the call letter from IMA, among several others,
And avowed his commitment to his Land and his brothers.
He did push-ups, while his colleagues abroad partied
His cousins wore designer labels, while he a 'combat' dirtied.

He is unlikely to accompany his wife to that family function
Where she goes alone and starts crying from the junction.
'Coz how would she face her friends and cousins and siblings,
Who would judge her attire, and other material things?
She was never a hedonist, but now she feels the pain
And curses the day when he ceased to remain 'sane'.

For what else is this, if not utter insanity?
That he sacrifices his dreams at the altar of countrymens' vanity.
He sleeps in trenches along with his boys,
And yet unable to buy his kids' favourite toys.
His kids are born and brought up in his absence
And he kisses their wallet-ed photos in silence.

For the first time, he demanded a share of what he deserves:
An agonized plea to the heads of the Land he serves.
The petition goes from table to table, round and round
And he stands still, awaiting good, as if spellbound.
Someone, then, accuses him of hedonism and greed
And lists what he gets, and how it surpasses his need.

He feels cheated and in humiliation decides to take the call
To hang his starred uniform, once and for all.
But will he be able to carry through this decision?
After all, it was he who chose a Permanent Commission!
When he decided to join, he overcame all resistance,
But when he decides to quit, he stands a bleak chance.

Why should I, then, be a fool and marry another?
Who, like his band of brothers, will find me a bother!
Why should I let go of my dreams to fuel his self-destructive fire,
When the Nation that he serves will find no time to light his pyre?
Why should I, along with him, bear the burden that others discard,
And sacrifice all I have to be called an 'emotional retard'?

Why should I not confront him and say -
'I don't want to marry you because you can't nay
Whay your senior orders, even if I lay here dying.
I don't want to spend my life waiting for you crying.
I get hurt to see the attitude of the unsympathetic crowd
To ensure whose sleep, your commitment is clear and loud.
They begrudge you, your little pay hike,
This will enable you to buy your coveted bike.
Who weigh you life in an imbalanced scale,
And choose to ignore the path of hardships you trail.'

This is how every young lady, who is in love or betrothed to an Army Officer, is bound to feel in the wake of the uncertainities surrounding the VI Pay Commission. The ladies serve the organization in their own way WITHOUT being on the payrolls. They leave their careers and individuality behind to become a pillar to their men folk. With transfers every two years, forced separations and agonizing civilian apathy, the ladies are forced to limit their horizons. Does it not make sense , then, to shun the Army personnel altogether in the marriage market?
Pardon me for my sarcasm.


Thanking You.

A Soldier's Betrothed

Anonymous said...

@ Anony 7:26,

Must say it was an excellent piece. But days of whining are over madam. we need to take the fight to our enemy. we should not seek sympathy for the job we do, however hard it is and then say because of the hardship pay us more.
No, this approach has been done to death.
We demand to be traeted as just another govt servant. Pls give us what he gets , in the number of years of service. Thats it. If u cant give, then tell that AF are class II services so that the nation knows
and tommorrow, the nation gets the kind of AF it really deserves

Anonymous said...

i hate to tell this but from now on, i will have second thoughts,
whether to sacrifice my life/put my life on line for my countrymen.

hard call to take after all these years.

paritosh vibhu said...

Good job Maj Navdeep!!
Very educative and enlightening.. Wonder whether u r serving in Army. In that case all the more commendable. Keep it up!!

Lt Col Vibhu

Anonymous said...

@lt col vibhu

very bold fauzi you are. i always used to think fauzis are not allowed to express their opinion.
"hath peeche karke bandhe hain aur muhn par patti lagi hai" that's what fauzi is

Anonymous said...

@annonymous 20 nov 9.03

just read this
"all officer below lt col are just like KOOP MANDOOK tell them to come out of the KOOP and find out how they are being illtreated by everybody and then fight for the pb4 then only they may get pb4 else forget that they can get pb4 army officers are just class II officer as declared by this govt"

BUT NOW AFTER READING YOUR COMMENTS
it seems atleast one fauzi has awaken now.

Lt Col(Retd) AM Khan the GRINDER said...

Apropos Vinay Shankar's article 'Neglect of Military Morale' http://gconnect.in/gc/6cpc-matters/neglect-of-military-morale.html#comment-1344

The root of the problem is, as the article rightly points - 'obsessive apolitical attitude of the officer corps'. Things will become on an even keel if the armed forces officers are politicised like the IAS. This pay commission, by a decisive act of reducing the status of armed forces officers, has set into motion some significant changes in the outlook of defence officers which can only result in greater voice for the services in the polity. You may have some bad hats like Purohit, but on the whole it will certainly be good for the armed forces personnel. Already, the initial hatred, sense of being betrayed, and an unbridled anger for the bureaucractic-politician nexus is giving way to the grim realisation that political clout rather than articulating grievances is what will restore their parity with civil services who, to-day, armed with a superior 'nusiance' offer far beneficial alternatives to the Indian political leaders.

Anonymous said...

The Purohit affair
Case for strict monitoring in Army
by Maj-Gen Ashok Mehta (retd)

THE detention of Lt-Col S.P. Purohit by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorist Squad for his alleged links with the Malegaon blasts is an extremely sensitive and serious issue which challenges the very apolitical and secular fabric of the Indian Army. The BBC in its programme “50 Years After the Raj” had described the Army as the last bastion of Indian democracy.

Because this unprecedented incident smacks of anti-national activity and goes against the ethos of the Army, regarded as the number one patriotic institution in the country, the media must handle its reportage with great care and caution, eschewing sensationalism. There should be no trial by the media. Equally, no one in the government or outside should try to politicise the issue during the pre-election debates on who is soft and who is tough on terror as this will be fraught with most serious consequences that can affect the Army, indeed the armed forces. Unfortunately, political mudslinging, reminiscent of the Kargil days, has already started.

Prima facie, in an offence of this nature, which is so unique that it is outside the Army Act but a civil offence, the Army is required to let civilian authority investigate it. Other cases in this category pertain to culpable homicide and rape. For the rest, the Army is the legitimate authority for prosecution and trial under the Army Act.

In the Purohit case, investigation is, therefore, a concurrent responsibility of both civil and military authorities. It is vital that the military’s intelligence and legal branches do not allow the ATS or any other investigating agency to transgress the investigative norms. The civil, police and intelligence record in terrorist acts in the country has seldom gone beyond producing pencil sketches of alleged bombers. Despite the Army’s image being sullied previously with events like Tehelka, the Siachen fake encounters and sundry cases of corruption, it continues to be revered in the country. But helping to make bombs for terrorists is the enemy within.

The Army believes and hopes that this is a freak incident, an aberration. The secular credentials of the Army are intact and being zealously guarded. This is a tradition inherited from the colonial British Army, assiduously nurtured at the time by insulating it from the people by keeping it in cantonments, not even letting Indian Army personnel mix with British soldiers or any foreign armies. Just before Independence, the Army enjoyed high warrant of precedence, high salaries and a key role in decision-making through near-parity with civil services. The historic row between Viceroy Lord Curzon and Commander-in-Chief Field Marshal Kitchener was a turning point in civil-military relations establishing political authority over the military. After Independence, while the military was substantially downgraded in pay and prestige, civil and police services were elevated to curb the political ambitions of the military. The unresolved core issues relating to the Sixth Pay Commission and the Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw’s last rites have further lowered military morale.

Over the last 60 years, witnessing the slow rot in governance, some chinks — one through which Purohit has appeared — may well have developed in the secular ethos of the Army. After Independence the Army has played a key role in nation-building and come into direct contact with the people starting with the North-East in curbing secessionist movements and aiding civilian authority in governance. The buffer of the cantonments was removed long ago as the Army got a ring-side view of the nexus among politicians, the underground forces and the bureaucracy. From single-party rule at the Centre, we have moved to an era of multiparty coalition governments leading to corruption and crisis in governance. A surplus of democracy and deficit of discipline has polarised the country into sectional and communal vote bank politics.

Keeping the Army unaffected by the transformation in the socio-political milieu in the country will not be simple or easy. Military tradition, regimental spirit, training culture, other checks and balances and routine professional practices have maintained and preserved the secular and apolitical mentality, but the environment has got so vitiated that controlling sentiments and emotions of soldiers is no longer a command of discipline. There is a danger of the heart overruling the head. We saw this happen soon after Operation Bluestar when a number of retired Sikh officers were alienated and demotivated.

Times have changed, and so have the routine and life in the military. There is also a generational change in outlook and disposition of soldiers. Nowadays it is difficult to make the youth join the military, which in the case of the Army is rarely the first choice. Persons joining the Army, especially the officer corps, no longer represent the elite or upper middle class. The value system has changed and is changing. Officers and soldiers have political affiliations, are allowed to vote and join political parties after retirement, subscribing to political ideology denied to them while in service. The military has also begun questioning the undue and unfair civilian bureaucratic control, depriving it of a role in decision-making, in shaping the destiny of the country.

The internal security situation has spiralled out of control. Whether or not it is devising an effective response to the Naxalites or countrywide acts of terrorism, not to mention the politically motivated military operations in Assam and the rest of the North-East, the government has been unable to come up with any answer except: “We are not soft on terror.” For soldiers there can be no greater frustration than to see the helplessness and inaction of the government which behaves as if its hands are tied at the back.

These are difficult times for the government and the military. Ordinary citizens are traumatised by terrorist bombings and know that their fate is in God’s hands and not in the hands of those whom they elected to govern. Retired officers are courting arrest and returning medals, unprecedented as a collective act. Colonel Purohit’s alleged actions appear to be the diktat of his conscience but violative of the high military values and tradition, though being eroded by the socio-political environment. They also reflect the signs of the changing times.

The government and political parties have to lay down red-lines in playing politics, insulating the military and national security from partisan politics. Governments also have to be sensitive to the physical and emotional needs of the soldiers. The Purohit affair is a warning for the government that it has a duty towards maintaining internal security and protecting the citizens of the country.

As for the military, what it took for granted in the past requires introspection. There is need for recalibration of secular traditions on the one hand and stricter monitoring and enforcement of codes. It is time to go back to the basics.

Anonymous said...

Lieutenent Colonel Purohit: Hero or extremist?

Imtiaz Jaleel

Thursday, November 20, 2008, (Pune)

Is Lieutenent Colonel Prasad Purohit a talented officer or a radical extremist?
So far the headlines have only has suggested the latter. But his family has now made public details of Purohit's record in his defense.

Commendation Letter from ATS

· Perhaps the most embarrasing for investigators is a letter from the Anti-Terrorism Squad itself. Sent in September 2005, it is signed by K P Raghuvanshi, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police. It commends Purohit for a training programme.

Commendation Letter from 15 Marathas Light Infantry

· A confidential letter from the officiating commanding officer of the 15 Marathas Light Infantry commending his role in a live encounter with infiltrating terrorists along the Line of Control in February 2001.

Commendation Letter from Rashtriya Rifles

· A commendation letter from Rashtriya Rifles in May 2002 for his service during the the visit of the PM to HQ 28 infantry division.

Commendation Letter 68 Mountain Brigade

· A commendation letter from Brig Prakash Menon, headquarters, 68 Mountain Brigade, sent in May 2002 for killing 2 foreign terrorists.

Commendation Letter Station HQ, Deolali

· A commendation letter from Brig A K Garg, Station Commander, Station headquarters Deolali, in October 2002 calling him a dedicated and forthright officer.

Commendation Letter from Nashik Commissioner

· Letter from Himanshu Roy, Commissioner of Police, Nashik in November 2006 for the assistance and cooperation between Nashik Police and military intelligence for over a year and a half.

Lieutenent Colonel Prasad Purohit's wife Aparna Purohit says these medals and letters are evidence of Purohit's dedication to the country. "I am very upset that these politicians are getting involved. I am sure the law will take its course and he will come out clean," she says.

The letters and the medals obviously don't rule out the possibility that Purohit may be involved, but it's the first attempt by the officer's family to defend his record.

Anonymous said...

ndian infantry runs short of Officers

New Delhi—Indian Infantry Officers are undergoing intense pressure and low morale on account of unscheduled duties and over work. Due to the same reason not only there is a tremendous increase in inquiries with regard discipline of officers but suicide cases have increased manifolds.
In the same regard, Indian Ministry of defence has admitted that infantry Battalions in Indian Army have only nine officer posted in each unit despite the authorized strength of 22 officers. In the same regard the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence recorded that Indian Army is short of 12,000 officers, which is almost 25 percent of the authorized strength. The committee recorded that the shortage is mainly in the units as the formation Headquarters run with the full authorization so they are not affected.
The committee further recorded that since each officer eventually ends up doing the work that should have been handled by at least two or three officers, which results in tremendous pressure on officer posted in Infantry units.

Anonymous said...

Pay Commission

by: Lt. Gen. RP Agarwal (Retd), PVSM, VSM

11/17/2008



‘Googling’ for “sixth pay commission” throws up 4,76,000 pages worth of results – an indication of the unprecedented interest and deliberations it has engendered. The media boom and social networking over the internet have ensured that each nuance of the report has been dissected and examined for ramifications. Anomalies that would have hitherto gone unnoticed till much after the implementation were picked up and circulated via mail groups, discussion forums and blogs. The recommendations concerning the Armed Forces have been particularly contentious and to make matters worse, the Committee appointed to resolve the anomalies has, on the contrary, introduced more of the same. While the Group of Ministers constituted for amelioration is expected to address these, it would also be prudent to take this opportunity to examine certain core issues which are the basis of divergence between the military and civilian points of view regarding the status, pay and perks.

Concerns have been voiced about the fact that the forces have been consistently downgraded in status vis a vis civilian counterparts ever since independence. There is no disputing this as the C-in-C of the Army prior to independence was second in the warrant of precedence, after the Viceroy. In fact, his official residence was the Teen Murti Bhawan, which became the Prime Minister’s residence after independence. As on date, the COAS is 12th in the warrant, and the slip is not merely 10 places, considering that most of the 11 slots above him are occupied by scores of people. Correspondingly, the warrant has been adjusted downwards at all levels.

The reason for this slide is not very difficult to perceive. The distinction between the soldier and civil administrator was not so marked prior to independence. The role of the Army, and consequently the position occupied by it, under colonial rule, was vastly different from that in a democracy. Notwithstanding the fact that the Indian Civil Service provided the steel frame of administration as a precursor to the IAS, a large number of civil appointments at district level upwards were held by military officers, or erstwhile military officers. These roles were switched back and forth, and the protocol or inter se status was therefore clearly defined. The fact that badges of rank of police are same as that of the Army is a legacy of this system. Post independence, however, the Army’s role is rightfully restricted to defence of the nation, and the ever widening chasm between it and the civil counterparts has resulted in an erosion of the warrant of precedence.

The issue of career progression vis a vis the civilian counterparts is another cause of frustration within the services. The peculiar nature of service necessitates a pyramidical hierarchy within the forces. For instance, for every general officer added, a suitable organisation / portfolio for him to handle needs to be created within the forces. Considering that the size of the forces is more or less static, this is difficult to implement. In the case of civil services, however, the size of the cadre is not relative to any particular organisation. Apart from promoting officers in situ while they continue to perform the same duties, adequate scope for lateral movement to PSUs, corporations and other organisations is open to them. To that end, comparing the promotional avenues in the forces with other services such as the IAS, IPS or similar cadres amounts to an attempt at comparing two dissimilar things on a common platform. Unless, of course, we have Colonels commanding companies, Brigadiers battalions, and so on. Some may argue that there is nothing wrong in this, and even cite the example of say the police, where every state today has 10 - 12 DGPs, some looking after ridiculously mundane things such as stationery (maybe an exaggeration, but just about). This approach has inherent flaws that would supersede the marginal improvement to the pyramid that it would provide. It still would not be adequate to meet the aspirations of all the regular officers who join the service. We cannot hope to match the assured career progression of the IAS or the IPS wherein the rank of a JS or IG / ADG is assured to everyone joining, for the simple reason that in these organisations, the number of such ranks is equal to the annual intake.

Obviously, number of officers to be commissioned cannot be restricted to the number of Maj Gens, since effective junior leadership is a key requisite of the forces. The civil services are not bound by this requirement and junior level vacancies are filled up by support cadres and promotees. In fact, in case all the civil services also relied on a system of regular professional officers manning the junior level posts, while they might face career progression problems similar to the Army, the quality of administration might improve drastically.

As a corollary, since the organisational requirements are so vastly different, the application of the same yardstick for pay and allowances and parity of status is obviously a flawed approach which leads to gross disparities in the lifetime remunerations between armed forces and civil services officers. A detailed analysis of the average earnings of a sample batch of 100 IAS officers and 100 army officers over their entire service is revealing. Taking the timeframe of promotions and the proportion of officers qualifying for the same at various levels into consideration, the difference between an average officer in the two services works out to over Rs 2 Cr ! (See box for details)

The requirement therefore is for a separate pay commission for the services, which takes into account these peculiarities rather than blindly applying the same yardstick as the civil services. Alternatively, the norm of pay parity in terms of years of service, irrespective of the rank at which each is at any given time should be considered. Thus, an officer with 16 years of service in the forces should get the pay equivalent to the highest pay drawn by any cadre with equivalent service, irrespective of the rank at which either is at that time. An Army officer, who would be a Lt Col at such a service, should therefore draw the pay equivalent to that of a JS if IAS officers of his parallel batch have been promoted to JS. He can continue to be equivalent to a Dir as per the existing warrant of precedence, which in any case makes no material difference at this level. In fact, we could limit the comparison to the level of a Maj Gen, there being no necessity to lay down the equivalence with civil officials below this. Also, the badges of rank of the army need to be distinct from that of Police, CPOs and PMFs, to avoid equivalence being implied needlessly and inaccurately.

For all of the above to take shape, there is a need for creating an understanding that the armed forces are a national asset. While they cannot occupy the position of pre-eminence of a colonial army, due credence and attention should be given to ensuring their ‘Izzat O Iqbal’ at a time when drastic measures are required to preserve their cutting edge.

Anonymous said...

Pay Commission

by: Lt. Gen. RP Agarwal (Retd), PVSM, VSM

11/17/2008



‘Googling’ for “sixth pay commission” throws up 4,76,000 pages worth of results – an indication of the unprecedented interest and deliberations it has engendered. The media boom and social networking over the internet have ensured that each nuance of the report has been dissected and examined for ramifications. Anomalies that would have hitherto gone unnoticed till much after the implementation were picked up and circulated via mail groups, discussion forums and blogs. The recommendations concerning the Armed Forces have been particularly contentious and to make matters worse, the Committee appointed to resolve the anomalies has, on the contrary, introduced more of the same. While the Group of Ministers constituted for amelioration is expected to address these, it would also be prudent to take this opportunity to examine certain core issues which are the basis of divergence between the military and civilian points of view regarding the status, pay and perks.

Concerns have been voiced about the fact that the forces have been consistently downgraded in status vis a vis civilian counterparts ever since independence. There is no disputing this as the C-in-C of the Army prior to independence was second in the warrant of precedence, after the Viceroy. In fact, his official residence was the Teen Murti Bhawan, which became the Prime Minister’s residence after independence. As on date, the COAS is 12th in the warrant, and the slip is not merely 10 places, considering that most of the 11 slots above him are occupied by scores of people. Correspondingly, the warrant has been adjusted downwards at all levels.

The reason for this slide is not very difficult to perceive. The distinction between the soldier and civil administrator was not so marked prior to independence. The role of the Army, and consequently the position occupied by it, under colonial rule, was vastly different from that in a democracy. Notwithstanding the fact that the Indian Civil Service provided the steel frame of administration as a precursor to the IAS, a large number of civil appointments at district level upwards were held by military officers, or erstwhile military officers. These roles were switched back and forth, and the protocol or inter se status was therefore clearly defined. The fact that badges of rank of police are same as that of the Army is a legacy of this system. Post independence, however, the Army’s role is rightfully restricted to defence of the nation, and the ever widening chasm between it and the civil counterparts has resulted in an erosion of the warrant of precedence.

The issue of career progression vis a vis the civilian counterparts is another cause of frustration within the services. The peculiar nature of service necessitates a pyramidical hierarchy within the forces. For instance, for every general officer added, a suitable organisation / portfolio for him to handle needs to be created within the forces. Considering that the size of the forces is more or less static, this is difficult to implement. In the case of civil services, however, the size of the cadre is not relative to any particular organisation. Apart from promoting officers in situ while they continue to perform the same duties, adequate scope for lateral movement to PSUs, corporations and other organisations is open to them. To that end, comparing the promotional avenues in the forces with other services such as the IAS, IPS or similar cadres amounts to an attempt at comparing two dissimilar things on a common platform. Unless, of course, we have Colonels commanding companies, Brigadiers battalions, and so on. Some may argue that there is nothing wrong in this, and even cite the example of say the police, where every state today has 10 - 12 DGPs, some looking after ridiculously mundane things such as stationery (maybe an exaggeration, but just about). This approach has inherent flaws that would supersede the marginal improvement to the pyramid that it would provide. It still would not be adequate to meet the aspirations of all the regular officers who join the service. We cannot hope to match the assured career progression of the IAS or the IPS wherein the rank of a JS or IG / ADG is assured to everyone joining, for the simple reason that in these organisations, the number of such ranks is equal to the annual intake.

Obviously, number of officers to be commissioned cannot be restricted to the number of Maj Gens, since effective junior leadership is a key requisite of the forces. The civil services are not bound by this requirement and junior level vacancies are filled up by support cadres and promotees. In fact, in case all the civil services also relied on a system of regular professional officers manning the junior level posts, while they might face career progression problems similar to the Army, the quality of administration might improve drastically.

As a corollary, since the organisational requirements are so vastly different, the application of the same yardstick for pay and allowances and parity of status is obviously a flawed approach which leads to gross disparities in the lifetime remunerations between armed forces and civil services officers. A detailed analysis of the average earnings of a sample batch of 100 IAS officers and 100 army officers over their entire service is revealing. Taking the timeframe of promotions and the proportion of officers qualifying for the same at various levels into consideration, the difference between an average officer in the two services works out to over Rs 2 Cr ! (See box for details)

The requirement therefore is for a separate pay commission for the services, which takes into account these peculiarities rather than blindly applying the same yardstick as the civil services. Alternatively, the norm of pay parity in terms of years of service, irrespective of the rank at which each is at any given time should be considered. Thus, an officer with 16 years of service in the forces should get the pay equivalent to the highest pay drawn by any cadre with equivalent service, irrespective of the rank at which either is at that time. An Army officer, who would be a Lt Col at such a service, should therefore draw the pay equivalent to that of a JS if IAS officers of his parallel batch have been promoted to JS. He can continue to be equivalent to a Dir as per the existing warrant of precedence, which in any case makes no material difference at this level. In fact, we could limit the comparison to the level of a Maj Gen, there being no necessity to lay down the equivalence with civil officials below this. Also, the badges of rank of the army need to be distinct from that of Police, CPOs and PMFs, to avoid equivalence being implied needlessly and inaccurately.

For all of the above to take shape, there is a need for creating an understanding that the armed forces are a national asset. While they cannot occupy the position of pre-eminence of a colonial army, due credence and attention should be given to ensuring their ‘Izzat O Iqbal’ at a time when drastic measures are required to preserve their cutting edge.

Anonymous said...

What is the current status of the GOM report to sort out the core issues?
Govt. seems to be totally non-chalant and oblivious to the simmering volcano of disconent which is going to erupt any time.

Anonymous said...

NO VOLCANO IS GOING TO ERUPT JUST READ WHY

A young boy joins armed forces(AF) just because he is a day dreamer he is not the realist.
the very fact that he joins AF inspite of so much of info available every where that as an officer in AF he is just a class II officer means he does not want to face the reality. now once he joins the trg imparted to him at the academies make him just a follower. follower of the system. so first 10 years of service he keeps drinking and following thinking that what ever the col and Gen saheb’s are doing is just right for them.
now from 10-16 years of service he is just concerned about 9 pointer ACR so that he can join the elite group of Col and Gen can look down the others. now once he gets superceded then only he realises that he is just a Class II officer which is now officially declared by SCPC. so he become demoralised also he thinks that because he is demoralised so everybody else around him but again he is just day dreaming. because there are the officers less then 10 years of service just like a kid who does not know what is happening to him and keep killing militant just for TAMGA on his chest and the other group is the elite group of COL and GEN who looks down every body else. so all the above writers just think who will fight for the cause. just by crying that forces are demoralised no body will get any thing. some thing has to shown that the forces are really demoralised else it seems that only the superceded are demoralised . so they can go out by resigning (not by PMR)

Anonymous said...

Great job navdeep. You withyour practical analysis have hit the nail ; 'just there'. The havoc played by clerical staff/section officers or equivalent in CENTRAL/STATE MUNCIPAL/DISTRICT/TEHSIL IS ENORMOUS.When farmers,riot victims pensioners/widows or 'aam aadmi' suffers blame it on them. So many business men/shopkeepers/farmers 'aam aadmi may have committed suicides(literally due to havoc by the "babuji".Good work.

abcd said...

http://gconnect.in/gc/6cpc-matters/pay-parity-for-armed-forces-a-difficult-task-govt.html
Pl. read this and the Hindu article link which i had pasted earlier.cabinet secretary syas"But still I think we did a pretty good job,” he said." and before that“It is very difficult when people feel that this chap has got more than me…that feeling is there. So, to maintain that kind of balance…. it is very difficult,” he said.
DO I NEED TO SAY MORE?

abcd said...

"The Cabinet Secretary said when the armed forces raised the issue of pay parity, the Committee of Secretaries took up it immediately and deliberated on how to find a solution to it for the satisfaction of the defence personnel.

“When the armed forces raised the issue, we sat together at the official level with Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister (P M Nair) and decided that the best thing would be to request the higher level.

“So we requested the External Affairs Minister because he was both Defence and Finance Minister earlier and could consult Defence Minister and Finance Minister and give his views,” he said." --
Point No. 1 - it was serv ices who requested for a Panle of ministers to go thro' the anomalies. Mr. Cabinet Secretary syas they decided.
2. He goes on to say they decied and requested External Min Shri Pranab Mukherjee to head th ecommittee!!
STRANGE!! - Secretaries (Cabinet and Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister ) Decide which minister will chair the committee???
ANY COMMENTS MAJOR?

Anonymous said...

@abcd

yes
answer is that whole india is saying openly that army can go to hell and it is no more required.
but inspite of this the elite gp(col and Gens) do'nt want to accept the fact trying keep the army like a koop mandook happy in the koop.
just one example

why ca'nt every unit in peace follow the routine of 5 day week and 10to 5 office.
because it hurts the ego of elite gp

LT.COL.HS DHAM( MAHARS ) said...

Dear Navdeep

You have systematically analysed the complex issue of mixed command and control( civil-uniform) prevalent in the Indian Armed Forces functioning. The Colonial system of check and balances which needs drastic reforms are throttled by unhealthy rivalry amongst Rank and File of both Civil as well as Army heirarchy. Gen Ashok Mehta and some other senior as well as junior ofiicers have highlighted some very thought provoking issues to be pondered upon.The apolitical and Secular credentials of Armed Forces is best and most suitable for the National and territorial integrity of our country akin to its National Character and Geographical location on the world map.Never the less the Armed Forces cannot be deprived of their voting rights to let them cast their votes to deserving candidates without a bias to any political affliation.Deserving cadidates from Armed Forces should be given proportionate/Nominated representations in Lok/Rajya Sabha at National level and Legislative Asemblies/Councils at State level without getting involved in the muck of unhealthy election mode.Lessons learnt should be carried forward to achieve Short term/long term reforms systematically/logically.This will save the Apolitical/Secular fibre of Armed Forces and Agony of unhealthy processes of Election.Finally the Armed Forces should be given their just dues/demands and status in the mixed heirarchy of Govt apparatus honourably withoutbegging/pleading.
We should march forward both as a Soldier in uniform and an ideal Citizen in Civies without compromising the Sermons of Sri Krishna to Arjuna in Mahabharat.
If I have gone beyond my brief pardon me and correct me. Humbly yours
Col Dham