Saving Military Ethos

1.   I wish to engage in a serious discussion with you on two issues. First is regarding your wish to place an 'Outsider-as-Observers' in meetings of Services Selection Board (SSB) with stated aim of ensuring fair selection. Second is your wish to make military grievance redress system much more responsive by giving the petitioners freedom to directly appeal to you- just as Emporer Jahangir did by installing famous 'Bell of Justice'. Results achieved by this Bell of Justice are well known to students of history.

2.   Before we discuss efficacy of 'Outsider-as-Observer' in Army SSBs. Let us see what happens on the civil side. In case of All India Services (AIS) enough openings are available in higher grades, hence promotions are easy to come by. In so far as officers of Group A Services are concerned lack of promotion avenues is mitigated by NFFU. Resultantly Departmental Promotion Committees (DPC) are more of formalities. More important is getting a 'Paying Posting', which will allow the bureaucrat amass 'Other Income'. Being aware of such potential the politicians have centralized the power for postings as the level of Chief Ministers and Cabinet Ministers. But has this centralization removed corruption from postings? Answer is obviously No! That begets another question, that is, if 'Outsider-as-Observer' is such a great method of ensuring transparency why did you not implement it while you were CM of Goa. Similarly there have been instances of favored bureaucrats enjoying extended tenures with powerful politicians, all thanks to nod from Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC)! Should we not have 'Outsider-as-Observer' in ACC meetings? We also find that MoD has on number of times been found giving wrong information to even the Courts and even today thousands of Implementation Applications are pending in AFTs which are due to unwillingness of MoD to implement AFT orders granting relief to officers and soldiers. Should we then not start by implementing the concept of 'Outsider-as-Observer' in the offices of Defence Minister and Defence Secretary?

3.   My second substantial objection to this proposal of having 'Outsider-as-Observer' is that it is premised on the belief that Army SSBs are inherently biased and incompetent and need to be observed so as to keep them on straight and narrow path. Do you have any authentic data to prove this hypothesis? My husband was superseded at the rank of Colonel and we felt that he deserved to rise higher, but does that mean that the SSB which rejected him biased? No! Reasons for non-meritorious rising in any system are always more complex and need far more deliberate and fundamental solutions. 

 

4.   My appeal to you is that please ask military higerarchy to develop an Appraisal System, which is comprehensive, transparent and quantifiable to maximum extent possible. It should also be multi-point appraisal without possibility of cartelization. If you want to undertake this fundamental reform I for one am ready to give a viable alternate appraisal system. But to expect that 'Outsider-as-Observer' can solve the problem is laughable to say the least.

 

5.       Second issue is that of direct correspondence by soldiers with the Defence Minister on administrative and discipline matters. Without doubt, military grievance redress system can be improved a lot. But to think that interference by a well-meaning but ignorant Defence Minister is the solution to the problem is indeed laughable. I call you ignorant with good reason. Dear Sir, there is a whole specialization of `Military Justice System’ based on premise that military activities are so different from normal civil life activities that these military activities have to be governed by separate laws and thus Military Justice System is quite distinct from Civil Justice System. 

 

6.   Hence my simple appeal to you is please accept the fact that Military is distinct organization and has to have a separate grievance system which upholds and enforces rights of soldiers and their families efficiently while maintaining sanctity of Chain of Command. MoD as organized in India and its staff of civilian bureaucrats is by no means competent to deliver justice to soldiers. Only thing this system of Defence Minister being first point of appeal is achieving is dilution of command authority of military commanders. How does this dilution of military commanders authority helps country get a more effective military is moot point? So rather than becoming first point of appeal, please help, push and insist on military developing responsive grievance redress system embedded in chain of command.  Again, if you want to seriously pursue the Matter to logical conclusion I am ready to offer imminently workable Grievance Redress System for the Army.

Saving the Character of Officers Messes

The issue which I propose to raise for your consideration pertains to offer of membership to Army Officers Messes to Civilian Group A officers like IFA.

Officers Messes in Army, as you know, are created, maintained and run with Public Funds supplemented by private contributions by officers. Elaborate rules, codified as Paras 1259 to 1289 in Regulations for Army, 1987 govern membership and functioning of these messes. Regulations for Army strictly limit membership to these officers messes to Army Officers, as defined in Section 3 (VIII) of the Army Act and Army Rule 188. Thus no commander including GOC-in-C have legal authority to open the doors of Army Officers Mess to anyone else. Being member of such a mess is both a 'compulsion' and a 'privilege' for an army officer. This membership entails both social as well as financial obligations on the army officers and their families. The member of such mess also has, necessarily, to be under command of a military authority. Thus I am surprised that many of the Command Headquarters have made IFA member of their officers mess on the pretext of they (IFA) are part of said Headquarters and membership is limited to tenure of IFA with the headquarters.

Civilian Group A Officers like IFA belong to what is termed as an 'Organised Cadre' and Government apparatus consists of many such cadres, e.g, IAS, IDAS, IDES, IDSE and so on. As you would be well aware these Civilian Group A Officers are governed by CCS ( CCA) Rules. Thus the terms and conditions of service of Group A Officers are quite different from those of the Army Officers. However many a time some of them do affiliate with the Army in various capacities for a tenure and extending officers mess membership to anyone can result in demands for the same from others. In fact majority of 17405 Civilian Group A Officers of MoD can claim membership to Army Officers Messes on same grounds as advanced for IFAs. For example an IDES officer may be CEO or DEO in a small military station like Bukhlow or Wellington where civilian population may be negligible and these officers may want to partake army facilities. A civilian GE from IDSE may want to be member of Unit Officers Mess in Barmer. There are many LAO headed by officers of IDAS who are affiliated with Army and they may want to be part of local Army Officers Mess. IAS and AFHQ Cadre officers who are part of MoD may want to be members of Army Battle Honours Mess. 

Then there are equivalent civilians like Lecturer for 11th and 12th classes in Central Schools located in military stations primarily catering for wards of army All Rank. These lecturers draw same Grade Pay as Lieutenant and Captain. Does the Army plan to extend membership to Army Officers Messes to all of these officials. If yes how does it propose to create adequate infrastructure and staff for the same and if not then how does it justify extension of membership to IFAs.

General SLA Marshal (US Army) had described Army Officers Mess as a 'uniquely military establishment meant to nurture and strengthen 'Primary Group' in a combat unit. Let's keep our messes focused on the function they are meant for. Request senior military leadership be asked to not weaken very foundations of military ethos for the sake of temporary advantage of having an agreeable IFA. It is important for all of us to remember that youngsters join army for its distinctiveness which includes such institutions like Officers Mess, which have been nurtured by generations of predecessors who didn't think only of immediate. My humble request is that if we can't add to it let's not destroy the existing.

Lastly let me end by repeating an old truth, which is that, each cadre looks after itself. 

For example:

A. Recent bad deal given by the Armed Forces from 7th CPC has been widely and correctly attributed to biased advice the young IDAS officer gave to the CPC.

B. When Civilian Group A Officers were granted NFFU they did not ask government to extend that perk to officers of Armed Forces.

C. Previous subterfuge to deny 'Rank Pay' to Officers of Armed Forces was executed by the IDAS officersmember of Unit Officers Mess in Barmer. There are many LAO headed by officers of IDAS who are affiliated with Army and they may want to be part of local Army Officers Mess.  IAS and AFHQ Cadre officers who are part of MoD may want to be members of Army Battle Honours Mess. 

Then there are equivalent civilians like Lecturer for 11th and 12th classes in Central Schools located in military stations primarily catering for wards of army All Rank. These lecturers draw same Grade Pay as Lieutenant and Captain. Does the Army plan to extend membership to Army Officers Messes to all of these officials. If yes how does it propose to create adequate infrastructure and staff for the same and if not then how does it justify extension of membership to IFAs.

General SLA Marshal (US Army) had described Army Officers Mess as a 'uniquely military establishment meant to nurture and strengthen 'Primary Group' in a combat unit. Let's keep our messes focused on the function they are meant for. Request senior military leadership be asked to not weaken very foundations of military ethos for the sake of temporary advantage of having an agreeable IFA. It is important for all of us to remember that youngsters join army for its distinctiveness which includes such institutions like Officers Mess, which have been nurtured by generations of predecessors who didn't think only of immediate. My humble request is that if we can't add to it let's not destroy the existing. Lastly let me end by repeating an old truth, which is that, each cadre looks after itself. Remember when Civilian Group A Officers were granted NFFU they did not ask government to extend that perk to Army officers.

Streamlining CSD Procedures

This is my fourth missive to you on matters affecting soldiers, veterans and their widows and the issue I am drawing your attention to is purchase of Group VII (AFD) Items from CSD. I recommend that you visit Website of CSD to appreciate the effort mandarin of your ministry must have put in to draw up convoluted process which All Rank (serving and retired) have to follow to buy AFD item! To understand its adverse impact just put yourself in shoes of a veteran living in Barmer of Rajasthan or Bhuj of Gujarat or Siang of Arunachal Pradesh. He or his widow would have to prepare a sheaf of documents and DD, go to District Sainiks Welfare Officer/ Station HQ to get 'Sanction' and then travel hundreds of kilometers to Jaipur or Ahmedabad or Guwahati to deposit said sheaf of documents and DD to get a Release Order from CSD Depot and then go back to local dealer in Jodhpurs or Jamnagar or Jorhat to buy even an AC or Fridge or Washing Machine! That in the meantime the item may have become unavailable is different matter altogether!

I recommend that this archaic system be replaced with a simple SVC Card made on similar lines as Liquor Card presently used by All Ranks to buy liquor from CSD. This card will entitle JCO and OR to buy two Group VII items every three years and Officers three Group VII items every three years. Process would entail All Rank to select the item at local dealer showroom, get a quotation and deposit the requisite amount with defendant URC, who would issue Release Instructions to local dealer and these will entitle consumer to take delivery of item. Dealer would be paid by local URC on production of Delivery Note signed by customer. If adopted this proposed system would do away with rigmarole of multiple 'Sanctions' from various 'Authorities', reduce workload of our dear CSD Employees and also reduce possibility of corruption.

Why are Military Veterans Dying Young

Impetus for this blogpost addressed to Defence Minister of India came from a report titled 'Battle for Recognition' published in the Hindu of 29/11/15, which claimed that with per-capita cost at Rs. 2.97 Lacs the CAPF were lowest paid employees of GoI and that Defence Person at Rs. 3.24 Lacs per annum was second lowest paid. However a deeper analysis shows that in terms of life time costs Military is paid the least. In this post I propose to nail the lie about Cost of Soldier to Government and underscore the fact that Military Veterans are dying young. To prove my points I have relied solely on the data given in the Report of 7th CPC (this will makes task of cross checking the figures easy).

1. Cost of Soldier to Government. The 7th CPC computes per-capita cost of MHA employee at Rs. 2.97 Lacs at Para 3.65 on Page 35 and since CAPF form more than 96 percent of MHA strength, this can be safely presumed to be cost of a Constable of CAPF.

In Para 6.2.73 (i) (b) on Page 121 the 7th CPC states that Military Service Pay (MSP) gives edge of 27.77 percent in emoluments to a soldier in comparison to a constable of CAPF. Thus we can assume the Cost of Soldier to Government to be Rs. 2.97+27.77% = 3.79 Lakh per annum. However actual expenditure on Pay and Allowances during FY 11-12 was Rs. 39996 Crore less Rs. 2000 Crore paid to Defence Civilians in Army thus per-capita cost of Army was 3.27 Lacs. In any case both the figures are much less than per-capita cost of MoD Civilian at Rs. 4.31 Lacs or Revenue at Rs. 5.10 Lacs.

However per-capita cost while in service tells only half of story because a soldier retires after 17 years of service with least possible pension in last rank held (Naik TS) while every CAPF Constable gets to serve till 58 years of age after getting three MACPs retires with maximum possible pension in last rank held (ASI). Thus lifetime earnings of a soldier on reaching 75 years of age are 45 percent of CAPF Constable reaching 75 years of age.

2. Plight of Veterans. Refer to tables given on Page 382 and 400 of the Report of 7th CPC. First point to note is that 182000 soldiers have retired even before they attain 45 years of age due to the fact that soldiers start retiring after 17 years service when they are 39/40 year old. Second important fact is that 57 percent of military pensioners are below 60 years of age, 19 percent in 60 to 70 year age bracket and 16 percent in 70 to 80 year bracket. In case of Defence Civilian pensioners, no one retires before 60 years of age, 51 percent are in 60 to 70 year age bracket and 40 percent in 70 to 80 year age bracket. Third albeit most alarming fact that emerges from analysis of this data is that Military Veterans are dying younger in 40-60 year age bracket at annualized rate of 3.8 percent as compared to annualised rate of 2 percent for Defence Civilian Pensioners in age bracket 60-70 years. In a country where average life span is 72 years, early death of military veterans is sure sign of economic hardship and stressful life both prior to and after retirement.

I am sanguine that:
(A) You would kindly take concrete steps to either ensure that All Rank serve till 60 years of age or retire with 75 percent of last pay drawn as pension and OROP is applied as defined by the Parliament.
(B) Institute a time bound study by 'Out of Government Expert Group' to identify causes and suggest remedy for short life span of military veterans.