by Lt Gen SK Sinha
.
Mahatma Gandhi wrote about the Army in the Harijan on April 21, 1946: “Up till now they have been employed in indiscriminate firing on us. Today they must plough the land, dig wells, clean latrines and do every other constructive work they can, and thus turn the people’s hatred of them into love”. Perhaps his thinking was influenced by the fact that Indian soldiers under the orders of Brigadier Dyer had opened fire at Jallianwala Bagh and perpetrated that most horrible massacre. It was almost a miracle that on our becoming independent, our colonial Army was overnight transformed into a national Army. It became the most popular instrument of the state with the people of India. This transformation came about due to its stellar role during Partition when it was the only effective instrument of the government to restore order, and followed it by beating back the Pakistani invasion of Kashmir. Hyderabad was liberated and succour provided to the people during various natural disasters. The people’s perception of the Army changed radically. (I use the word Army in a generic sense to include the Navy and Air Force.)
.
Addressing West Point cadets, General Dwight Eisenhower stated, “When diplomats fail to maintain peace, the Army is called upon to restore peace and when the civil administration fails to maintain order, the Army is called upon to restore order. As the nation’s ultimate weapon, the Army must never fail the nation”. The Indian Army has been performing this role admirably, executing the nation’s will but never imposing its will. Yet the fear of the man on horseback has haunted our political leadership and has been exploited by the civilian bureaucracy for its vested interests. This has led to the neglect of the Army by the government in many ways. No wonder the Supreme Court on April 1, 2010, stated, “We regret to say that the Army officers and the armymen in our country are being treated in a shabby manner by the government”.
.
Whereas the parliamentary committee’s recommendation on a hike in the emoluments of members of Parliament was passed with undue haste, its recommendation on the long-standing demand for one rank, one pension has been stuck in the maze of bureaucracy. This has caused much frustration among ex-servicemen who have been surrendering their gallantry and war service medals. The MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar, in his letter to the Prime Minister on August 25, 2010, has taken the noble stand that he would not accept his increased salary as an MP till the government sanctions one rank, one pension. Despite all the justification for one rank, one pension, this demand has been turned down repeatedly on the plea that civilian employees must also have a similar provision. The conditions of service in the Army are entirely different from the civil services. The hardships and dangers faced by the soldier, early retirement and poor career prospects after retirement have to be taken into account. It is not only in the case of pensions but also in salaries, protocol status and career prospects that the military has been treated unfairly.
.
After Independence, Indian Civil Service and Indian police officers retained their old scales of pay but the new entrants in their succeeding services, the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Police Service (IPS), were given lower payscales. In the case of the military this was done retrospectively. As a major, I drew a salary of `1,100. This was suddenly reduced to `700. All my contemporaries in different ranks suffered such unprecedented paycuts. Sardar Patel, in his note dated May 22, 1947, disagreed with “differential treatment proposed to the officer class of the forces. The home department took the view — and I think it is the right view — that the old entrants on more favourable scales should continue to enjoy the old scales”. The Sardar’s wise advice was ignored at the altar of financial expediency. The culture of discipline in the military was different in those days. No one went to court, nor was this blatant injustice taken up in the press or in Parliament. We accepted this with a stiff upper lip. Without a murmur officers went to war in Kashmir, many making the supreme sacrifice. Successive pay commissions since Independence have continued treating the military unfairly. In comparison with its civilian counterparts, the military lost out every time.
.
Since 1947, career prospects in the armed forces, compared to the civil services, have become phenomenally worse. Wholesale proliferation of higher ranks in the civil services since 1947 has resulted in India having the most top-heavy civil administration. This only undermines efficient functioning. In a state there used to be one chief secretary, but now there are dozens of super chief secretaries with higher rank and pay. Similarly, instead of one inspector general of police in a state, we have dozens of DGPs, ADGPs and numerous IGPs. There used to be only four levels of civil servants in the Central Secretariat, from undersecretary to secretary. That has now increased to seven levels, to principal secretary. In the police a new zonal level of functioning has been introduced in many states to supervise the supervisors. Almost all IAS officers end up as secretary or additional secretary, and all IPS officers as DG or additional DG. In the Army, the majority of officers cannot go beyond colonel. The shortage of several thousand officers in the Army underscores that the Army is now a very unattractive career.
.
The protocol status of the Army in the table of precedence has also been successively downgraded with every revision of the table. After Independence, the Army Chief was initially ranked with the judges of the Supreme Court but above the secretary-general (this appointment was abolished after a while and in 1963 the appointment of Cabinet Secretary introduced). The Army Chief was now placed below Cabinet Secretary, and thereafter to many others. Today he ranks below members of the Union Public Service Commission.
.
This persistent downgrading of the Army applies to all officer ranks in the Army. In 1972 we had proposed that the Field Marshal should get his full pay as he is not supposed to retire and be ranked with Bharat Ratna holders, that is, just below Cabinet ministers. This was not accepted and he was ranked along with the service chiefs, that is, below Cabinet Secretary. As for salary, Manekshaw was given arrears amounting to `1.2 crores after 33 years, a few weeks before he died. Imagine. Such shabby treatment of India’s first Field Marshal who led Indian arms to a great victory. A minister of state represented the Indian government at his funeral.
.
The cause of the neglect of the Army in India is our irrational higher defence organisation on which the bureaucracy has a stranglehold, isolating the Army from decision-making. This does not happen in any other democracy. Unless this is set right, the Army will remain neglected.
.
.
The author, a retired Lieutenant-General, was Vice-Chief of Army Staff and has served as Governor of Assam and Jammu and Kashmir.
The Article was published in Deccan Chronicle of Wednesday, September 15, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment