SOVEREIGNTY AND SERVICES-17
.
By Major General (Emeritus) RN RADHAKRISHNAN .
The Grievance
.
Armed Forces Veterans of all ranks of the three wings of the Military Services (abbreviated as AFV) feel grieved, no doubt. But, about what, is misunderstood by many. It has become fait accompli that a similarly placed veteran in quantum of service and rank, retiring subsequent to his senior soldiers, stands entitled for a much better pension and hence leads a much better retired life. Does the senior grieve that the junior is better off? It may be the case with a few veterans; but the majority grieves of a sense of humiliation due to this disparity in the retired life style of similarly placed veterans. Hence, there is this demand of ‘One Rank One Pension’.
.
By virtue of permitting the Soldier to retain his rank even after his retirement - of course by convention perhaps – a sense of pride is associated with a rank and the number of years, served. When unequal treatment is meted out to two veterans of equal status, based merely on the date of retirement ignoring the equality of service rendered by both, it hurts. The hurt gets worse when the pension policy favors even those veterans who are juniors in rank and in service, retiring afterwards. The practice of OROP is symbolic of equality of status, which is vital for a soldier.
.
The Petition Committee
.
I find, in Shri Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Member Rajya Sabha, a soul that is enlightened as to the true spirit of the struggle of the veterans. All through the four odd decades we found people in the field of legislature sympathizing with the veterans; but nothing materialized because they addressed the issue more in a calculated indifference to, than in a genuine understanding of, the grievance. Shri Rajeev Ji has taken up the issue systematically and culminated his efforts by convincing the Rajya Sabha to take up the matter for serious consideration by one of its Standing Committees. Thus, Shri Bhagat Singh Koshyari Member Rajya Sabha and the Chairman Petition Committee has been entrusted with the onerous task of evaluating the AFVD for OROP, objectively as an issue that has importance at the National level. It is not a matter of mere cash outflow from the National Exchequer. A country that can afford to write off, year after year for the past six years, almost 950 crores per day of uncollected corporate taxes, a few thousand crores per annum for an honorable cause is mere pittance; the country understands. It is not a matter of increased pension to AFV. The attitude of a soldier towards money is not based ever on avarice but on contentment. The issue is not money. The issue is the humiliation to the veterans; a gross injustice that needs immediate correction.
.
The Perception of the Soldier by Shri Rajeev
.
It is not surprising that Shri Rajeev, having grown up as the son of an Air Force Senior Officer of yesteryears has a very clear perception of the true image of a soldier. The petition, of course, is that of a few Veterans. But the facts that
.
a. the honorable MP has consented to present the petition to the Petition Committee and that
.
b. he had already expressed his aversion to take advantage of the enhanced pay for the MPs demonstrate his sentiments on the issue of the Veterans’ struggle. It will be highly improper to misunderstand his enthusiasm purely from the angle of his being the son of an Air Force Officer. His perception is objective based on the vast experience gained as a very successful entrepreneur and with highly active political career.
.
Para 2, 4 and 9 of the petition, with which he is obviously in full agreement, highlight the true image of a soldier. I do not intend to repeat it. But it is worth emphasizing the contents of three sentences.
.
a. The first sentence: “the pension of an Armed Forces personnel was regulated exclusively keeping in view the peculiarity and gravity of the Service conditions to which the Soldier is subjected to in peace and the danger to which he is exposed in war” is a statement, concise in its expression and poignant in its implied meaning, both of highest magnitude.
.
b. He looks at the AFVD as “a just demand for honor and justice”, not as a mundane hankering after a few additional pennies in the form of pension.
.
c. He emphasizes that “the Armed Forces is truly unique and dedicated group of personnel whose sense of selfless service, sacrifice and nationalism is a matter of pride and dignity” and suggests that “Government of the day should at least accept the just demand for one rank one pension to honor them”. What could possibly be the perception of the Petition Committee? The Chairman and the Members of the Committee are legislators of repute. Would they not have any perception of the image of a soldier?
.
The Approach of the Petition Committee
.
Through a public notification, the Committee has announced its decision “to undertake consultation with the cross section of the society and to invite written memorandum thereon”. The focus, as seen from Para 1 of the notification, is on the perception of the petitioners that “our Armed Forces are a unique and dedicated group of personnel whose sense of selfless service sacrifice and nationalism is a matter of pride and dignity for all”. The memoranda have to be submitted within fifteen days of the notification (by 23rd Apr, 2011 according to me).
.
It is not clear if the Committee will interact with anyone or any organization other than those who have submitted memoranda, for any clarification. In the absence of such consultation, the concurrence or otherwise of the petitioners’ claim has to depend on the committee members’ impressions gathered from the written memoranda submitted to them, duly amplified by those who are invited by the Committee for personal interaction. I presume that Shri Rajeev will be heard with due regard and his arguments given due importance.
.
Does this approach suffice? Will the outcome of this approach represent the views of the Society and if so to what extent? My mind visualizes a cat on the fence. Which side is it likely to jump, I keep my fingers crossed. Can we afford to let this course of action take its own course? I believe that we have to be proactive.
.
What should we do?
.
If the Committee chose to undertake consultation with the cross section of the society, it has to be statistical by nature. The cross section must be representative of the society and from the knowledgeable stakeholders of the Country. Others may express sentiments depending on extraneous experience which may not represent their considered opinion. For us to win our battle the affirmation that “our Armed Forces are a unique and dedicated group of personnel whose sense of selfless service sacrifice and nationalism is a matter of pride and dignity for all” is vital. Hence we need to take proactive measures.
.
Therefore, we have to mobilize support, support from eminent personalities whose words carry. I suggest each one of us, who has been highly active in this struggle,
.
a. must locate such a personalities in his own sphere of social circle,
.
b. have an effective dialogue with them,
.
c. impress them with our demand and
.
d. must ensure that the personalities interact with the Committee, in our favor.
.
My Request
.
Please do not forward this mail to any group. You can of course appeal to your friends on one to one basis. Please do not react either in favor or otherwise of this mail. If you do not agree with the suggestion I made, please accept my apologies for having wasted your time by sending mail and delete this mail with the contempt it deserves. Please do not reply to this mail. Of course, you have the liberty to choose your action notwithstanding the request from me.
No comments:
Post a Comment