Military needs a separate pay commission

By Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi (Retd)

Though there is no equation between the roles of the military and their civilian counterparts or commonality of service conditions, the armed forces are clubbed with civilian officials in the various pay commissions. In the bargain, defence personnel have suffered.

THE government has made the announcement for the setting up of the Seventh Pay Commission that will look at and revise the emoluments of all central government employees and the pensions of retired personnel, including families of deceased personnel. Pay commissions are periodically constituted to look into issues such as pay and allowances, retirement

benefits, service conditions, and promotion policies of central government employees. It is an administrative mechanism that the government had started in 1956 and since then, every decade has seen the birth of a commission that decides the wages of government employees for a block of ten years. The last pay commission, the Sixth, which is still current, is covering the period from 2006 to 2016.

The concept of constituting pay commissions after every ten years is in actuality archaic. Most countries have done away with such systems, but we seem to be either happy with the status quo or our bureaucrats who advise the political leadership on such matters lack imagination and are unable to think of a new and more acceptable system. So, at least for now we are stuck with yet another pay commission.

The announcement for setting up the Seventh Pay Commission is different in two respects to previous such announcements. First, the announcement has been made at least one year earlier than usual. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to understand the reason for this. The ruling party seems to think that it is likely to get more traction in their quest for votes as the next general elections are only months away and votes of government functionaries are important. Secondly, the government has also announced that there would be a separate pay commission for the defence forces. This is the more important of these two points, as it is a major departure from the government’s policy. I aim to focus on this aspect.

Pay Commissions are expected to settle a reasonable wage, affordable to the government and fair to employees. However, over the decades, the pay commissions have become commissions of the IAS, for the IAS. This has especially affected the military, as over the past nearly six decades the omissions, aberrations and self-serving reports of the bureaucrats have inflicted incalculable damage to the military. That is the reason for the demand of a separate dispensation for the military. There are other valid reasons too. There is nothing in common between the military and the other government services, including the IAS, IFS, IPS, other civil services and the subordinate civil services. It needs to be noted that while the civil services deal with the citizens of the nation on a daily basis, the military interacts with them only when requisitioned to come to the aid of the civil authority. This is usually for short periods.

A vexed question relates to the fixation of emoluments of all central and All India Services, as well as the military. The IAS inexplicably has always been treated as a special case. The bureaucrats belonging to this service try to explain this by emphasising their being part of the government, but such arguments are hollow. The real reason is that they occupy the powerful slots in the pay commissions, including that of ‘member secretary’ and also rely on that much abused word ‘precedent’. This is particularly galling to the armed forces, as they have been deliberately kept out of the government as well as the pay commissions. It needs to be appreciated that the military and the civil administrative services are two equal pillars of the government and need to be treated as such.

Till now, military personnel have reluctantly accepted their gradual down grading and lowering of status because of obeying the orders of their hierarchy, but if this state of affairs continues, the nation may find itself in dire straits without an outstanding military, as exists today. The greed and self-serving attitude that the bureaucracy displayed in the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission and the biased committees formed to eliminate the large number of anomalies have not just accentuated the anger of the military, but any more such actions would amount to the proverbial breaking of the camels’ back. The government needs to take note of this and ensure that this state of affairs ends now. The government cannot and must not pay military personnel lower salaries, merely to keep the IAS in good humour.

Despite there being no equation between the roles of the military and their civilian counterparts, the armed forces were clubbed with civilian officials in the various pay commissions. The terms and conditions of service of defence personnel cannot be compared to any other category of government employees. Yet, each successive pay commission has made comparisons artificially. In the bargain, defence personnel have suffered. The dissatisfaction is clearly reflected in the huge shortage in the officer’s cadre, as both the status and the emoluments are not proving attractive to young aspirants. The same is the case with the large number of other ranks of the military, who are also unhappy with the equations and comparisons that have resulted in the downgrading of their status in the society. The government needs to understand that soldier’s having pledged even their lives to the country set great store to ‘izzat’, which if diluted affects morale adversely.

Calls for a separate pay commission for the military started when the repeated requests to the government for adequate representation of military personnel in the pay commissions were ignored. Despite these requests being made at the highest levels of the armed forces, no action was taken. From the third to the sixth pay commissions, there was not a single military person included in them, although 40 per cent of the government employees, whose pay was being revised, comprised the military.

After the major fiasco of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, where the greed and ego of the bureaucrats and their attempt to further downgrade the status of the military were palpably visible, there was uproar by the military, especially the veterans. The political leadership did intervene but the bureaucrats still got away with only cosmetic changes through committees, again comprising the same dramatis personae, who were responsible for the damage! After prolonged efforts of the military, more so by the veterans, the Prime Minster finally conceded the demand for a separate pay commission. This has now fructified by the recent announcement of the Prime Minister. However, till the composition of the proposed pay commission, as well as the related modalities are announced, it will be premature to accept or reject the offer of the Prime Minister. It is perhaps one of the reasons that the Chiefs of Staff Committee has conveyed their reluctance to accept the proposal at this stage.

There are pros and cons of having a separate pay commission for the armed forces, which need to be considered before a final decision is taken. A separate pay commission would obviously be a non-starter if one or more bureaucrats again call the shots and the representation of the military is in a token fashion or in those slots which are of lesser importance. A pay commission for the armed forces, which is only manned by military personnel, would again be incorrect.

Other important points are the need to have a common chair person for the two pay commissions; the need for a senior officer from the Finance Ministry as an adviser; the timings of the two pay commissions – civil and military — which must coincide; the harmonising of the recommendations for both the commissions; the need for continuing with the Military Service Pay (MSP); a reversion to the earlier status of the armed forces that has become askew by earlier acts of omission and commission; the grant of the nearly 30 years old issue of one rank--one pension, which has in the past been cleared and recommended by all sections of the political spectrum; and the removal of various sub-categories that have been imposed by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) arbitrarily. Two examples of the latter, both relating to disability pension will clarify this aspect.

Broad-banding of percentages for disability and war injury for those disabled in war or warlike situations has been sub-categorised in three categories, despite orders by courts to the contrary. Another issue relates to military personnel, who become disabled on account of non-service reasons. They are discharged without any ‘invalid pension’ if their service is less than 10 years at the time of discharge. On the other hand, civilian employees cannot be discharged at all and can enjoy their full tenure with full pay and allowances till the age of superannuation and pension thereafter.

Before I conclude, let me again revisit the need for a separate pay commission for the military, notwithstanding the recommendations conveyed to the Defence Minister by the Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee recently. The main reason is the stark differences in employment between the armed forces personnel and civil government employees, some of which have been enumerated earlier. The manner of selection of armed forces personnel; their initial and subsequent training; their unique job profiles; the sacrifices that they have to make; the slow career progression; steep promotion pyramid; the large number of steps in the rank structure; early retirement; long separation from families; and lack of skills for a second career; have no parallel in any of the civil services. This being the reality, there could not be a stronger case for a separate pay commission for the military. The caveat is that the points enumerated earlier and perhaps some more, while setting up the separate pay commission must be duly incorporated in the terms of reference of the commission.

Appointing of one or two pay commissions will work only if there is a major change of attitude of the government, especially of the bureaucracy. If the government is unable or unwilling to understand the legitimate demands of the military personnel in relation to their emoluments and more importantly their status, then even ten pay commissions will be of no avail.

The writer is a former Vice Chief of the Army Staff