By Major Navdeep Singh
'We should
hope and pray that the PM's sentiment is not held to ransom by machinations and
craftiness of a few junior babus who throw in
an imaginary impediment at every welfare measure and snigger and giggle at the
sidelines every time a soldier is ill at ease,' says Major Navdeep Singh on the
one rank one pension debate.
The bogey of
the paramilitary perceivably demanding the applicability of One Rank One
Pension (OROP) at par with the military is yet another case of throwing an
additional spanner in the works by the lower bureaucracy of our great nation,
thereby totally confusing the political executive.
As most even
slightly connected with the subject would be aware, though the concept of OROP
seems ideal for all government employees, it is the defence services which
deserve it the most and the foremost because of their early retirement with no
guarantee of post-release employment.
What should
put the comparison to rest is the fact that while personnel of the defence
services start retiring at the age of 34 onwards, members of the Central Armed
Police Forces (CAPFs) are released in their late 50s.
So at certain
ranks, the latter serve even two decades more than the former, thereby not only
garnering higher lifetime earnings and financial protection but also multiple
pay and emolument revisions due to the fact that they get the benefit of
serving during the currency of subsequent pay commissions by which time their
comrades in the military may have long retired, and some, faded away.
It is an open
secret that accountants and lower bureaucracy in the ministry of defence have
always misguided the higher bureaucracy and military brass and also the
political executive of the reality concerning the defence services.
File notings
are prepared in a mischievous manner so as to elicit negative replies. Not only
their own bosses, but an attempt is made to fool even the courts and
parliamentary committees, or else how could one justify the straight lie
peddled by the ministry of defence before the Koshiyari Committee of 2011 that
OROP would be difficult to implement since documents of defence personnel are
destroyed after 25 years?
Hogwash it was
since it is the documents of non-pensioners which are destroyed after 25 years
while the documents of pensioners (to whom OROP applies) are retained till
perpetuity.
While I have
full faith in the prime minister';s commitment towards OROP, and also of
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar, who is as well-intentioned as one can get, I
would just want to warn them not to take at face-value what is presented to
them by the bottom of the hierarchy.
It is the
political executive through the higher bureaucracy from the top that has to
impose the policy decisions on to the lower layers and not the other way round.
The government has to be run by the top echelons and not by the army of section
officers and under secretaries.
Policy has to
be determined by the government under the Rules of Business and not by
Accountants of the Defence Accounts Department. Decisions must be taken by due
discussion and inputs from experts and insulation from reality by a coterie
ensconced in a web of negativity should be avoided.
The attempt to
water down the definition of OROP must also be fervently resisted. There is
only one definition of OROP, and that stands solidified by the government
itself -- similar amount of pension for each rank with similar length of total
service, with the benefit of future enhancements passed on to past retirees.
Which also
brings me to the role of the military veteran organisations. Veterans should
not jump the gun with every move or indication that they perceive to be against
them. Instead they should be united, not bicker amongst themselves, shun their
differences, present a cohesive front and then fight for their rights in a
dignified manner.
Statements of
no less than the prime minister assuring veterans of his concern should not be
brushed aside lightly and the tendency of hyper-technical hairsplitting of
every public announcement with a negative connotation is best avoided, more so
when we are so close to the goal.
Due regard
should definitely be rendered to what the prime minister has stated, but that
is again not to say that in a free democracy we are entitled to advise others
to muzzle their voices but one can definitely counsel to dignify the tone.
One can hope
that now that the issue is in the national consciousness it is implemented
swiftly. It is also hoped that all stakeholders, including military veteran
bodies, would not lose sight of other insidious, and in fact, even more
important issues that are staring them straight and which may not be glamorous
enough or monetary in nature but still are a cause of major concern.
Pertinent amongst these being:
- The way disabled
soldiers are treated by the system with the official establishment filing
appeals till the Supreme Court in cases of disability pension awarded to
disabled soldiers by courts and tribunals;
- The constant decline
of the status and the sheen of the military rank in the official pecking
order and also the society at large;
- Guaranteed
post-retirement employment with protection of military status and dignity;
- And most importantly
the recent Supreme Court decision rendered on a plea of the ministry of
defence and the army wherein it was held that soldiers, veterans and
military widows aggrieved by decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal would
not be able to approach the high courts for relief.
This is a
disaster since it has snatched a fundamental right that is otherwise available
to every citizen and also to similarly placed civil government employees of
approaching the high court under the writ jurisdiction and thereby leaving the
military community remediless thus making the Armed Forces Tribunal the first
and the last court for them with no tiers or layers of judicial hierarchy at
their disposal which is guaranteed to all citizens in all democracies.
An
unaffordable and inaccessible direct appeal to the Supreme Court under the
Armed Forces Tribunal Act is also only permissible if the matter involves a
';point of law of general public importance';, which is not the case with
99.99% of litigation before the tribunal.
This has come
as the biggest blow since Independence, but veterans, totally engrossed in
OROP, do not seem to have realised the gravity of the situation.
While OROP
remains an important emotive issue for veterans, the focus hence should not
just remain limited to it but also on subjects which on the surface do not seem
attractive enough since these have no nexus with finances, but affect the very
basic existential rights of the military community which stand obliterated for
them but remain available to all other citizens.
While summing
up, we, as citizens, should hope and pray that the prime minister';s sentiment
is not held ransom by machinations and craftiness of a few junior babus
who throw in an imaginary impediment at every welfare measure and resultantly
snigger and giggle at the sidelines every time a soldier is ill at ease, and
also trust that the veteran community continues to pay attention to persistent
issues that will haunt their survival in life that shall be beyond their
current aim -- OROP.
Major
Navdeep Singh is a practicing advocate in the Punjab & Haryana high court
and the Armed Forces Tribunal. He was the founding President of the Armed
Forces Tribunal Bar Association. He is a Member of the International Society
for Military Law and the Law of War at Brussels.
He is also
the author of Maimed by
the System, a collection of real life accounts of military
veterans and their families who had to fight to claim their rights.
Well brought out, Major. Great advocay. Thanks. But do note that outside law courts, arguments lose out to pressure at the jugular. I credit the earthy Lt Col Bainsla for understanding this better that many Generals.
ReplyDelete