‘Service in the Armed Forces can’t be compared
to government service. If that basic premise is not accepted, then there’s no
scope for any debate on OROP’
‘No one joins
the Armed Forces on a contract. They join to serve. Armed Forces attract those
who want to serve, not based on financial terms and contracts’
Rajya Sabha
MP Rajiv Chandrasekhar, a passionate advocate of OROP, speaks to Sudhir
Bisht.
Ex-servicemen
and their families continue their protest demanding OROP at Jantar Mantar, New
Delhi. The protest has now been on for 75 days. Photograph: PTI
Rajeev
Chandrasekhar is a passionate votary of One Rank, One Pension and has
been championing the cause since 2006 vocally within and outside Parliament.
He has taken
over 60 major initiatives inside and outside Parliament including 25
interventions, 30 letters to government, 12+ articles in the media and dozen
meetings with ministers and veterans.
Most recently,
on August 24, 2015, he was the only politician who visited Jantar Mantar and
expressed his solidarity with and support to the protesting veterans, their
family members and to OROP.
The member of
Parliament spoke to Sudhir Bisht.
It has become
politically incorrect to question the implementation of One Rank One Pension,
but there are several government employees who feel that they will lose out if
the scheme is implemented. What is your take on it?
It is not
politically wrong to ask questions but they do not understand the very
different service conditions our armed forces endure.
Is it not
important to make a distinction between officers and jawans? Officers retire at
the age of 54, with two extensions. A jawan, on the other had, retires at 38.
Hence, isn’t the premise that all armymen retire young wrong and the portrayal
of the same incorrect?
Most of the
benefits of OROP are for jawans and war widows. The bulk of the armed forces do
retire young and OROP is a legitimate right.
Officers are a
very small percentage of the total strength of the armed forces. Besides this,
the ethos of the armed forces is based heavily on honour and respect to
seniority. The fact is that there shouldn’t be differences or divisions between
terms of officers and men, their nature of service and risk and the fact that
OROP was a norm for many years is reason that officers also have a right to
OROP.
Why is it
surprising that a retired major general gets a pension less than a young
retired colonel? This happens everywhere, all the time. A retired Central
Reserve Police Force commandant who is 75 years of age will get lesser pension
than an assistant commandant who is 60 years of age. A retired deputy secretary
who is 80 gets 20 per cent less pension than the under secretary who is just 60
and has just retired. The logic for OROP for people retiring at different times
doesn’t make any sense.
As I said
earlier, comparing the armed forces to the paramilitary forces or any other
government service is the argument that the governments of many years have used
to justify the denial of OROP.
The basic
premise of OROP is the recognition that serving in the armed forces is
different in many ways. If that basic premise is not accepted, then there’s no
scope for any debate on OROP.
Rajya Sabha MP
Rajiv Chandrashekhar
The Indian Army
does a great job for its citizens. So does the CRPF, the Border Security Force
and Indo-Tibetan Border Police. The officers of these paramilitary services
compulsorily retire at 57 if they don’t get the DIG grade. How is it then that
only army officers can be given the OROP benefit?
Like I said
before, Army officers can’t be separated from the men they command and lead
into battle and conflicts. These arguments have been debated endlessly before,
including to a parliamentary committee on petitions (Koshiari committee) and
addressed. The armed forces are not the same as the paramilitary forces. They
differ in many fundamental ways
When these
retired officers joined their respective jobs, they entered into a contract.
The contract didn’t say that they will get One Rank One Pension. To force it
upon the government is an act of negotiation, just as any union or association
would pursue with its employers. This makes OROP a subject of negotiation and
NOT a matter of right, as is being portrayed.
I disagree.
OROP became a promise that was made and committed. There is not much to
negotiate on OROP, except perhaps the terms of the payment in keeping with the
government’s economic situation. To many in the armed forces, this is a right.
No one joins
the armed Forces on a contract. They join to serve. Armed forces attract those
who want to serve not based on financial terms and contracts. To think so,
betrays a lack of understanding of what makes men in the forces tick.
And, nothing is
being ‘portrayed’. It’s a simple issue of principle to those who serve and to
those in our country who value the ideals of service to nation. Veterans have
been asking for this for several years and the current situation is the
culmination of decades of frustration. It is not a ‘portrayal’ to see repeated
instances of apathy to the overall cause of veterans and a system that has
remained apathetic to normal dignified requests all these years.
If OROP is
implemented for the armed forces, the paramilitary too shall demand the same.
And why not? It is well known that a high number of General Reserve Engineer
Force/ Border road workers die due to frost bite or cold while working in high
altitude road projects, many more than the number of soldiers who die during
border skirmishes. Why should GREF personnel not demand OROP? Why should the
fire services not demand OROP?
Like I said,
there’s nothing preventing people asking or doing things. But as I have
answered, this is a bogie, a red herring raised for several years. Prime
Minister Narendra Modi has already committed to this because he has no doubts
of the very different service conditions of the armed forces. Additionally,
this is not to say that the other forces do not deserve improvement in their
terms, but clearly none that justifies OROP.
Government
servants who joined after 2004 are no longer entitled to a guaranteed minimum
pension by the government. In light of this, shouldn’t any formula given by the
government be welcomed by the armed forces, as the days of guaranteed pension
are over?
I hesitate to
say this, but say it I must. A bureaucrat is no way comparable to a man or
woman who serves in the armed forces. Nowhere is this comparison even
attempted, not in the United States, the United Kingdom or even China. It’s
laughable and making that comparison is ludicrous.
Countries like
the US and UK and most other advanced democracies, with armies that are facing
conflict, venerate the men and women who serve.
The UK
parliament has even passed a law called Armed Forces Covenant (the Armed Forces
Covenant is the expression of the moral obligation that the government and the
nation owe to the armed forces community. The covenant acknowledges that
members of the armed forces sacrifice some freedoms and often face dangerous
situations. It recognises that families play a vital role in supporting the
operational effectiveness of the armed forces). It is only in India where
our men and women have to go through the humiliation of a comparison with a
discredited bureaucracy.
A comment
Dear Veterans
One Most important issue not being highlighted in the interview is the
non availability of fundamental rights to a soldier!!!
If the soldiers had the fundamental right to agitate, make unions
etc, Had the Government reduced their pension in 1973?
Did any Govt reduce the pay/ pension/ privileges of civilian
employees any time before? They cannot do it for reprisals.
World over the Pensions of Veterans is higher than the civil
Government servants. Therefore the demand of OROP for veterans is
justified.
If the Govt decides to accord OROP for every one including
civilians, it is welcome. But Veterans of Armed forces stand first
for the that privilege!!!! If that happens , subsequently veterans
must ask for a better pensionary benefits in confirmatory with the world
standards.
Regards
P N Krishnan
It should be understood that OROP is not guaranteed but it is implied when the terms of contract are one sided. Even if the service contract is over, the Goveernment has the right to keep the soldier in service till the threat is over. This has happenned in 1962, 1965 and even 1971. BUT the armed forces personnel have no rights nor liberty to seek a review. THE GOVT. UNILATERALLY REDUCED THE PENSION IN 1973 FROM 73% to 50% and never consulted anybody including the Chiefs of Staff. CAN THEY DO THIS TO A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE? N.R.. P. Rao
ReplyDelete