The Armed Forces had hoped that the Seventh Pay Commission would correct past anomalies and bring the men in uniform at par with their civilian counterparts. This was not to be. Now, the Prime Minister must intervene and ensure just pay and stature for the military
Ever since the Seventh Pay Commission report has been made public, there has been a sense of resentment in the Armed Forces community. While the veterans were battling for One Rank One Pension, the men in uniform were hopeful that the Pay Commission would deliver justice by correcting the anomalies of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Pay Commissions. But this was not to be.
Having learnt from experience, the three Service chiefs immediately swung into action to not only douse the simmering fire in the rank and file but also plan a joint strategy to reach out to the Government. The Seventh Pay Commission had not only failed to resolve the anomalies of the previous pay commissions but had added further salt to the injury by equating the status of the Armed Forces of India with that of the Central Armed police Forces. The Pay Commission also went beyond its charter and tried tinkering with the terms and conditions of service of the rank and file. The Armed Forces were harmed both monetarily as well as protocol-wise.
The basis of the report is a study carried out by the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses, a strategic think-tank, comparing the pay of Indian Armed Forces with that of certain foreign armies of developed countries. The competence of the IDSA to carry out such a study is questionable. Moreover, why only have the Armed Forces been singled out for such a comparisonIJ Why not review the terms of service for the other Services, such as the Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Foreign Service and the Indian Forest Service to name a fewIJ The answer is simple: The study was designed to reduce the salary, perks and status of the Armed Forces.
Soldiers worry that history is repeating itself. Every Pay Commission since 1973 has been unfair to the Armed Forces but there was major resentment with the Sixth Pay Commission in 2008. It led to a showdown between the three Service chiefs and the politico-bureaucratic establishment. The Services requested the Government to have their representative in the Committee of Secretaries to look into the anomalies. The request was based on the logic that 30 per cent of Central Government employees affected by the Pay Commission belonged to the Armed Forces.
The request was not granted but an assurance was given that the military’s concerns would be addressed with sympathy and without prejudice. The Service chiefs conceded but were later aghast by the committee’s Government approved report. The Services found that not only were their major grievances not addressed, three more discrepancies had been introduced in the final Cabinet notification. The Service chiefs were let down in front of the Forces and humiliated. They took up the matter separately with the Defence Minister and the Prime Minister, and realised that the real villain was the Ministry of Defence, which had presented a weak case for the Forces, without relevant supporting documents.
The Sixth Pay Commission was worse than the Fifth Pay Commission, wherein the Armed Forces had pointed out 48 anomalies, of which only eight were resolved. Fortunately, Admiral Sureesh Mehta, a no non-sense officer, was the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee then. He convinced his two colleagues to delay the implementation of flawed Sixth Pay Commission. The decision was communicated by Service headquarters to the rank and file through a signal message. The message was received with great jubilation, which sent jitters to the politico-bureaucratic nexus.
There were adverse comments in certain quarters of the media as well. Veteran journalist Nitin Gokhale openly supported the Service chiefs. He wrote, “If the said ‘signal’, as the communication is called in military parlance, is defiance, then no military chief will ever be able to give assurances to, and take, his men in confidence. Anyone who has dealt with the Armed Forces will tell you that there is not an iota of truth in the canard that is being spread about the three Chiefs ‘defying’ the civil authorities. Yes, they questioned the bureaucracy’s attempts to wittingly or unwittingly introduce pay and status disparities between the Armed Forces and their civilian counterparts. Yes they took the matter to Prime Minister but in no way did they defy the Government.”
The bold stand taken by the three Chiefs had the desired result and the Prime Minister appointed a group of Ministers to resolve the grievances of the Armed Forces. Some of the main points were immediately settled and the Services accepted the Sixth Pay Commission. But the MOD continued to play truant, and the unresolved anomalies were referred to the Seventh Pay Commission.
The continued apathy of the bureaucracy towards men in uniform is perplexing. World over the Armed Forces are placed on a different pedestal but in our country, under the garb of ensuring civil supremacy, the politico-bureaucratic nexus works against the interests of the Armed Forces.
Knowing that the Armed Forces are unhappy with the treatment meted to them by the Seventh Pay Commission, efforts are being made through the media to spread lies. The latest attempt is an article in a leading national daily titled, “Our Service chiefs may earn more than US generals”. It states that for the first time, the three chiefs will draw more salary than their US counterparts, based on purchasing power parity terms, when the Seventh Pay Commission is implemented. The PPP comparison is misleading and flawed. How can the salary of officers of two different armies, having different terms and conditions of service, be comparedIJ Moreover, the figures quoted in the article were exaggerated as was evident from another news item published a few days later in another daily, titled “Indian Service chiefs earn less than top US general reveals new data.”
Such articles are aimed at creating confusion among the rank and file, and sowing the seeds of distrust between officers and jawans. No nation, more so India, can afford to have a disgruntled military. All grievances of the Armed Forces must be addressed sympathetically and without prejudice. The Prime Minister must intervene to ensure that the justice is done and the widening rift in civil-military relations halted.
(The writer is a retired Army officer, and security & strategic affairs analyst)