This blog is essentially to share my anguish on the lack of spine and forethought shown by senior military leadership. The absence of guts among the general officers of the Army is old story, but needs to be recounted periodically so as to arouse some reaction from some of us if we want this great institution called the Army to survive.
You all know that as part of devolution of financial powers IFAs are being posted to various Corps and Command HQs. Being from Defence Accounts, these people are civilians, who are governed by rules applicable to civil services. Which means:-
(a) They are not expected to do combat duties.
(b) They are not expected to not go out for exercises or undertake daily military routine of organised physical training, firing, administrative duties, station duties and so on.
(c) In a nutshell they are not to command troops or engage in any activity emanating there from.
(d) Their sole job is limited to rendering sound financial advise to the commanders so as to ensure correct utilisation of funds.
(e) There office routine is 9-to-5 spread over five day week.
(f) To perform his/her official duties each IFA has been given requisite support staff in terms of office superindent, clerks, daftaries, peon and so on.
(g) To commute from the home to office and back, they are entitles to transport allowance.
(h) To meet routine office expenditure including travel on duty they are entitled to requisite public fund.
Simply put, the IFA like any other civil government official has been given wherewithal by the Government of India to carry out his/her duties efficiently.
Despite having been given all necessary office staff and equipment and budget, the IFAs are getting army vehicles driven by combatant drivers and soldiers as runners curtsey the GOC/staff of the HQ the IFA is attached to. Question arises as to why are the vehicles being diverted from the military duties and combatant made to perform jobs of runner and duftaries in civil offices?
Now some of these worthy general officers/their staff would make two arguments. First that it is being done for the good of the Army. After all if IFA is happy, the proposals would be processed quickly. Second, it is really a non-issue because it involves a minuscule number of vehicles (may be 40 – 50) and about 100 soldiers.
My response to these arguments is as follows:-
(a) Firstly at a functional level this practice of illegally assigning combatants to civil offices is totally wrong and must be stopped forthwith. Such diversion of WE equipment and soldiers will not only impact on battle worthiness of the Army but also set a precedent for the IFA staff at Army HQ (and other civilian staff associated with the Army at various levels) to demand similar facilities.
(b) Secondly at, more substantive level, these arguments sound like a justification for bribery (please do not be surprised, because it is so). Every public servant is required to work efficiently without fear or favour. So if IFA gives concurrence for questionable proposals solely because he is gratified with combatant driver and runner then he (the IFA) is being disloyal to his country and is guilty of conniving in squandering public funds.
Counter argument to my plea would be that India is India and here the bureaucracy can be extremely insensitive and successfully stall even legit proposals through a simple mechanism of petty procedural objections/observations.
I agree that bureaucracy in India and more so the IFA variety exercises veto power over schemes of government of India and is considered law onto themselves. But my point is simple, succumbing to shortcuts or kowtowing the IFA may give us short term gains in terms of approval for the proposals which were either not well prepared or were a waste, but in the long term such acquisition or practice will lead to serious damage to character of the officer cadre and internal efficiency of the Army. After all it can be nobody’s case that we should encourage `transactional’ leadership.
If the Army as a institution is seen to be promoting free-enterprise system, wherein only the results in the form of profits matter, the transactional ethos would rein supreme and military ethics which form the basis of trust between the soldiers would vanish.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
AWHO: Now and Future
I have the March 2009, newsletter from Army Welfare Housing Organization (AWHO) in front of me. The newsletter has three main features, that is
(a) Maj Gen Mohan Singh retires after serving for eight long years as the Managing Director.
(b) During last 10 years (read outgoing MD’s tenure) the AWHO has constructed as many houses as it did during preceding 10 years.
(c) The newsletter also effectively admonishes the members for being too demanding.
Now for a little reality check.
(a) During last ten years the AWHO failed to buy even an inch of land in sought after places like Panchkula, Gurgaon, Banglore, Mumbai and Pune. The projects now underway at these places are on the land purchased long-long back.
(b) During the same period many group housing societies of central/state employees have purchased land at market price and built quality houses. For example a Group Housing Society made up of certain categories of Haryana Government Employees bought two acre site from Haryana Urban Development Authority at market rates in the year 2003 and despite delay in starting the construction because of some legal hassles, it is delivering 2250 sq ft flats with two covered parking at a cost of Rs. 4200000/-. Compare that with any AWHO project of similar specifications and you would know the reality.
(c) Present state of AWHO is amply clear from it’s own admission that it has doubled in 10 years. Compare that to other builders who have expanded manifold during lesser period.
Way Forward
Friends, the fact is that AWHO of today is nothing but a construction agent with an attitude! There is no vision, no desire to deliver! So what to do? We have two options.
(a) Option-I. Drop the misnomer called `Welfare’ and rechristen it as Army Housing Organisation. Pressurize the Board of Governors/Adjutant General to reconstitute the management in keeping with the principles of corporate governance, wherein:-
(i) All of us (including OR) have the option of becoming share holders from the day we join the Army.
(ii) The management is responsible for the demonstrated performance of the company based on set targets.
(iii) It functions in a transparent manner.
(b) Option –II. Create Group Housing Societies in the cities of choice. Take land from government agencies at market rates and construct houses for ourselves. Believe you me. It is possible and cost-effective. My preliminary survey shows that a Group Housing Society can buy land at a price of Rs. Five Crore per acre and still give highest possible quality construction and A1 facilities at Rs. 50 lacs for a 2250 sq ft super built up area flat. As you all know Five Crores will get you one acre of land in high-end suburb of metros.
While Option-II is quite workable for officers, I still feel that revival of AWHO as AHO is preferable to ensure quality housing for our OR as well.
(a) Maj Gen Mohan Singh retires after serving for eight long years as the Managing Director.
(b) During last 10 years (read outgoing MD’s tenure) the AWHO has constructed as many houses as it did during preceding 10 years.
(c) The newsletter also effectively admonishes the members for being too demanding.
Now for a little reality check.
(a) During last ten years the AWHO failed to buy even an inch of land in sought after places like Panchkula, Gurgaon, Banglore, Mumbai and Pune. The projects now underway at these places are on the land purchased long-long back.
(b) During the same period many group housing societies of central/state employees have purchased land at market price and built quality houses. For example a Group Housing Society made up of certain categories of Haryana Government Employees bought two acre site from Haryana Urban Development Authority at market rates in the year 2003 and despite delay in starting the construction because of some legal hassles, it is delivering 2250 sq ft flats with two covered parking at a cost of Rs. 4200000/-. Compare that with any AWHO project of similar specifications and you would know the reality.
(c) Present state of AWHO is amply clear from it’s own admission that it has doubled in 10 years. Compare that to other builders who have expanded manifold during lesser period.
Way Forward
Friends, the fact is that AWHO of today is nothing but a construction agent with an attitude! There is no vision, no desire to deliver! So what to do? We have two options.
(a) Option-I. Drop the misnomer called `Welfare’ and rechristen it as Army Housing Organisation. Pressurize the Board of Governors/Adjutant General to reconstitute the management in keeping with the principles of corporate governance, wherein:-
(i) All of us (including OR) have the option of becoming share holders from the day we join the Army.
(ii) The management is responsible for the demonstrated performance of the company based on set targets.
(iii) It functions in a transparent manner.
(b) Option –II. Create Group Housing Societies in the cities of choice. Take land from government agencies at market rates and construct houses for ourselves. Believe you me. It is possible and cost-effective. My preliminary survey shows that a Group Housing Society can buy land at a price of Rs. Five Crore per acre and still give highest possible quality construction and A1 facilities at Rs. 50 lacs for a 2250 sq ft super built up area flat. As you all know Five Crores will get you one acre of land in high-end suburb of metros.
While Option-II is quite workable for officers, I still feel that revival of AWHO as AHO is preferable to ensure quality housing for our OR as well.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Fables of Morality
Fables of Morality
Mr Arun Sourie, through his long winded article, `A goal they cannot corrupt’ in the Indian Express 17 to 19 September, posits himself as `high priest’ and installs Mahatma Gandhi as the ruling deity of morality in public life. It is no doubt that both the Mr Shourie and Mahatma Gandhi have a track record of sorts. Mr Shourie will always be remembered for his incisive reporting from burning hell, that was Assam in 1984 and Mahatma Gandhi, without doubt, captured imagination of the people and continues to do so to a great extent even today. But can they fit the bill in so far as morality in public life is concerned?
Mr Shourie first. He chides the political parties for fielding Lawyers as spokespersons. Why! Because he feels that they speak the language of convenience. Fair enough. May be many others hold similar views. But then Mr Shourie goes and uses the language of convenience to argue his case. He cites any one and every one to make a particular point. Consequently his arguemnt looses the sheen of morality, which is supposedly his USP. In the article he cites both Mr Churchill and Mr Gandhi. Now, every one knows that these two personalities were as different as chalk and cheese. They practiced two different kinds of politics. Mr Churchill was a realist, who had no qualms in saying that sometimes it is necessary to speak falsehood for greater common good. On the other hand, Mahatma Gandhi claimed to follow the truth – whatever the cost. He professed to shun expediency for the truth, always and every time. Whether he did so or not we shall see in a moment. The bigger point here is that Mr Shourie has behaved just like a `lawyer-spokesperson’.
Now coming to the status of deity for Mahatma Gandhi. As the honourific suggests, most of the people, including this writer accept that Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a Great Soul (Mahatma). That is to say that despite his personal flaws, which were many, he was better than most of us. But can he be the icon of morality? Answer is resounding No!
Khilafat Movement. Take the case of Khilafat movement. He (Gandhi) justified his support for this movement in the name of `Hindu-Muslim unity’. His support for a foreign cause was based totally on grounds of expediency, as would be clear from his following utterance: “The test of friendship is true assistance in adversity, and whatever we are, Hindu, Parsees, Christians or Jews, if we wish to live as one nation (Please mark the central impulse – one nation), surely, the interest of any of us must be the interest of all…We talk of the Hindu-Mahommedan unity. It would be an empty phrase if the Hindus hold aloof from the Mahommedans when their vital (italics mine) are at stake.” That is Pradhan, pp 151-2 quoted by RC Majumdar in Annus Mirabilis – 1919, Struggle for Freedom, Vol XI, Third Edition, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai,pp 319.
Champaran and Kheda Satyagraha. In Kheda, a terrible famine had struck the district and a large part of Gujarat, and virtually destroyed the agrarian economy. During the years of 1918 and 1919 poor peasants had barely enough to feed themselves, but the British government of the Bombay Presidency increased taxes by 23%. Gandhi proposed satyagraha - non-violence, mass civil disobedience Gandhi also insisted that neither the protestors in Bihar nor in Gujarat allude to or try to propagate the concept of Swaraj, or Independence. In Gujarat, Gandhi was only the spiritual head of the struggle.Actual mobilisation of the masses was undertaken under the leadership of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and a close coterie of devoted Gandhians, namely Narhari Parikh Mohan Lal and Ravi Shankar Vyas who organized the villagers and gave them leadership and direction. The revolt was astounding in terms of discipline and unity.
Non-cooperation Movement 1920. In June 1920, during its session at Allahabad, Gandhi tried to bring Congress around to launching of non-cooperation movement against the British to support ongoing Khilafat Movement. But moderates like Motlal and others like CR Das oppsed it. However by December they had also joined with Gandhi to launch for the first time a movement for Sawaraj (freedom). Besides Gandhi, the strikes by industrial workers also played a significant role in making the Congress veer towards demand for freedom. The movement caiught people’s imagination and culminated in a wide spread Hartal on 17 November 1921 to protest against the visit by the Prince of Wales. British Government seemed to be on verge of capitulation when Gandhi abruptly withdrew the agitation on 11 febuary 1922, on hearing that a peasant mob had set on fire a police station at Chauri-Chaur (in UP) leading to burning of 22 policemen. While the movement failed to achieve its main objective of sawaraj, it did spread the influence of Congress to newer areas, especially in the South.
Civil-disobedience Movement 1932-1934. The Second Round Table held at London in the year 1931 failed because the British, the Muslims, the Princes as well as Hindu Mahasabha refused to change their respective positions. Mahatma Gandhi returned to Indiaa disappointed man and launched Non-cooperation Movement. The movement was effective mainly in the provinces of Bombay and Bengal. However, the British, who were prepared for the confrontation managed to gain upper hand with in two months of the launch of the agitation. A large number of arrests were made, but many of these were `repeaters in Bombay and Calcutta. By mid-1932 Gandhi was looking for a way out, which was provided by the British in form of Communal Award in August 1932, which created separate constituencies for the untouchables among Hindus. Gandhi went on to launch a fast unto-death while in prison. This led to Poona Pact between Dr Ambedkar and Gandhi, with both demanding scrapping fo separate constituencies for the untouchables. This was accepted by the British and Gandhi withdrew Civil Disobedience Movement in May 1933 (except for himself).
Quit India Movement 1942. By May 1940, France had fallen to the Nazies and the British Empire seemd doomed to similar fate. It was at this juncture that Mahatma Gandhi returned to centre stage to launch a tightly controlled Satayagraha, wherein he would personally detail the volunteers to court arrests. All through 1941, te Congress leadership seemed divided with C Rajagopalachari recommending a compromise with Jinha led Muslim League and Nehru-Patel adopting a policy of wait-and-watch. But Gandhi was adamant that the party go ahead with a limited movement. Subsequent events showed that as usual he had miscalculated the British resolve and capacity. Cripps Mission which visited India in March 1942 was doomed to failure due to non-cooperation of the Congress and intransigence of Churchill who was not very keen to grant concessions to Gandhi. On 08 August 1942 the Congress Working Committee adopted Quit India resolution. The British responded the next day by imprisoning Gandhi. All the members Party's Working Committee (national leadership) were also arrested. Despite lack of direct leadership, large scale protests and demonstrations were held all over the country. Workers remained absent en masse and strikes were called. However, not all the demonstrations were peaceful. At some places bombs exploded, government buildings were set on fire, electricity was cut, and transport and communication lines were severed. A minor uprising took place in Ballia (eastern Uttar Pradesh). People overthrew the district administration, broke open the jail, released the arrested Congress leaders, and established their own independent rule. The British in a swift and strong response used military including air force to suppress the uprising. A total over 100,000 arrests were made nationwide, mass fines were levied, and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. By early 1944, India was mostly peaceful again, while the entire Congress leadership was incarcerated. A sense that the movement had failed depressed many nationalists, while Jinnah and the Muslim League, as well as Congress opponents like the Communists sought to gain political mileage.
Just like Mr RC Majumdar, I am also a realist and have no quarrel with the view that one must stand in solidarity with his neighbours. But what about Mahatma Gandhi, he always claimed to give precedence to the truth over expediency! Remember his withdrawal of non-cooperation movement after Chauri-Chaura incident. Why was he giving precedence to expediency in the case of Khilafat movement. A movement which was instigated by `trans-national’ identity and hence in no way supported `concept of One India’. So what was Mahatma Gandhi up to? Nothing more or less than real politics. He wanted to establish himself as supreme leader of Indian Struggle for Freedom. This act of his actually laid the first stone for the foundation of Two Nation Theory. Should he be the `Deity of Morality’? Let the reader decide. Most charitable view of Mahatma Gandhi is that while he did possess a great capacity for self denial and strong will, he was most erratic in his decision-making. He also suffered from rigidity and time and again used emotional blackmail in place of logic and reason to make his supporters fall in line with his esoteric ideas. In so far as his relationship with his wife and one of the sons is concerned - less said the better. So, was he worthy of being moral icon, well the record speaks for itself.
Indian history is replete with examples of Great Souls (Mahan Atmas). They have done their best for the people within the limits imposed by the time and circumstances they lived in. We revere them, even when they are from two warring sides. Example Akbar the great and Maharana Pratap. But we do not make them deities. This deitification is a recent phenomenon, and is rooted in the `Fables of Nationalism’ which have been woven and continue to be woven to claim a monopoly of sorts over `Indian Struggle for Freedom’ and to pass of expediency as search for truth.
Mr Arun Sourie, through his long winded article, `A goal they cannot corrupt’ in the Indian Express 17 to 19 September, posits himself as `high priest’ and installs Mahatma Gandhi as the ruling deity of morality in public life. It is no doubt that both the Mr Shourie and Mahatma Gandhi have a track record of sorts. Mr Shourie will always be remembered for his incisive reporting from burning hell, that was Assam in 1984 and Mahatma Gandhi, without doubt, captured imagination of the people and continues to do so to a great extent even today. But can they fit the bill in so far as morality in public life is concerned?
Mr Shourie first. He chides the political parties for fielding Lawyers as spokespersons. Why! Because he feels that they speak the language of convenience. Fair enough. May be many others hold similar views. But then Mr Shourie goes and uses the language of convenience to argue his case. He cites any one and every one to make a particular point. Consequently his arguemnt looses the sheen of morality, which is supposedly his USP. In the article he cites both Mr Churchill and Mr Gandhi. Now, every one knows that these two personalities were as different as chalk and cheese. They practiced two different kinds of politics. Mr Churchill was a realist, who had no qualms in saying that sometimes it is necessary to speak falsehood for greater common good. On the other hand, Mahatma Gandhi claimed to follow the truth – whatever the cost. He professed to shun expediency for the truth, always and every time. Whether he did so or not we shall see in a moment. The bigger point here is that Mr Shourie has behaved just like a `lawyer-spokesperson’.
Now coming to the status of deity for Mahatma Gandhi. As the honourific suggests, most of the people, including this writer accept that Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a Great Soul (Mahatma). That is to say that despite his personal flaws, which were many, he was better than most of us. But can he be the icon of morality? Answer is resounding No!
Khilafat Movement. Take the case of Khilafat movement. He (Gandhi) justified his support for this movement in the name of `Hindu-Muslim unity’. His support for a foreign cause was based totally on grounds of expediency, as would be clear from his following utterance: “The test of friendship is true assistance in adversity, and whatever we are, Hindu, Parsees, Christians or Jews, if we wish to live as one nation (Please mark the central impulse – one nation), surely, the interest of any of us must be the interest of all…We talk of the Hindu-Mahommedan unity. It would be an empty phrase if the Hindus hold aloof from the Mahommedans when their vital (italics mine) are at stake.” That is Pradhan, pp 151-2 quoted by RC Majumdar in Annus Mirabilis – 1919, Struggle for Freedom, Vol XI, Third Edition, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai,pp 319.
Champaran and Kheda Satyagraha. In Kheda, a terrible famine had struck the district and a large part of Gujarat, and virtually destroyed the agrarian economy. During the years of 1918 and 1919 poor peasants had barely enough to feed themselves, but the British government of the Bombay Presidency increased taxes by 23%. Gandhi proposed satyagraha - non-violence, mass civil disobedience Gandhi also insisted that neither the protestors in Bihar nor in Gujarat allude to or try to propagate the concept of Swaraj, or Independence. In Gujarat, Gandhi was only the spiritual head of the struggle.Actual mobilisation of the masses was undertaken under the leadership of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and a close coterie of devoted Gandhians, namely Narhari Parikh Mohan Lal and Ravi Shankar Vyas who organized the villagers and gave them leadership and direction. The revolt was astounding in terms of discipline and unity.
Non-cooperation Movement 1920. In June 1920, during its session at Allahabad, Gandhi tried to bring Congress around to launching of non-cooperation movement against the British to support ongoing Khilafat Movement. But moderates like Motlal and others like CR Das oppsed it. However by December they had also joined with Gandhi to launch for the first time a movement for Sawaraj (freedom). Besides Gandhi, the strikes by industrial workers also played a significant role in making the Congress veer towards demand for freedom. The movement caiught people’s imagination and culminated in a wide spread Hartal on 17 November 1921 to protest against the visit by the Prince of Wales. British Government seemed to be on verge of capitulation when Gandhi abruptly withdrew the agitation on 11 febuary 1922, on hearing that a peasant mob had set on fire a police station at Chauri-Chaur (in UP) leading to burning of 22 policemen. While the movement failed to achieve its main objective of sawaraj, it did spread the influence of Congress to newer areas, especially in the South.
Civil-disobedience Movement 1932-1934. The Second Round Table held at London in the year 1931 failed because the British, the Muslims, the Princes as well as Hindu Mahasabha refused to change their respective positions. Mahatma Gandhi returned to Indiaa disappointed man and launched Non-cooperation Movement. The movement was effective mainly in the provinces of Bombay and Bengal. However, the British, who were prepared for the confrontation managed to gain upper hand with in two months of the launch of the agitation. A large number of arrests were made, but many of these were `repeaters in Bombay and Calcutta. By mid-1932 Gandhi was looking for a way out, which was provided by the British in form of Communal Award in August 1932, which created separate constituencies for the untouchables among Hindus. Gandhi went on to launch a fast unto-death while in prison. This led to Poona Pact between Dr Ambedkar and Gandhi, with both demanding scrapping fo separate constituencies for the untouchables. This was accepted by the British and Gandhi withdrew Civil Disobedience Movement in May 1933 (except for himself).
Quit India Movement 1942. By May 1940, France had fallen to the Nazies and the British Empire seemd doomed to similar fate. It was at this juncture that Mahatma Gandhi returned to centre stage to launch a tightly controlled Satayagraha, wherein he would personally detail the volunteers to court arrests. All through 1941, te Congress leadership seemed divided with C Rajagopalachari recommending a compromise with Jinha led Muslim League and Nehru-Patel adopting a policy of wait-and-watch. But Gandhi was adamant that the party go ahead with a limited movement. Subsequent events showed that as usual he had miscalculated the British resolve and capacity. Cripps Mission which visited India in March 1942 was doomed to failure due to non-cooperation of the Congress and intransigence of Churchill who was not very keen to grant concessions to Gandhi. On 08 August 1942 the Congress Working Committee adopted Quit India resolution. The British responded the next day by imprisoning Gandhi. All the members Party's Working Committee (national leadership) were also arrested. Despite lack of direct leadership, large scale protests and demonstrations were held all over the country. Workers remained absent en masse and strikes were called. However, not all the demonstrations were peaceful. At some places bombs exploded, government buildings were set on fire, electricity was cut, and transport and communication lines were severed. A minor uprising took place in Ballia (eastern Uttar Pradesh). People overthrew the district administration, broke open the jail, released the arrested Congress leaders, and established their own independent rule. The British in a swift and strong response used military including air force to suppress the uprising. A total over 100,000 arrests were made nationwide, mass fines were levied, and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. By early 1944, India was mostly peaceful again, while the entire Congress leadership was incarcerated. A sense that the movement had failed depressed many nationalists, while Jinnah and the Muslim League, as well as Congress opponents like the Communists sought to gain political mileage.
Just like Mr RC Majumdar, I am also a realist and have no quarrel with the view that one must stand in solidarity with his neighbours. But what about Mahatma Gandhi, he always claimed to give precedence to the truth over expediency! Remember his withdrawal of non-cooperation movement after Chauri-Chaura incident. Why was he giving precedence to expediency in the case of Khilafat movement. A movement which was instigated by `trans-national’ identity and hence in no way supported `concept of One India’. So what was Mahatma Gandhi up to? Nothing more or less than real politics. He wanted to establish himself as supreme leader of Indian Struggle for Freedom. This act of his actually laid the first stone for the foundation of Two Nation Theory. Should he be the `Deity of Morality’? Let the reader decide. Most charitable view of Mahatma Gandhi is that while he did possess a great capacity for self denial and strong will, he was most erratic in his decision-making. He also suffered from rigidity and time and again used emotional blackmail in place of logic and reason to make his supporters fall in line with his esoteric ideas. In so far as his relationship with his wife and one of the sons is concerned - less said the better. So, was he worthy of being moral icon, well the record speaks for itself.
Indian history is replete with examples of Great Souls (Mahan Atmas). They have done their best for the people within the limits imposed by the time and circumstances they lived in. We revere them, even when they are from two warring sides. Example Akbar the great and Maharana Pratap. But we do not make them deities. This deitification is a recent phenomenon, and is rooted in the `Fables of Nationalism’ which have been woven and continue to be woven to claim a monopoly of sorts over `Indian Struggle for Freedom’ and to pass of expediency as search for truth.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Playing with Honour
“The way to procure insults is to submit to them: a man meets with no more respect than he exacts”: William Hazlitt (1778-1830)
The point is bigger. The fact of matter is that Top Brass of IA seems to be consistently failing in safe guarding organisational and individual interests of Armymen. Just a few examples.
(a) People of Kashmir list security checks as one of the major `demeaning' experience they have to undergo and most of press seems to agree. Now compare this so-called `humiliation' of a populace in terrorism affected area with `security check' a soldier/officer is made to undergo while visisting his own Army HQ! Why is it that military identity card is really not good enough to establish his bonafides? Why does he have to undergo baggage scan/search? Ever wondered who could have made these rules and who is responsible for thier continuation? Top Brass.
(b) Ever wondered why soldiers `deputed' to attend Republic Day parade have to undergo humiliating body search by Delhi Police while their own walk through the security checks? Who is responsible? Top Brass.
(c) Who is responsible for moving NCO/JCO Couriers without reservation in crowded trains for most trivial reasons like getting flowers? Top Brass.
(d) No wonder the Manager Ambala CSD wants to verify cars purchased by the Army men.
(e) GL Section Type `B' are affiliated to AF Wings, these sections are commanded by Colonels (SG) with 25 year or more service whose CRs are written by AF Station Commander who functionally places them under command COO ( a junior Group Captain) Army Brass has never objected to it. While the Group Captain from the AF commanding Tactical Air Centres (TAC) affiliated to Army formations remains totally under the AF and seperate from the Army.
(f) Rather than develop in-house expertise for CI/CT, the Top Brass is happy denuding Army Units of junior officers to fill up NSG and other sundry PMF. All for a few vacancies for the colonel and above.
(g) Army officers of Major rank on deputation with civilian organisations have had their CRs initiated by Deputy Secretary equivalents.
(h) Visit any Army establishment and see the econdition of offices of Major/Lt Col rank officers. While at it also try and see lavish spread of Brigadier and above.
The point is bigger. The fact of matter is that Top Brass of IA seems to be consistently failing in safe guarding organisational and individual interests of Armymen. Just a few examples.
(a) People of Kashmir list security checks as one of the major `demeaning' experience they have to undergo and most of press seems to agree. Now compare this so-called `humiliation' of a populace in terrorism affected area with `security check' a soldier/officer is made to undergo while visisting his own Army HQ! Why is it that military identity card is really not good enough to establish his bonafides? Why does he have to undergo baggage scan/search? Ever wondered who could have made these rules and who is responsible for thier continuation? Top Brass.
(b) Ever wondered why soldiers `deputed' to attend Republic Day parade have to undergo humiliating body search by Delhi Police while their own walk through the security checks? Who is responsible? Top Brass.
(c) Who is responsible for moving NCO/JCO Couriers without reservation in crowded trains for most trivial reasons like getting flowers? Top Brass.
(d) No wonder the Manager Ambala CSD wants to verify cars purchased by the Army men.
(e) GL Section Type `B' are affiliated to AF Wings, these sections are commanded by Colonels (SG) with 25 year or more service whose CRs are written by AF Station Commander who functionally places them under command COO ( a junior Group Captain) Army Brass has never objected to it. While the Group Captain from the AF commanding Tactical Air Centres (TAC) affiliated to Army formations remains totally under the AF and seperate from the Army.
(f) Rather than develop in-house expertise for CI/CT, the Top Brass is happy denuding Army Units of junior officers to fill up NSG and other sundry PMF. All for a few vacancies for the colonel and above.
(g) Army officers of Major rank on deputation with civilian organisations have had their CRs initiated by Deputy Secretary equivalents.
(h) Visit any Army establishment and see the econdition of offices of Major/Lt Col rank officers. While at it also try and see lavish spread of Brigadier and above.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Reality of Power and Media in India
Reality of Power and the Media in India
Let me first revisit one of the cherished delusion of common people, that is, the Chiefs of Indian Armed Forces are so powerful that they must always be kept under most stringent checks lest they transgress their sphere of influence. Remember the outcry which has gone up when they requested the government to rectify anomalies in award of Sixth Pay Commission to the soldiers. This was touted as height of disloyalty and disrespect for the constitutional authority. Well reality is quiet different. Real power in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) lies with the bureaucrats. Let me elaborate with the example of recent scandal involving erstwhile head of Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), Mr Sudipta Ghosh. The fellow has been arrested by the CBI for what it calls “one of the biggest corruption scandals in recent times”.
As per the official website of the MoD, `The Ordnance Factories Organization is the largest and oldest departmentally run production organization in the country and is engaged primarily in the manufacture of Defence hardware. The organization functions under the Department of Defence Production and Supplies and is a dedicated facility for manufacture of Weapons, Ammunitions, Vehicles (Armoured and Transport), Clothing, General Stores and Equipment for Defence Services. Apart from supplying to Armed Forces, wherever adequate capacities are available, the Ordnance Factories also fulfill the requirements of Paramilitary & Police Forces/Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Civil Trade and foreign customers. There are 39 Ordnance Factories geographically distributed all over India at 24 different locations. Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) the corporate headquarters of these factories professes to follow the values of Integrity, Transparency, Fairness & Trust. India Today describes the OFB as `the world’s largest government production department’.
Mr Sudipta Ghosh was the head honcho of OFB for two years has been accused of amassing huge fortune through shady deals involving foreign firms. For the sake of appearances the OFB is supposedly an autonomous organization but in reality head of OFB reports to the Additional Secretary Defence Production in the MoD who in turn is subordinate to Secretary Defence Production, who reports to Defence Secretary MoD. These worthies control the OFB through a system of checks and balances wherein the MoD representative is always present on the various committees formed to progress major proposal. So the common sense syas that Mr Sudipta Ghosh could not have acted alone.
But when the scandal blew up, the bureaucracy, in a classic move turned the adversity into opportunity through a two step approach. First it immediately assumed the role of honest broker by declaring that the matter would be fully investigated and the guilty would be punished. Second, it made public it’s decision to exercise greater control over OFB by, hold your breath, having a Joint Secretary attend all important meetings of OFB and by making additional secretary Department of Defence Production available to OFB for closer interaction. Since these worthies were already on committees formed to progress OFB proposals how will they get closer? And, what will this closeness achieve? More corruption! Masterly case of `movement being passed off as action’.
Real culprit in the whole messy game are the bureaucrats in the MoD. Since the OFB is a rich source of all kinds of perks and privileges, the bureaucrats have a vested interest in keeping the functioning of the Ordnance Factories under warps because secrecy allows them to run a most inefficient conglomerate at the cost of lives of soldiers and taxpayers money. Sub-standard items produced by the OFBs are forced down the throat of Services by first getting the item quality cleared from Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), an in-house minion of Secretary Defence.
So-called national press has been conspicuous by its absence from this important issue. It is time for concerned citizen to take matters in hand and demand that OFB be immediately turned into a fully autonomous public holding company open to norms of transparent corporate governance. The bureaucracy in MoD must be divested of any power over the supplier (OFB), Quality Controller (DGQA) and Services. Why not have a regime similar to the one constituted for tele-services.
Let me first revisit one of the cherished delusion of common people, that is, the Chiefs of Indian Armed Forces are so powerful that they must always be kept under most stringent checks lest they transgress their sphere of influence. Remember the outcry which has gone up when they requested the government to rectify anomalies in award of Sixth Pay Commission to the soldiers. This was touted as height of disloyalty and disrespect for the constitutional authority. Well reality is quiet different. Real power in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) lies with the bureaucrats. Let me elaborate with the example of recent scandal involving erstwhile head of Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), Mr Sudipta Ghosh. The fellow has been arrested by the CBI for what it calls “one of the biggest corruption scandals in recent times”.
As per the official website of the MoD, `The Ordnance Factories Organization is the largest and oldest departmentally run production organization in the country and is engaged primarily in the manufacture of Defence hardware. The organization functions under the Department of Defence Production and Supplies and is a dedicated facility for manufacture of Weapons, Ammunitions, Vehicles (Armoured and Transport), Clothing, General Stores and Equipment for Defence Services. Apart from supplying to Armed Forces, wherever adequate capacities are available, the Ordnance Factories also fulfill the requirements of Paramilitary & Police Forces/Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Civil Trade and foreign customers. There are 39 Ordnance Factories geographically distributed all over India at 24 different locations. Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) the corporate headquarters of these factories professes to follow the values of Integrity, Transparency, Fairness & Trust. India Today describes the OFB as `the world’s largest government production department’.
Mr Sudipta Ghosh was the head honcho of OFB for two years has been accused of amassing huge fortune through shady deals involving foreign firms. For the sake of appearances the OFB is supposedly an autonomous organization but in reality head of OFB reports to the Additional Secretary Defence Production in the MoD who in turn is subordinate to Secretary Defence Production, who reports to Defence Secretary MoD. These worthies control the OFB through a system of checks and balances wherein the MoD representative is always present on the various committees formed to progress major proposal. So the common sense syas that Mr Sudipta Ghosh could not have acted alone.
But when the scandal blew up, the bureaucracy, in a classic move turned the adversity into opportunity through a two step approach. First it immediately assumed the role of honest broker by declaring that the matter would be fully investigated and the guilty would be punished. Second, it made public it’s decision to exercise greater control over OFB by, hold your breath, having a Joint Secretary attend all important meetings of OFB and by making additional secretary Department of Defence Production available to OFB for closer interaction. Since these worthies were already on committees formed to progress OFB proposals how will they get closer? And, what will this closeness achieve? More corruption! Masterly case of `movement being passed off as action’.
Real culprit in the whole messy game are the bureaucrats in the MoD. Since the OFB is a rich source of all kinds of perks and privileges, the bureaucrats have a vested interest in keeping the functioning of the Ordnance Factories under warps because secrecy allows them to run a most inefficient conglomerate at the cost of lives of soldiers and taxpayers money. Sub-standard items produced by the OFBs are forced down the throat of Services by first getting the item quality cleared from Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), an in-house minion of Secretary Defence.
So-called national press has been conspicuous by its absence from this important issue. It is time for concerned citizen to take matters in hand and demand that OFB be immediately turned into a fully autonomous public holding company open to norms of transparent corporate governance. The bureaucracy in MoD must be divested of any power over the supplier (OFB), Quality Controller (DGQA) and Services. Why not have a regime similar to the one constituted for tele-services.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Red Herring of AFSPA
Revoking AFSPA is nothing but a red herring. Legally a police constable has more powers in normal course of his duty than those given to and Armymen under AFSPA. For example in course of his routine duties (say in the state of Rajasthan or Tamilnadu) a police head constable can open fire without awaiting clearance from his superior and stop and search a suspect. Those opposing AFSPA are seeking to deny these powers to a Naik of the Army (equivalent rank to Head Constable) even in an area infested with insurgents and terrorists. How strange!
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
AFT and after
I agree with the concept of having a `Military Appeals Court' but I am not sure if AFT in present form is the answer. I also do not agree with our learned friend Navdeep's description of present army act as British Legacy for a `native army'. We need to remember that before the british there was no Army Act in India nor did any of our great Maharajas deem it necessary to enact one to match and surpass the British. LAstly if the present Army ACt was so bad why has it not been thrown away for last 60 years. Sexcond I also do not agree with our learned friend on the issue of `customs of war'. He suggests that thse are best done away with. The fact is that such customs provide basis to every law. For example the present civil code which forms the bedrock of Indian jurisprudence is based on `catholic customs and beliefs' by virtue of being carbon copy of Eurpoean jurisprudence and that is the reason why Indian Law many a times runs counter to social norms and hence observed in denial (case of marriages between cousins of same gotras in Haryana). AFT in present form is nothing but imposition of civil judiciary on the military. This will slowly but surely destroy very uniqueness of the military. What we needed was a `military system of justice presided by military judge, based on jury system free from command influence and JAG influence. Having provision for appeals but totally manned by Jury composed of people with proven combat record.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Inaction is the Best Policy
As an Indian I have no love lost for the Pakistan Army who have been implacable foes for us but again as an Indian I have greatest interest in getting the Taliban defeated. Hence when someone who has been the COAS of Indian Army analyses ongoing operations (Rah-e-Rast) in Swat I sit up and take intense interest in his writings.
But I am sorry to say that Gen Malik in article ` Pak offensive against Taliban’ The Tribune 03 June 2009, fails to enthuse me. Because his analysis smacks of defeatism. It criticises for the sake of it and fails to offer any worthwhile alternative course of action. Every point he makes is totally pessimistic.
First he pontificates that while `it will be easy for the army to enter cities, towns and villages...civil administration will take time to establish’. This is nothing but stating the obvious because the fact applies to all wars. So what is the general suggesting? No operations!
Second, the general claims that if army operations succeed it may act catalyst for consolidation of Talibs for neighbouring regions and in case of stalemate it may encourage Talibs to claim victory’. A strange kind of argument. The good general seems to be suggesting that `if you try you are sure to fail' thus `inaction is best'. How in keeping with his quick acceptance of governmental caveat that LoC not be crossed!!
Third, He claims that Pakistan army has no experience of counter-insurgency because it was focussing on conventional war with conventional tactics against India. So the deduction to me is that it must use the tactics it is good at. But when it is using conventional tactics Gen Malik criticises it for the fear of alienating local populace (as if they are any better now). Pray what is the answer? None so far as Gen Malik is concerned. Inaction perhaps!
Fourth, some of the points he makes about the tactics also seem to be quite premature or subjective. He criticises the policy of retaining certain control over media reporting from combat zone. But we all remember that US Policy of having embedded journalists (whose reports were vetted before airing) paid good dividends during Gulf War and on the other hand unrestricted reporting on Kargil did raise some controversies!
He again states the obvious that defeating Pakistani Taliban is intimately linked to success of operations in Afghanistan. This is true and as one gathers from press reports there seems to be certain synergy between NATO operations in Afghanistan and Pak operations in Swat.
Notwithstanding this, the broader question is what should a country do when faced with extra-territorial linkages to terrorism. Answer was provided by the Indian Army (in post Malik era) by fencing the LoC and thereby isolating and defeating terrorists in Kashmir.
Role of any Army is to fight and win, winning hearts and minds is for other organs of the state as conclusively proven by Sri Lank. Any attempt to divide soldier's attention by engaging him into non-military tasks should be seen for what it is - ploy by a weak military leadership hell bent on securing political patronage. How much harm such leadership has caused to Indian Army is a subject for historians.
But I am sorry to say that Gen Malik in article ` Pak offensive against Taliban’ The Tribune 03 June 2009, fails to enthuse me. Because his analysis smacks of defeatism. It criticises for the sake of it and fails to offer any worthwhile alternative course of action. Every point he makes is totally pessimistic.
First he pontificates that while `it will be easy for the army to enter cities, towns and villages...civil administration will take time to establish’. This is nothing but stating the obvious because the fact applies to all wars. So what is the general suggesting? No operations!
Second, the general claims that if army operations succeed it may act catalyst for consolidation of Talibs for neighbouring regions and in case of stalemate it may encourage Talibs to claim victory’. A strange kind of argument. The good general seems to be suggesting that `if you try you are sure to fail' thus `inaction is best'. How in keeping with his quick acceptance of governmental caveat that LoC not be crossed!!
Third, He claims that Pakistan army has no experience of counter-insurgency because it was focussing on conventional war with conventional tactics against India. So the deduction to me is that it must use the tactics it is good at. But when it is using conventional tactics Gen Malik criticises it for the fear of alienating local populace (as if they are any better now). Pray what is the answer? None so far as Gen Malik is concerned. Inaction perhaps!
Fourth, some of the points he makes about the tactics also seem to be quite premature or subjective. He criticises the policy of retaining certain control over media reporting from combat zone. But we all remember that US Policy of having embedded journalists (whose reports were vetted before airing) paid good dividends during Gulf War and on the other hand unrestricted reporting on Kargil did raise some controversies!
He again states the obvious that defeating Pakistani Taliban is intimately linked to success of operations in Afghanistan. This is true and as one gathers from press reports there seems to be certain synergy between NATO operations in Afghanistan and Pak operations in Swat.
Notwithstanding this, the broader question is what should a country do when faced with extra-territorial linkages to terrorism. Answer was provided by the Indian Army (in post Malik era) by fencing the LoC and thereby isolating and defeating terrorists in Kashmir.
Role of any Army is to fight and win, winning hearts and minds is for other organs of the state as conclusively proven by Sri Lank. Any attempt to divide soldier's attention by engaging him into non-military tasks should be seen for what it is - ploy by a weak military leadership hell bent on securing political patronage. How much harm such leadership has caused to Indian Army is a subject for historians.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Is it worthy of our Appreciation
Whew Last few days I have received copy of an open letter written to the present Pakistan Army COAS by a retired Indian Colonel from Corps of Signals. I read it and found it to be immature and irrelevant hence ignored it. But I am forced to respond now because too many of highly qualified and otherwise intelligent officers seem to be endorsing it. My advise to them is please do not. My reasons are as given in succeeding Paragraphs.
The crux of the matter is that the writer believes that the deal Pakistan Government reached with local religious head in Swat was wrong and it is for General Kayani as COAS to sit on judgment and then discard the deal and thereby save Pakistan from Talibans. Now this is not funny, it is out rightly illogical. In any country be it a democracy or dictatorship (even in Pakistan) the constitutionally legal government have a right to take certain decision which may not be to the liking of its army, but that does not mean the COAS should up and revolt. Such drastic action can only be justified against a government indulging in patent unconstitutional acts and then too as a last resort. We take some Indian examples. Safe passage has been given to the terrorists many a time in hostage situations, which may have been opposed by the then military commanders. But none of them revolted or rescinded the orders of elected government. As we now know that on the issue of release of terrorists for hostages in Kandhar the then Home Minister was not in agreement but he went along the cabinet decision. We also have cases where certain areas of the country have special provisions and there are differences of opinion on the issue between political parties but that does not mean it is a case for the Army to resolve. So Col (retd) H Puri is patently wrong.
Flogging of teenage girl is reprehensible but pray how can an Army be held responsible for a social evil. These are dangerous waters, which have sharks in the form of girl child foeticide, bride burning and so on floating. Army can only assist in social change. Let the Army remain professional and focused on business of war.
In so far as other smart comments are concerned these are best taken with a pinch of salt. I really cannot understand or fathom as to what would a serving Pakistani soldier and Indian Colonel doing together in Iraq in 2004. And the story which the writer tells about Pakistani soldier and Indian Officer has many variants including one where the soldier is a POW post 1971. It is a good story for hot blooded youngsters to narrate over a drink in Transit Camp Officer Mess. Let us leave it at that.
I believe that mature and professional Army Officers must avoid playing to the gallery or indulge in scoring brownie points. It is best left to rabble rousers and arm-chair experts. We should flag enemy weaknesses for exploitation at opportune time and not shout about them. A true professional ought to write or speak with full gravitas only after weighing his words very carefully. Lest he be taken as immature and excitable by his opponents. Remember you have to be better than any other in the World.
The crux of the matter is that the writer believes that the deal Pakistan Government reached with local religious head in Swat was wrong and it is for General Kayani as COAS to sit on judgment and then discard the deal and thereby save Pakistan from Talibans. Now this is not funny, it is out rightly illogical. In any country be it a democracy or dictatorship (even in Pakistan) the constitutionally legal government have a right to take certain decision which may not be to the liking of its army, but that does not mean the COAS should up and revolt. Such drastic action can only be justified against a government indulging in patent unconstitutional acts and then too as a last resort. We take some Indian examples. Safe passage has been given to the terrorists many a time in hostage situations, which may have been opposed by the then military commanders. But none of them revolted or rescinded the orders of elected government. As we now know that on the issue of release of terrorists for hostages in Kandhar the then Home Minister was not in agreement but he went along the cabinet decision. We also have cases where certain areas of the country have special provisions and there are differences of opinion on the issue between political parties but that does not mean it is a case for the Army to resolve. So Col (retd) H Puri is patently wrong.
Flogging of teenage girl is reprehensible but pray how can an Army be held responsible for a social evil. These are dangerous waters, which have sharks in the form of girl child foeticide, bride burning and so on floating. Army can only assist in social change. Let the Army remain professional and focused on business of war.
In so far as other smart comments are concerned these are best taken with a pinch of salt. I really cannot understand or fathom as to what would a serving Pakistani soldier and Indian Colonel doing together in Iraq in 2004. And the story which the writer tells about Pakistani soldier and Indian Officer has many variants including one where the soldier is a POW post 1971. It is a good story for hot blooded youngsters to narrate over a drink in Transit Camp Officer Mess. Let us leave it at that.
I believe that mature and professional Army Officers must avoid playing to the gallery or indulge in scoring brownie points. It is best left to rabble rousers and arm-chair experts. We should flag enemy weaknesses for exploitation at opportune time and not shout about them. A true professional ought to write or speak with full gravitas only after weighing his words very carefully. Lest he be taken as immature and excitable by his opponents. Remember you have to be better than any other in the World.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Fair and Square
Ways of Indian State are not fathomable for a common man.
Pay of soldiers serving on the Macmahon Line as also of those jungle bashing to seek and destroy the insurgents is taxed, but the self same state gives its civil servants 25% extra tax free pay for agreeing to be posted in the North East besides a house in Delhi and perference to thier kids for admission into professional colleges.
I am sure that this will with general approval from those who were bashing BJP for promising IT exemption to soldiers.
Pay of soldiers serving on the Macmahon Line as also of those jungle bashing to seek and destroy the insurgents is taxed, but the self same state gives its civil servants 25% extra tax free pay for agreeing to be posted in the North East besides a house in Delhi and perference to thier kids for admission into professional colleges.
I am sure that this will with general approval from those who were bashing BJP for promising IT exemption to soldiers.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Proud Obedience - vs - Servility
Armys can only function if the troops are disciplined and obey their superiors. This much is obvious, what is not no apparent is that areally effcient army is the one which has `self-disciplined' troops. Becasue the discipline is of two kinds, namely good discipline and bad discipline.
good discipline is the one which comes from within, in other words it is willing subordination based on faith and resepct. Bad discipline is the one enforced by might of punitive power vetsed in higher authority. Such discipline may produce reasonable results in a benign environment but would fail measerably under the stress of combat.
good discipline is the one which comes from within, in other words it is willing subordination based on faith and resepct. Bad discipline is the one enforced by might of punitive power vetsed in higher authority. Such discipline may produce reasonable results in a benign environment but would fail measerably under the stress of combat.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Soldier and Income Tax
Income Tax and the Soldier
BJP in its Manifesto for the Parliamentary Elections 2009 has promised to exempt the Armed Forces and Para-militaries from paying income tax, if the party is voted to power. This has ignited a debate in the informed circles about the legality and ethics of the promise. This paper attempts to examine the rationale of income tax and its applicability on soldiers on the basis of ethics.
Income Tax (IT) is defines by Encyclopedia Britannica as `Levy imposed by public authority on the incomes of persons or corporations within its jurisdiction.’ It was initially introduced in Britain to finance Napoleonic Wars from the income of private enterprise who till then did not contributed to the National Endeavour in a legally defined manner. Ethics of the personal income taxation is based on the premise that one’s income is the best single index of one’s ability to contribute to the support of the country and is scaled as per their paying capacity which differ as the financial circumstances differ.
Both the history and principle on which the IT is based are essentially meant to harness the income which accrues from private enterprise in a capitalistic economy. Hence it follows that those in the service of state should not pay income tax because their pay is in any case decided by the government and they are paid only for their labour (service rendered). So legally and ethically speaking if a civil servant was being paid only for his labour, he would not be liable to pay IT. However the civil servant in India is not only paid for is labour but also gets certain benefits which fall under the category of welfare. `An Indian Civil Servant receives free health care, housing facilities, transport fares, etc. Also, there is the added assurance of job security since one is employed by the government see here. RK Puram is civil servant haven in Delhi. A civil servant posted to North East can retain a house (or get HRA) in Delhi to compensate for the hardship. There are many more such benefits and last but not the least a pension scheme. These benefits are far in excess of social safety net available to common citizen. This is the ethical basis for levying IT on civil servant. I had no intention of showing civil servant in poor light but sad fact is that in India soldier’s rights are hyphenated to privilege of civil servant.
Now let us take the case of a soldier. But, someone would say, the soldier is also getting benefits like housing, rations and military service pay. That is true. More important is to understand the reason for a particular `facility’. The soldiers are housed in military bases, not so much as a welfare measure but to ensure their availability for training and employment. They are given rations so as to ensure high level of physical fitness. This is akin to players being given incentives and diet money..
In India pay of soldier is decided by drawing some kind of comparison with other government employees. While the norms for deciding this comparability are not known but successive pay commissions have taken a police constable as nearest equal of soldier while deciding his (soldier’s) pay. This comparison is totally odious because the conditions of service faced by a soldier are completely alien to other civil services including police and I dare say, PMF. Let me highlight just four facts. First the average retirement age of soldier is 37 years, while that of police/ PMF constable retires at 58 years of age. On account of having served 21 years longer than the soldier, the police constable earns Rs. 28 Lacs more. The disparity becomes even more when we take lifetime earnings of the two. Second, the rules governing conduct of a soldier are infinitely stricter than policemen. Third, task profile of a soldier, in terms of its intensity and quality, is of entirely different order as compared to Police/PMF constable even in same area. Just study counter terrorist operations in J&K or NE and 26/11 in Mumbai where the SAG (totally manned by the Army men) operated at a different level then the local police or the profile of anti-naxal operations. Fourthly, the soldier faces maximum turbulence in life on account of having to change career more than once and for being further away (psychologically) from his native place. They are given military service pay to `partially’ compensate for vagaries of military service. Hence it is but fair that IT must not be levied on the soldier’s income, especially when he is employed on combat duties. That is while he is serving in field areas and not while he is posted to `peace’ areas or performing essentially sheltered duties in field areas. This step would also make the army and especially combat arms a wee bit more attractive for the right material.
Accepting legal and ethical validity of exempting the soldier from tax many a country have exempted their soldiers from paying taxes. Just to cite a few examples. In the USA the soldiers are exempt from federal taxes while serving in combat zone see here. In the USA till as late as year 1922 all incomes of a soldier were exempt from tax and in continuation of the legacy all soldiers who are posted to units located within the State of Minnesota are exempt from all state taxes see here . Similarly UK government pays a bonus to all soldiers deployed for combat to compensate for the income tax paid by the soldier see here .
To me fear of resentment amongst the civil populace seems quite misplaced because the people at large have never opposed compensatory steps to reduce the hardships of army life.
BJP in its Manifesto for the Parliamentary Elections 2009 has promised to exempt the Armed Forces and Para-militaries from paying income tax, if the party is voted to power. This has ignited a debate in the informed circles about the legality and ethics of the promise. This paper attempts to examine the rationale of income tax and its applicability on soldiers on the basis of ethics.
Income Tax (IT) is defines by Encyclopedia Britannica as `Levy imposed by public authority on the incomes of persons or corporations within its jurisdiction.’ It was initially introduced in Britain to finance Napoleonic Wars from the income of private enterprise who till then did not contributed to the National Endeavour in a legally defined manner. Ethics of the personal income taxation is based on the premise that one’s income is the best single index of one’s ability to contribute to the support of the country and is scaled as per their paying capacity which differ as the financial circumstances differ.
Both the history and principle on which the IT is based are essentially meant to harness the income which accrues from private enterprise in a capitalistic economy. Hence it follows that those in the service of state should not pay income tax because their pay is in any case decided by the government and they are paid only for their labour (service rendered). So legally and ethically speaking if a civil servant was being paid only for his labour, he would not be liable to pay IT. However the civil servant in India is not only paid for is labour but also gets certain benefits which fall under the category of welfare. `An Indian Civil Servant receives free health care, housing facilities, transport fares, etc. Also, there is the added assurance of job security since one is employed by the government see here. RK Puram is civil servant haven in Delhi. A civil servant posted to North East can retain a house (or get HRA) in Delhi to compensate for the hardship. There are many more such benefits and last but not the least a pension scheme. These benefits are far in excess of social safety net available to common citizen. This is the ethical basis for levying IT on civil servant. I had no intention of showing civil servant in poor light but sad fact is that in India soldier’s rights are hyphenated to privilege of civil servant.
Now let us take the case of a soldier. But, someone would say, the soldier is also getting benefits like housing, rations and military service pay. That is true. More important is to understand the reason for a particular `facility’. The soldiers are housed in military bases, not so much as a welfare measure but to ensure their availability for training and employment. They are given rations so as to ensure high level of physical fitness. This is akin to players being given incentives and diet money..
In India pay of soldier is decided by drawing some kind of comparison with other government employees. While the norms for deciding this comparability are not known but successive pay commissions have taken a police constable as nearest equal of soldier while deciding his (soldier’s) pay. This comparison is totally odious because the conditions of service faced by a soldier are completely alien to other civil services including police and I dare say, PMF. Let me highlight just four facts. First the average retirement age of soldier is 37 years, while that of police/ PMF constable retires at 58 years of age. On account of having served 21 years longer than the soldier, the police constable earns Rs. 28 Lacs more. The disparity becomes even more when we take lifetime earnings of the two. Second, the rules governing conduct of a soldier are infinitely stricter than policemen. Third, task profile of a soldier, in terms of its intensity and quality, is of entirely different order as compared to Police/PMF constable even in same area. Just study counter terrorist operations in J&K or NE and 26/11 in Mumbai where the SAG (totally manned by the Army men) operated at a different level then the local police or the profile of anti-naxal operations. Fourthly, the soldier faces maximum turbulence in life on account of having to change career more than once and for being further away (psychologically) from his native place. They are given military service pay to `partially’ compensate for vagaries of military service. Hence it is but fair that IT must not be levied on the soldier’s income, especially when he is employed on combat duties. That is while he is serving in field areas and not while he is posted to `peace’ areas or performing essentially sheltered duties in field areas. This step would also make the army and especially combat arms a wee bit more attractive for the right material.
Accepting legal and ethical validity of exempting the soldier from tax many a country have exempted their soldiers from paying taxes. Just to cite a few examples. In the USA the soldiers are exempt from federal taxes while serving in combat zone see here. In the USA till as late as year 1922 all incomes of a soldier were exempt from tax and in continuation of the legacy all soldiers who are posted to units located within the State of Minnesota are exempt from all state taxes see here . Similarly UK government pays a bonus to all soldiers deployed for combat to compensate for the income tax paid by the soldier see here .
To me fear of resentment amongst the civil populace seems quite misplaced because the people at large have never opposed compensatory steps to reduce the hardships of army life.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Quality of Medical Care in the Army
I have been in and out of a number of military medical facilities in my career spanning 29 years. My experience can be summed up as follows:-
1. RMO and super specialists are by and large caring and dedicated.
2. Intermediatry medical system is not so patient freindly.
Before starting with the criticism let me put on record the fact I owe a lot to super-specialists in the Army. But to quote some examples of 2nd type conduct will only be in order.
(a) Recently I caught cold. First I went to an Army doctor, she listened to me (that is right - just listened) and prescribed medicine for five days. When there was no improvement I went to a civilian doctor, he listened, took my temperature, checked my chest and lungs with stethoscope, took my BP and perscribed medicine for three days and I was cured.
(b) Once my daughter was having fever and as is usual for a child, she was scared while the doctor was `listening' to her and us. Instead of putting her at ease the concerned lady doctor gave a lecture (in our presence) on good manners.
(c) At another time I went to a Duty MO with some complaint and he needed my BP reading. Instead of doing it himself, the doctor told me get my BP checked from the Nursing Assistant.
(d) In short. I find that army doctors display strong inhibition about making physical examination of the patient. They tend to be impersonal and standoffish. They display a total lack of concern. The subordinate staff is by and large rough and preemptory with patient because they are not checked by the doctors.
(d) I have also seen relatives of the in-patients (admitted) pushing the stretchers and wheel chairs in army hospitals. I have also seen in-patients being used as runners and orderlies by the doctors (apparently by keeping them in beyound necessary period). I have also seen hospital Ayahs and Class IV being employed in the houses of doctors and so on.
What could be the solution. first and foremost, there should be public notices about Doctor -patient relationship in all medical facilities. Second ther should be a fair mechanism to represent against the misbehaviour by the doctors and para-medic staff. Third there ought to be an efficiency audit by outside agency of doctor and facilities. These steps would go a long way in improving the quality of medical services in the Army and remove one fo the major casues of frustration.
1. RMO and super specialists are by and large caring and dedicated.
2. Intermediatry medical system is not so patient freindly.
Before starting with the criticism let me put on record the fact I owe a lot to super-specialists in the Army. But to quote some examples of 2nd type conduct will only be in order.
(a) Recently I caught cold. First I went to an Army doctor, she listened to me (that is right - just listened) and prescribed medicine for five days. When there was no improvement I went to a civilian doctor, he listened, took my temperature, checked my chest and lungs with stethoscope, took my BP and perscribed medicine for three days and I was cured.
(b) Once my daughter was having fever and as is usual for a child, she was scared while the doctor was `listening' to her and us. Instead of putting her at ease the concerned lady doctor gave a lecture (in our presence) on good manners.
(c) At another time I went to a Duty MO with some complaint and he needed my BP reading. Instead of doing it himself, the doctor told me get my BP checked from the Nursing Assistant.
(d) In short. I find that army doctors display strong inhibition about making physical examination of the patient. They tend to be impersonal and standoffish. They display a total lack of concern. The subordinate staff is by and large rough and preemptory with patient because they are not checked by the doctors.
(d) I have also seen relatives of the in-patients (admitted) pushing the stretchers and wheel chairs in army hospitals. I have also seen in-patients being used as runners and orderlies by the doctors (apparently by keeping them in beyound necessary period). I have also seen hospital Ayahs and Class IV being employed in the houses of doctors and so on.
What could be the solution. first and foremost, there should be public notices about Doctor -patient relationship in all medical facilities. Second ther should be a fair mechanism to represent against the misbehaviour by the doctors and para-medic staff. Third there ought to be an efficiency audit by outside agency of doctor and facilities. These steps would go a long way in improving the quality of medical services in the Army and remove one fo the major casues of frustration.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Honour of Soldier
I am deeply concerned with the supercilicious attitude displayed by section of Indian Elite as also by certain newspapers who are normally percieved to be in-with-the-establishment. They show no qualms in using putdowners like `general has been ticked of' while describing some imaginary interaction between a service chief and the minister or `the ministry has ordered' thereby subtly attributing the power to buearucracy for directions given by the cabinet/ ministerial.
Limits were crossed during on-going tussle between the Services and the Government of the day on the issue of serious anomalies with regard to soldier's pay by 6th CPC and subsequent bureaucratic perfidity. Three influential media personalities ran a campaign against the Services in general and Navy and their CNS in particular. Mr Shekhar Gupta of Indian Express, who apparently wanted to secure a Padma Bhushan for himself made serious charges of disobedience against the Service Chiefs and attempted to run the services down for asking for restoration of extant parties unilaterally and illegally altered by a Committee of Secretaries. Second was Mr Vir Sangvi of HT, who had once upon a time advocated secession of J&K from India . Third being Ms Barkha Dutt who developed deep aversion to Navy in general and CNS in particular for standing up the right. Post 26/11 Terror Attack on Mumbai systematic propaganda to divert the focus commenced even while bullets were being fired at Taj –Trident and Nariman House. And as expected it started with Indian Express http://www.indianexpress.com/news/express-editorial-deadly-confusion/392070/ who on 29 November castigated services in general and Navy in particular for creating deadly confusion. True to form the self-same newspaper had nothing to say about role of other organs of government. Similar story was repeated in its special report on crossing the LoC carried by the Indian Express Sunday on 29 March 2009. After opening with mandatory few lines about life of a soldier the story focussed on life and exploits of a guide for terrorists and ended with apportioning the success of operation to local police who claimed to have provideed information.
Ms Arundhati Ghose, a retired Indian Foreign Service Officer wrote a motivated wrticle on the issue of pay anomalies in the Tribune, Chandigarh. This article is apiece with functioning for her ilk – bureaucrats and their friends. They start by totally ignoring the true basis of a problem, then raise irrelevant issues to divert attention and finally end with audacious but totally false attack on the very existence of aggrieved party and if all that fails then go into deep slumber. For her every thing said or done by the services is motivated and every thing against tem is self-explanatory. For example
(a) She starts by totally ignoring the genesis of the problem. The pay anomalies for the military stem from the fact, that despite consist urging of Chiefs, no military person was taken into the Pay Commission. Later when anomalies in pay commission report were sought to be resolved by the government through a committee of secretaries (COS), the Chiefs again asked the government to include representative in the committee. Rather they were given a false assurance that ` the issues raised by the Armed Forces were well understood by them and will be pursued most honestly and diligently by the Def Secy (a member in the CoS), - an assurance which was not kept and Cabinet was led to taking a wrong decision or deliberately took a decision patently against the legitimate interests of the services.
(b) Ms Ghose goes on to tell a plain lie that, `the three Chiefs of Staff led by the Navy Chief sent an unclassified note to their ranks not to implement the decision of the Cabinet by not submitting their pay slips on October 1’. The service chiefs had done their scared and totally legal duty of asking the government for early rectification of serious anomalies in pay and pension of their subordinates to keep the orders pending in the interim, and Ms Ghose faults them for that. Strange! Really strange! The signal they sent to their men was informatory in nature and nowhere has it asked them to not submit pay slips and Ms Ghose is apparently clueless about system of pay disbursment in the military because military men do not submit pay-slips. I see no defiance in this, rather I see grace on part of Chiefs, becasue they have not gone public with the fact that despite being informed by the Services about anomalies in advance (on 30 August 08) the government went ahead and notified the same on 01 Sep 08 and for next 20 days the PM and his cabinet did not find time to address the issue.
(c) She claims that by not accepting unjust salaries the Chiefs and military have gone against constitution. Another lie as will be evident from a plain reading of relevant provisions of the Constitution. Article 52(2) of the Constitution reads: "Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision the supreme command of the Defence Forces of the Union shall be vested in the President and the exercise thereof shall be regulated by law." Apparently military men are not under any obligation to accept unlawful orders of any government.
(d) Most serious charge she made against the military is that, `The storm that has arisen today clearly has its roots in a general, if widespread, contempt of the forces for their civilian masters and counterparts’. She provides no facts to support her case. First and foremost Ms Ghose ought to know that in democracy it is the `people’ who are the Masters and nobody else, least of all the bureaucrat, should arrogate to himself/herself the mastery over the armed forces of the nation which are made up of free citizen who has volunteered to bear arms for the nation. That makes the soldier a part of masters and not slave as Ms Ghose would like to think. So far as her lie that soldiers hold civilians in contempt is concerned, it is indeed apiece with bureaucratic design to launch audacious attack on very existence of military as an honourable profession. She wants us to forget the fact that every soldier has a mother who is/was a civilian, is married to a spouse who is/was civilian, his children are civilians and so is his extended family.
To understand the underlying causes of this animosity we have to travel in past a little. Since 1947 the Armed Forces have been done-in and defanged by successive regimes with very little or nil resistance from senior military leaders. The facts are too well documented and need no repetition. We all know that no one from political or bureaucratic establishment was punished for 1962 Debacle. Even the civil servant involved in Tehlka expose have gone scot free. Hence when the services under the leadership of Admiral Sureesh Mehta stood up for their rights after implementation of unfair 6th CPC award, the politician-bureaucratic nexus was jolted. They wanted to get even with this man who had shown the temerity to stand up for his command. If allowed to have justice he would provide a precedent for other right thinking citizen to demand the same. So they called on the friends in media to pay what Justice Sachar has tellingly described as `Debts to repay’. Likes of Shekhar Gupta, Sangvi, Ms Dutt and Ms Ghose are only repaying a part of their IOUs when they malign the CNS and the Services. Even more serious is the fact that such misreprting, howsoever, demeaning for the concerned service, is never ever refuted by official sources. This silence seem to reinforce the impression created by the media reports in first place.
Since this kind of information is normally attubuted to un-named sources apparently it can be considred intentional and institutionalised attempt to destroy fair reputation of the services and belittle their contribution.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Dying for the Nation - Dying for the Elite
Tweleve terrorists struck at Mumbai on 26 November 2008. It took 60 hours to eliminate them and India lost nearly 200 lives. There was a huge outcry for accountability and strong response. All led by elite of the nation, who gathered in large numbers at Gateway of India to demand that heads roll. The result was resignation by the then Home Minister. Even the policemen who died sitting inside their vehicle were awarded highest gallantry awards.
Now let us cut to March 2009. The CM of J&K is proactively pursuing his agenda to get Armed Forces Special Powwers Act repealed. Many a editor are writing in his support. The ministry is demanding that an enquiry against soldiers accused of `killing the innocent' be wrapped up in three days flat. Afterall J&K is at peace, why should Army be there in first place and even if it is there it should learn to behave in a manner befitting its place (at the bottom). It is at such a juncture that 17 Terrorists infiltrated in Kashmir. They were challanged and eliminated by the Armymen in dense jungles over next 8 days. Sadly Major Sharma and 7 Jawans also laid down their lives.
Was there any outcry from the self same elite for any kind of accountability? Was there any demand for the CM to explain his haste? Was there any demand for the ministry to justify it's illegal fiats. Was there any demand for the Defence Minsiter to explain as to how does he plan to insulate his Army from those who lose no opportunity to belittle and decry the soldier and his contribution. No! The elite has no time for the dead soldiers. The editors are busy perdicting political combinations post-elections. So what is some soldiers die. India has enough poor to fill the ranks of its all volunteer army and the IMA will keep producing idealistic lads to lead their men to certain death so that the Nation can exist to be exploited by the Elite.
Now let us cut to March 2009. The CM of J&K is proactively pursuing his agenda to get Armed Forces Special Powwers Act repealed. Many a editor are writing in his support. The ministry is demanding that an enquiry against soldiers accused of `killing the innocent' be wrapped up in three days flat. Afterall J&K is at peace, why should Army be there in first place and even if it is there it should learn to behave in a manner befitting its place (at the bottom). It is at such a juncture that 17 Terrorists infiltrated in Kashmir. They were challanged and eliminated by the Armymen in dense jungles over next 8 days. Sadly Major Sharma and 7 Jawans also laid down their lives.
Was there any outcry from the self same elite for any kind of accountability? Was there any demand for the CM to explain his haste? Was there any demand for the ministry to justify it's illegal fiats. Was there any demand for the Defence Minsiter to explain as to how does he plan to insulate his Army from those who lose no opportunity to belittle and decry the soldier and his contribution. No! The elite has no time for the dead soldiers. The editors are busy perdicting political combinations post-elections. So what is some soldiers die. India has enough poor to fill the ranks of its all volunteer army and the IMA will keep producing idealistic lads to lead their men to certain death so that the Nation can exist to be exploited by the Elite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
