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 But none of them revolted or rescinded the orders of elected government.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.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
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)
