The
reason for this is that the 7th Pay Commission has systematically and
with malevolent intent, downgraded the Armed Forces from an All India
Service that it was considered to be.
Armed Forces are not Perceived as an Attractive Career Any More – 7th CPC has worsened the Situation Further
Armed Forces are not Perceived as an Attractive Career Any More – We
would have been better served if the Commission had concentrated on
dealing with the challenges faced by the military in attracting talent.
Those familiar with Dante Alighieri, the 13th century Italian poet,
and his enduring work, The Divine Comedy, will be aware of the nine
layers of hell. The ninth level, symbolised by the three mouths of
Satan, was reserved for traitors. One can, but speculate, as to who
would occupy them, if the poem had been set in India.
Raja Jaichand of Kannauj is a certainty; his assistance to Mohammed
Ghouri led to Prithviraj Chauhan’s defeat and death, ushering Muslim
rule in India. Another certainty is Mir Jafar who was instrumental in
Robert Clive’s victory at Plassey; ensuring subsequent British rule in
India. The third choice, if left to the serving and retired military
community, would unanimously be the Seventh Pay Commission.
The reason for this is that the 7th Pay Commission has systematically
and with malevolent intent, downgraded the Armed Forces from an All
India Service that it was considered to be. That its actions have been
cloaked in ambiguity and hypocrisy, with blatant disregard for facts,
suggests arrogance and an utter contempt for propriety.
That the 7th Pay Commission’s recommendations suffer from major
lacunae is in no small measure because the Government continues to
insist, despite forming the largest cadre affected by its deliberations,
that the Armed Forces is incapable of providing expert representation
and requires a Civilian Defence Audit and Accounts officer to represent
them. This in itself is abhorrent.
Benjamin Disraeli, the former British Prime Minister, once said,
“There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Table II of the Commission’s report illustrates this in full. It has
compared component-wise defence expenditure in percentage terms of 10
selected countries and drawn two conclusions.
First, that “Increased expenditure on personnel has been at the
expense of operational and maintenance expenditure”. Second, that “The
need to calibrate growth in expenditure on pay and allowances for
defence forces personnel so as to ensure that the composition of defence
expenditure — between capital and revenue and within revenue between
pay and allowances and others is not skewed so as to adversely affect
the operational and strategic objectives of the defence forces”.
From these conclusions, the 7th Pay Commission has clearly shown its
intent as to how it wished to proceed regarding emoluments for the
defence forces. This raises the fundamental question as to the rationale
for selecting countries for comparison: Was it of similar size or
threat perception? Comparisons with our neighbours, especially those
inimical to us, would be helpful, despite the fact that every country
has its own unique circumstances that needs consideration.
Moreover, how can we compare component-wise expenditures in
percentage terms, without comparing defence Budgets as well as that
would it put things in perspective? The Commission itself points out
that defence expenditure as a percentage of the gross domestic product
and as percentage of Government expenditure has declined from 2.19 per
cent in 1995-1996 to 1.80 per cent in 2012-2013 and from 14.50 per cent
in 1995-1996 to 12.89 per cent in 2012-2013 respectively.
In contrast, China’s defence budget for 2012 was two per cent of its
GDP. As its GDP is approximately six times as that of ours, expenditure
on its defence forces was more than seven times than ours and as their
forces are about double our strength, in real terms, their defence
expenditure has been triple ours.
The logical conclusion, given our adversarial relationship with
China, would have been for the Commission to have recommended an
increase in the defence budget, in which case, it needn’t have focused
on the “skewed revenue-capital expenditure” to the extent it has.
Take another statistical anomaly, the 7th Pay Commission has compared
pay progression of a service officer vis-Ã -vis, Civil Services and
concluded that “Not only has the starting pay of a defence officers been
placed substantially higher at 29 per cent more than his/her civilian
counterpart, this gap continues to remain wide at over 20 per cent for
the first nine years of service. In fact, the pay of defence service
officers remains uninterruptedly higher for a 32 year period.
Thereafter, the pay of defence and civil service officers are at par”.
However, these figures only tell a part of the story, as the picture
changes dramatically if we were to also compare the service/rank profile
and promotion opportunities for both cadres. The fact is that by 16-18
years all in the Civil Services are at the level of Joint Secretary
while only 50 per cent of any given batch of Service Officers will reach
the rank of Colonel by then.
Subsequently, only four per cent of that batch are likely to reach
the rank of Major General (equivalent of Joint Secretary) after 33-35
years of service and only about one per cent will reach the rank of Lt
Gen or equivalent unlike the Civil Services in which over 95 per cent
retire as Secretaries. This is truly a case of comparing apples and
oranges.
There are numerous other infirmities, beyond the scope of this
article, but the trend is clear from the fact that while the highest
risk and hardship allowance in the Services is for operational service
at Siachin and amounts to Rs31,500, a Group A officer is eligible to 30
per cent of basic pay as Hardship Allowance for serving in Leh, Guwahati
or Shillong which will be in the range of Rs50,000 to Rs75, 000.
Similarly, paratroopers, who are the core element of our rapid
deployment force required to carry out “out of area contingency” tasks
apart from being trained to operate behind enemy lines in a conventional
war, will receive 40 per cent of Risk Allowance as compared to Commando
Battalion for Resolute Action personnel of the Central Reserve Police
Force, who are deployed in Maoist areas.
Changes to the Disability Allowance have been suggested on the
specious grounds that senior officers are availing of this prior to
super annuation, while the Civil Services have been left out.
All of this clearly smacks of bias. Finally, despite the 7th Pay
Commission noting “that there are exclusive elements that distinguish
the defence forces personnel from all other Government employees. The
intangible aspects linked to the special conditions of service
experienced by them set them apart from civilian employees”, it has made
every effort in all aspects of compensation to disadvantage the Armed
Forces in comparison to the Civil Services.
We would have been better served if the Commission had concentrated
on dealing with the challenges faced by the military in attracting
talent. Not only are the forces deficient of officers to the tune of 20
per cent to 30 per cent, but what is alarming is that for the past three
years, more than 40 per cent vacancies at the Indian Military Academy
and the Officers Training Academy remain unsubscribed.
Clearly, despite all lip service to the contrary, the Armed Forces
are not perceived as an attractive career. By its actions, the
Commission has only worsened the situation further. We will pay heavily
for this in the future, unless the Government takes corrective action,
which given its track record is unlikely. Let us not be under any
misapprehension, the only ones laughing at the discomfiture of our
military are the Chinese and Pakistani Armed Forces, and they have every
reason to be satisfied.
Source: Daily Pioneer
