In a panel discussion on national television on the Seventh Pay Commission report and its acceptance by the government, two former senior civil servants were present alongside the national spokesperson of the ruling BJP. In response to a point raised by the military member, a retired brigadier, bemoaning the raw deal handed out to the armed forces, one panelist said that as far as salaries were concerned, not all lawyers received the same remuneration so claims for parity with different agencies of government as made by the military were not valid. This completely ignored the fact that the lawyers he was referring to were private practitioners where the question of parity did not arise and that the lawyers in government, such as those working in the ministry of law or in the offices of the Attorney General got the same wages as in other civil services based on their grade.
When the brigadier made the point that it was highly demeaning for a soldier serving in a hardship posting, say in Siachen or the north-east, to receive an allowance that was half of what a person serving in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) - indeed, even a civilian - would get under the same conditions, the response was that military people had access to canteen privileges and cheap liquor. This amazingly insensitive statement should have made the brigadier walk out of the discussion, but being the gentleman that he was, he stayed.
The fact that panelists who had held high positions in government in earlier years or represented a major national party should have spoken thus must have caused more anger and demoralisation in the military than any adversary could hope to achieve. A comment was also made that those who joined the military did not enroll to die, so the 'they stand ready to die' argument did not hold water. The discussion thereafter took the usual 'civil and military are two different professions and have their own needs' theme which lays bare the superficiality of political rhetoric about the patriotism of soldiers and the respect in which they are held by the nation.
It is this same disrespect for the military which has led to a situation where as many as 300 people in this country have the rank insignia of a lieutenant general (all officers in the CAPF and police of the status of director general and additional director general), against less than a third that number in the armed forces, when the total manpower commanded by them is about the same. In yet another mismatch, an IPS officer with five years of service (superintendent of police) wears the epaulettes of a lieutenant colonel, when it takes 11 years service in the military to reach that rank. Similarly, while civil and CAPF officials are allowed a non-functional upgradation pay increase to come level with their IAS counterparts, the armed forces are denied it. And so on.
There are few countries in the world where the military is rated inferior to the civil services, both in terms of pay and status. Whether in the US, UK, Russia, France or China, remuneration in the armed forces is better; closer home and around us, not just in Pakistan, but equally in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, even Nepal, the soldier stands on a higher pedestal. The entire organisational structure and hierarchy in India is also quite unique. The civilian element of the ministry of defence (MOD) is quite separate from the military headquarters and figures in the decision making chain on behalf of the minister, unlike the latter which merely function as 'proposers'. Yet, they have both responsibility and accountability while the civilian bureaucracy has neither. In none of the countries mentioned does this happen.
This absurdity was commented upon by a Group of Ministers headed by then Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani sixteen years ago. It strongly recommended that the military headquarters be integrated with the civilian hierarchy in the MOD. This was much too optimistic a recommendation to overcome bureaucratic resistance and only a largely cosmetic name-change came into being in which, for example, Naval Headquarters was renamed Integrated Headquarters (Navy), ministry of defence, nothing more and nothing less; business proceeded as usual. A decade later, another high powered committee appointed by the then prime minister and headed by former Cabinet Secretary Naresh Chandra, actually provided a road map suggesting that military officers be appointed in the civilian part of the MOD to facilitate integration in real terms. Four years later, this recommendation remains in cold storage.
Any assessment that India's military stands demotivated as a result of this visible display of unconcern, even arrogance, would be exaggerated. Less than two decades ago, it showed its willingness to die for the nation on the mountain tops of Kargil, Tololing, et al. But that was 20 years ago and since then we have seen two Pay Commissions (the Seventh more than the Sixth) that have degraded its stature. This is certain to have caused resentment. It is possible that the leadership feels that military conflicts are no longer likely and, therefore, the armed forces do not merit the status they aspire to. If this be the case, then we may be stepping into dangerous waters.
As several snippets published in books and publications reveal, the debacle of 1962 was not so much the result of any great superiority of the Chinese in men or weaponry, as the reluctance of our soldiers to stand and fight and, even more, the inability of the officers to motivate them to do so. In several cases, they held more advantageous positions than the enemy but melted away even before it arrived. Happily, that situation no longer exists, but to live in a world of 'make believe' and think it can never happen again will be a case of whistling in the dark. There is a clear and present danger that we may be moving in that direction.
The writer is a former Commander-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command. He has also been member of the National Security Advisory Board