 "India's Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar")
The government faces growing criticism for slashing the military’s pay, status and disability pensions even as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) reaps political benefits in on-going election campaign from the “surgical strikes” the army launched on Lashkar-e-Toiba launch pads in September.
On Monday, The Telegraph reported that the ministry of defence (MoD) had summarily downgraded the status of military officers by a notch, relative to their civilian colleagues. Facing sharp public criticism, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar promised he would not allow the status of the armed forces to be eroded.
On Thursday, the MoD flatly denied any reduction in the military’s status, stating: “there has been no down-gradation or any change in the existing equivalence of the Service ranks whatsoever. The existing functional equivalence as clarified in 1991 and further reiterated in 1992, 2000, 2004 and 2005 has only been re-affirmed.”
Essentially, the MoD cited multiple letters to argue that the “functional equivalence” between military officers and Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service (AFHQCS) officials has always been: a joint director of AFHQCS is equated with a colonel, a director with a brigadier, and a principal director with a major general.
However, Business Standard learns that all the letters the MoD cites were superseded in 2009 by a Group of Ministers (GoM) report, prepared under the current president, Pranab Mukherjee. The GoM, which examining the military’s strong protests at the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations, formally equated army colonels with AFHQCS directors. A new pay band was created for lieutenant colonels, placing them above deputy secretaries but slightly below joint directors.
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the union cabinet accepted these GoM recommendations, and the MoD passed instructions for implementing these in January 2009. All the letters the MoD cited today were superseded by this authority.
It is unclear whether Parrikar is even aware of the selective interpretation of facts in his ministry’s press release, or whether — as his apologists argue — he is a well-intentioned defence minister being undermined by his bureaucrats, who stand to gain from the new parities.
There are other recent issues, where the government has backtracked after initial denials. After this newspaper reported that the government had slashed disability pensions the day after announcing the army’s successful strikes on Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorist camps (October 10, “While ‘surgical strikes’ were under way, govt cut Army’s disability pensions”), the government first indicated it had actually increased pensions. Later, after checking the facts, the PMO referred the matter to a committee.
The question of inter-se parity with civilian officials has agitated the military for decades.
A letter with Business Standard, written in 1992 by the army chief General SF Rodrigues, rails against the MoD’s attempts to change the status quo.
Rodrigues complained: “MoD, without consultations with Service HQ, had resorted to unauthorised and exaggerated designations of [civilians]… which has created aberrations and functional problems as [civilian] officers have refused to accept the authority of Service Officers under whom they had been working all these years.”
Nor is the military entirely blameless, since several service chiefs have acquiesced in granting higher “functional equivalence” to civilian officials, to promote smooth official functioning. However, Rodrigues writes: “[MoD has] taken undue advantage of this and unilaterally sought to upgrade the status of AFHQ cadre officials, to the detriment of the authority and status of the [military].”
That was in 1992. More than three decades later, the MoD’s jockeying over status still continues.
| DIWALI GLOOM IN MILITARY |
|
On Monday, The Telegraph reported that the ministry of defence (MoD) had summarily downgraded the status of military officers by a notch, relative to their civilian colleagues. Facing sharp public criticism, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar promised he would not allow the status of the armed forces to be eroded.
On Thursday, the MoD flatly denied any reduction in the military’s status, stating: “there has been no down-gradation or any change in the existing equivalence of the Service ranks whatsoever. The existing functional equivalence as clarified in 1991 and further reiterated in 1992, 2000, 2004 and 2005 has only been re-affirmed.”
Essentially, the MoD cited multiple letters to argue that the “functional equivalence” between military officers and Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service (AFHQCS) officials has always been: a joint director of AFHQCS is equated with a colonel, a director with a brigadier, and a principal director with a major general.
However, Business Standard learns that all the letters the MoD cites were superseded in 2009 by a Group of Ministers (GoM) report, prepared under the current president, Pranab Mukherjee. The GoM, which examining the military’s strong protests at the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations, formally equated army colonels with AFHQCS directors. A new pay band was created for lieutenant colonels, placing them above deputy secretaries but slightly below joint directors.
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the union cabinet accepted these GoM recommendations, and the MoD passed instructions for implementing these in January 2009. All the letters the MoD cited today were superseded by this authority.
It is unclear whether Parrikar is even aware of the selective interpretation of facts in his ministry’s press release, or whether — as his apologists argue — he is a well-intentioned defence minister being undermined by his bureaucrats, who stand to gain from the new parities.
There are other recent issues, where the government has backtracked after initial denials. After this newspaper reported that the government had slashed disability pensions the day after announcing the army’s successful strikes on Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorist camps (October 10, “While ‘surgical strikes’ were under way, govt cut Army’s disability pensions”), the government first indicated it had actually increased pensions. Later, after checking the facts, the PMO referred the matter to a committee.
The question of inter-se parity with civilian officials has agitated the military for decades.
A letter with Business Standard, written in 1992 by the army chief General SF Rodrigues, rails against the MoD’s attempts to change the status quo.
Rodrigues complained: “MoD, without consultations with Service HQ, had resorted to unauthorised and exaggerated designations of [civilians]… which has created aberrations and functional problems as [civilian] officers have refused to accept the authority of Service Officers under whom they had been working all these years.”
Nor is the military entirely blameless, since several service chiefs have acquiesced in granting higher “functional equivalence” to civilian officials, to promote smooth official functioning. However, Rodrigues writes: “[MoD has] taken undue advantage of this and unilaterally sought to upgrade the status of AFHQ cadre officials, to the detriment of the authority and status of the [military].”
That was in 1992. More than three decades later, the MoD’s jockeying over status still continues.
