Nurse A Habit

• Gen Kapoor doesn't want nursing officers to get the same pay and status as army doctors. He feels parity will hit patient care. Nurses may not obey instructions of doctors junior to them.
• Navy chief Sureesh Mehta wants central police organisations including the coast guard downgraded. Feels the navy is a superior force.

***

The essence of Kapoor's burden was this: if nurses—who are also commissioned officers—are considered on par with doctors, then it will have serious implications on patient care. In short, a nurse of the same rank as a specialist doctor may not follow the doctor's instructions just because she believes she is of the same rank! As arguments go, this was as specious as they come, leaving an incredulous cabinet secretary to put a "What is this?" remark on the file before forwarding it to the finance ministry.

For a hierarchy-conscious service like the army, it is important that the sanctity of ranks is maintained within the service (as well as parity with other government services). However, few in the government are buying the army chief's argument on the nurses-on-par issue. "Have you ever heard of a nurse overruling the diagnosis of a specialist doctor just because she was equal or senior in rank?" asks a senior finance ministry official. "The fact is, all the commission recommended was that if nurses have been given ranks, let them also enjoy the same pay and privileges of their equivalent officers. Why have an institutionalised apartheid among all of them?"
 

But Gen Kapoor seems keen on maintaining the "inferiority" of the nursing officers despite the fact that they serve under the same conditions as army doctors. "The seemingly innocuous correction in the pay scales," argues Kapoor, "will remove the basic difference between the titularity of members of the MNS ranks and the entitled ranks of Service officers".

In fact, while several of the services' grievances are legitimate, the army chief's letter has taken the debate in an unwelcome direction. And it isn't an isolated case. Naval chief Sureesh Mehta, in a note dated September 1 (COSC/1940), pointed out that the coast guard and the Central Police Organisations (CPOS) were inferior to the navy and should be treated as such. Mehta says the navy is a "senior service" and that it would be unacceptable for commanders and captains in the navy to have parity in pay with their coast guard counterparts. "Command and control will be seriously hampered" says Mehta, "while infighting will seriously jeopardise operations in which the central paramilitary forces work in close concert with the armed forces."

The strong words from Mehta seem misplaced given that as chairman of the chiefs of staff committee he has put forth a set of nuanced arguments highlighting how the government has ignored the legitimate demands of the three services. For instance, he rightly pointed out that soldiers in the armed forces have limited service tenure which has led to a situation where they retire in their prime (32-35 years old). To ensure their welfare, the services demanded that retiring jawans be either given a higher pension or be laterally absorbed in the CPOS. Both demands were rejected by the Union cabinet, a clear oversight likely to be set right by the special committee led by external affairs minister Pranab Mukherjee, set up to examine the grievances of the forces.

But if the army and navy chiefs are guilty of running down fellow services, the IAS and other civilian services have extended themselves in ensuring they remain a notch above the armed forces. They took great exception to the forces' demand that lieutenant colonels be equated with directors in the government's official hierarchy. Voices have also been raised against perks to the forces. "We have no objection to giving special allowances to those military personnel serving in adverse conditions. But why should it apply to officers who have never served in such posts?" asks a bureaucrat.

In fact, many in the civilian services feel the pay commission should question the special perks given exclusively to military personnel such as subsidised liquor, household goods and free rations. "We can understand if these special perks are given to the soldiers and junior- and middle-level officers. But why should the government extend it to senior officers? Why are service chiefs getting free rations and subsidised liquor and other invisible perks?" a senior finance ministry official told Outlook.

Understandably, some of the demands of the three services threaten to upset the established order of precedence in government. While a 1968 notification by the cabinet secretariat clearly lays down equivalence between military and civilian officials, the military is obviously not convinced. This has led to a situation where other services have sent in several representations demanding that the government reject the demands of the services since it will upset the well-established order of precedence.

But what about the army and navy chiefs running down sister organisations? Put it down to petty ways of establishing the superiority of the two services at the cost of real concerns.