It's a typical case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. After letting the Air HQ mishandle the situation for nearly a month, the defence ministry woke up to sort out the air force 'rebellion', the blame for which should go both to the ministry and the air force top brass. In a knee-jerk reaction, the ministry did the usual: set up a committee chaired by defence secretary Ajit Kumar with the vice-chiefs of the three services and financial advisor, defence services, as members.
The committee's task: to examine the anomalies and distortions identified by the service headquarters, especially those relating to risk-related allowances and trade rationalisation for personnel below officer's rank. It will also look into the grievances received directly from service personnel.
For the moment, this should calm the engineering officers, agitated over the disparities in their allowances and the fighter pilots'. A senior air force engineer told Outlook: "The committe means for the first time the ministry has got involved. It means they've taken cognisance of our grievances".
The ministry took matters in its own hands after an unprecedented set of events. On December 18, the seniormost technical officer in the Eastern Air Command—Air Vice Marshal Mrityunjay Singh, Senior Maintenance Staff Officer (SMSO)—resigned over the Air HQ's insensitivity and proceeded on long leave the next day. Five days later, a never-before 'rebellion' in the air force bases in Gujarat, especially Bhuj and Jamnagar, saw air force officers' vehicles being stoned.
As Singh left Shillong, the Eastern Air Command HQ, news had already spread to all the wings. This came as a big boost to the disgruntled engineering officers in other air bases who were protesting the pay disparity between fighter pilots and other IAF personnel in the wake of the pay panel award, as modified by the defence ministry.
Singh had been watching the events ever since the controversy broke and was distressed with the top brass's insensitive attitude. The last straw for him, sources said, came after a high-powered team arrived in Shillong on December 16.
The six-member team, headed by Air Marshal T.R. Janakiraman, was appointed by Air HQ on December 10 to go round the IAF bases and elicit opinions from engineers, ground staff and fighter pilots over the latest controversy. It's supposed to submit its report by January third week.
On December 17, Air Marshal P.S. Brar, the Eastern Air Commander-in-chief, hosted a dinner for the Janakiraman committee, where sources say Singh lost his cool over remarks made by an air commodore from the flying branch. Heated words were exchanged. Next morning, the altercation continued and Brar allegedly used abusive language against the technical officers before the visiting team. That did it. A disgusted Singh put in his papers and left for Delhi. By that single action, he articulated the anguish of thousands of technical officers.
Resentment had been brewing in Shillong for a month or so. Although the Eastern Air Command headquarters had not witnessed any visible signs of dissent, sources said there have been protests by engineers and their wives at the Bagdora and Kakinada air bases over the past few days.
Officers say that besides the pay disparity, there's a vertical divide between the flying and non-flying branches. "The discrimination is all round—promotions, postings, perks, career prospects," said an engineering officer. The top positions in the missile squadrons, radar units, computer and data processing, systems applications and many other technical directorates are held by pilots though these are manned and run by engineering or other technical officers.Why is this so, ask technical officers.
These officers have in fact started questioning the entire philosophy of the air force based on the strike capability of fighter aircraft. They say the IAF should transform itself from an aircraft-based force to a missile based one, which could be more effective and cheaper than buying expensive aircraft.
They cite a 1995 report by Air Marshal A.Y. Tipnis, the present air vice-chief, in which he'd suggested an overhaul in the working conditions of the ground staff, particularly the engineering personnel. The thrust of this report was that the flying branch's domination should be reduced and there should be parity in pay and allowances.
They argue that the flying allowance structure—Rs 7,000 for transport/chopper pilots, Rs 9,000 for fighter pilots, Rs 11,300 for test pilots—overplays the risk factor. "Flying a fighter plane involves great risks, but is it in any way more than the risk faced by army officers and jawans involved in counter-insurgency (CI) operations in J&K and the Northeast", asked a disgruntled officer.
Special wrath is reserved for Air Chief Marshal S.K. Sareen, who they say must go now if the problem is to be solved. But defence ministry sources say he was not the one who suggested allowance limits. He just asked the ministry to accept the recommendations in the three service chiefs' joint memorandum to the pay panel, penned when S.K. Kaul was the air chief.
On December 26, Sareen, now making a series of visits to air bases, finally broke his silence and, noting that action had been taken to remedy pay anomalies, asserted that "severe disciplinary action had been intiated" against those violating norms. Unbiased observers note that the IAF often talks about shortage of fighter pilots; if it were to remove all pilots from non-flying branches and put them back on flying duty, the problem could be reduced. That would also open up these positions for technical officers.
Until the Bhuj incidents, the IAF top brass adopted an ostrich-like approach. Nearly 500 engineering officers of eight air bases in the Western Air Command and six in the South Western Air Command are said to have put up en masse ROG (redressal of grievances) applications; 200 officers followed suit in the Eastern Air Command. Nearly all of the 3,000 Air Force Engineering Officers and their wives have been boycotting official functions held at officers' clubs and activities of the ladies' clubs.
One letter, written by an engineer to his fellow officers, reads: "The pay commission recommendations and subsequent lobbying by the IAF top brass is a naked testimony to their narrow goals. They walked off with a huge pay packet, ignoring the rest of the officer cadre and the whole lot of our technical airmen, from whom we extract work in the most adverse working and living conditions. Please educate and motivate your friends and colleagues."
The defence ministry and Air HQ did not to heed the warning signs for nearly a month, since the revised notification of November 21 hiking risk allowance for fliers. This was the most hamhanded act of all, aimed at nothing nobler than making at least one section happy.
Instead, it heightened the scenario of victimisation. Take Wing Commander Nagesh, an engineer at the Air Force Training College, Bangalore. His wife led the protests at the Bangalore air base in late November. Angered, the brass summoned Nagesh on temporary duty to Delhi. There, allege technical officers, he was given the crumble parade (a term used by officers for thrashing errant personnel). He was later put in the psychiatric ward of the Base hospital in Delhi under Service Rule provisions, sources add. For its part, the ministry denies these charges.A code of enquiry has also been launched across India's air bases and disciplinary action will be taken against 'errant' officers.
More worryingly, the resentment is spreading to army officers involved in CI operations in the Northeast. "All the casualties in our force in the past 25 years has been in CI operations. We incur the maximum risk in taking on militants and yet get paid nothing extra," a battalion commander told Outlook. Clearly, the panel headed by the defence secretary can only carry out fire-fighting operations. But it is unlikely to be able to effectively tackle the crucial question—the vertical divide in the IAF—and douse the flames before they spread to the other services.
At the same time, the open rebellion is a watershed event in IAF history and has battered its image. Engineering officers say discipline should not be cited at this point—for they were forced to resort to these methods after grievances aired 'procedurally' were not redressed. This argument is difficult to buy. If an agitation can be started like this, what prevents a similar agitation from starting on another issue?
Tags