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.

***

Money can be the great spoiler. The cliche has come to life all over again as the recommendations of the sixth Pay Commission go through the usual share of debates, arguments and reviews. This is never more so fraught than among the troops, where the desire to corner more money and status has seen at least two service chiefs trying to pull down 'sister' services in a bid to satisfy bruised egos.

Leading the pack is army chief General Deepak Kapoor, who shot off a letter with detailed annexures to cabinet secretary K.M. Chandrasekhar on June 20. The chief, instead of focusing on the needs of his men, delved on the need to downgrade the military nursing services (MNS). In his letter, a copy of which is with Outlook, Kapoor argues that the effort of the pay commission to "equate the status of nurses" with "doctors will seriously impact on the functional relationship" between them. He went on to describe the parity as a grave threat to the "command in military hospitals".

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?"
 

Navy chief's letter on the coast guard

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."

Ironically, one of the key components on the country's national security framework are the CPOS, including the coast guard, who play a major role in internal as well as external security. While the armed forces want them downgraded, the reality is that their officers have been shortchanged by the sixth Pay Commission.

While CPO cadre officers are recruited at 23 years of age, they have to serve longer than their IPS counterparts to get promotions. This has resulted in much heartburn among cadre officers as it limits the scope for career advancement. What makes matters worse is that in most CPOS, the IPS officers continue to dominate senior posts as well as "plum" postings (metros) while their cadre counterparts man the hardship posts.
 

A 1968 note listing the armed forces rankings and their civilian counterparts

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.