When Protectors Turn Protestors

On July 6, chances are that India Gate in central Delhi will witness protestsby ex-servicemen demanding more pay. Ironically, the same men would havespent the better part of their service life quelling similar protests in the name of thestate. Needless to say, in a democracy, there is a legitimate right to protest,but as former soldiers don their new avatar as protestors rather thanprotectors of the state, it is time to question whether it is befitting for themto be taking recourse to such protests. After all, the services enjoy a prestige and discipline that is farremoved from government service, as it is understood in this day and age. In theservices, one may question the decision of their superiors rarely, but if youmust, then it must be through the "proper" channels. Coming on to thestreets and shouting slogans like any other lumpen variety of protestors ishardly befitting the uniform that they have donned for the better part of theirlives.

What is this proposed protest against? For the "injustice" meted out to theservices by the sixth pay commission, they argue. Their demand for more pay is justified bythem through their claims that they have to undergo severe stress and strain incarrying out their duties when they are serving in the military. And now theyhave added anotherjustification for a higher pay hike:  

"…new threats and challenges areemerging on our national security scene. Aside from sub-continental conflicts,multifaceted internal threats put additional responsibility on the defenceforces. For these multifarious roles, the soldier needs to possess a high degreeof technical skill, qualities of leadership, a higher motivation, mentalabilities to operate and precisely execute the allotted tasks and be able towork efficiently on complex equipment and weapon systems. A soldier is aspecially selected, trained, maintained and motivated individual."

The above is a justification for a higher pay grade that a retired MajorGeneral heading an ex-serviceman's league sent out to journalists across thecountry. His point is that because of aforementioned new and emerging challenges, the fightingsoldier must be motivated enough to defend the nation. If he is not motivated, then the country is likely to be swamped by its enemies.

If this argument sounds like a "pay us or face themusic" kind of a threat, we should perhaps be thankful that it is not the servingbut the retired soldiers who have decided to spearhead thisattack on the 6^th Central pay Commission's (6CPC) recommendations.

It is time to pause and ask: Is this how it works in the corporate world? Do employees go aroundthreatening their employers, asking them to pay them more or else theircompany's profits would nose-dive? Or does the company make its own calculationsworking out neat formulae between earnings, revenues, annual growth,qualifications of the employees, their quantifiable inputs and their individualmerit and brilliance? Doesn't the private sector award faster growth to themeritorious, promoting the men and women who bring in more business than theirpeers? Or are better at certain processes that earn the company more revenue,such as a brilliant software programmer as compared to a mediocre one?

If the answer to the above questions is "yes" then it's time to askthe military and those in it (or, in this case, those who have retired from it) if theseconditions apply to the military. Is there scope for accelerated growth for asoldier/officer who has shown better results at work than there peers? Or willthey all be tied down by time-scale promotions for the first 13 years of theirservice before that starts happening? Also, if there are mediocre performers,will they be fired from service or will they be allowed to continue for theirmandatory 26 years before they pick up their time-scale promotions andthen go home to a decent pension? Isn't that awarding mediocrity at the cost ofmerit?

The ex-servicemen have listed several demands. What follows is an unedited list of demands made by them::

• Rejection of 6th PCR
  
  
• Constitution of Separate Pay Commission or Pay Review Board with members from the Defence Services both serving and veterans. All future commissions/committees for Defence Services must have representation from both serving and veteran personnel.
  
• Sanction of one rank one Pension. This demand had been recommended by the Parliamentary committee in 2004 but the same has been rejected by 6^th CPC. 
  
  
• Assured Resettlement till 60 years of age through the Act of Parliament.

• Military Service Pay (MSP) sanctioned is inadequate. As recommended by the Chiefs, MSP for Jawans and JCOs be 62.5% of basic pay and 56.5% for officers. (A minimum of (Rs 3000 pm/- for JCOs and Jawans). MSP be for all ranks and effective from 01-01-06:
  
  
• " Upward revision of Warrant of Precedence and removal of glaring anomalies such as the equation of a Joint Secretary Govt. of India with a Major General. Status and pay of military officers to be linked with length of service vis-à-vis civil services. As on date, The pay band reached and enjoyed by 100 % civil services officers in 14 years is reached by only less than 2% defence officers and that too in 33 years"
  
  
• Year wise edge on pay package of Defence Forces personnel over other civil services is ensured.

It's all right to say that one's service conditions are very different andtherefore the 6CPC should be rejected. But what if all the other serviceswere to react like that and state that every service must have its own pay panel? The armed forces demand representation in every sphere of the pay panel.Then should the government now also ensure that all areas of interface betweencivilians and the armed services have equal representation from civilians withthe same rank, pay and privileges of their uniformed counterparts?

The ex-servicemen not only want parity in pay with other services but are alsodemanding that they must enjoy a "year-wise edge on pay package of defenceforces personnel over other services". But then, who will decided whichservice is superior to the others? There is great merit in the argument that thebureaucracy (read the IAS) has cornered most of the benefits for themselves atthe cost of the other services. But there is also merit in the fact that the IAShas a much larger role to play in governance. One can question the quality ofits work, but one cannot deny the fact that when one does get into the IAS it isthrough an open and transparent, competitive method.

The army has a rigorous and transparent selection process but it is aimed atrecruiting physically fit, healthy robust individuals who are capable ofhandling a particular kind of job. On the other hand, the IAS concentrates ongovernance, which starts the moment they step out of the academy. The physicalchallenges of handling a platoon for an army officer is challenging, but forthat young district collector or IPS officer, fresh out of the academy, everydecision taken makes the difference between good and bad governance. Therefore,to compare the two services or the military with any other service would notonly be unfair  but also dangerous.

And finally, the whole argument that better pay means better recruitingmaterial for the armed forces is fallacious and dangerous.Does that mean that the best paying employer will attract the best talentirrespective of what the service conditions are? If that were so, then even themost pathetic service conditions could be compensated with fantastic salaries. Butthat's not the case here, is it?

The problem with the Indian military today is that it has forgotten the basictenets of effective human resources development. Instead, at the time ofselecting 16 year olds into the National Defence Academy, it demands them to signup for 20 years. That prevents the officer from quitting the service andstunts career growth. The demands of the service are such that it preventspeople from being recognised for exemplary work. The brilliant and the mediocreare treated on par for the first 13 years of their service. The selection to ahigher rank is so opaque that it puts a black hole to shame. If a candidateknows that there will be no accelerated growth for all the hard work he will putin, for all the brilliant ideas that he may come up with, and that instead he willhave to slog it out for 13 years before he comes up for a selection gradepromotion, it is doubtful if a higher pay grade will solve the problem. Itbecomes worse when you have a situation when this individual knows that once in,he will have to wait for 20 years before he can get out. That too, if he islucky or is the son of a serving general.

So, instead of seeking better pay, what the ex-servicemen should instead be fightingfor is a better system of appraisal, better manpower policies for those whocontinue to serve and better welfare measures that actually work. And finally, anexit policy from service that actually rewards them for the five, tenor thirteen years they have served the army. This will ensure that when someonesigns up for service, their service will look good on their CVs. It can be usedto get better pay packages in the corporate world after they have done their bitfor government and country. Perhaps, a good exit package, which comes with agolden handshake, will go a long way in improving the intake of officers. 

Finally, the Indian military is one of the largest volunteer forces in theworld. Those not willing to serve should stay out. Better pay packages will notaddress those concerns. Holding rallies and protest marches, even by retiredmilitary personnel not only erodes the discipline of the armed forces, but alsochips away at the prestige of a uniformed service. For a force that is made upof volunteers, cribbing about pay and service conditions is not anoption.