Maj Gen Mrinal Suman (Sify 05 May 2009)
The recent advisory issued by Indian Ex Servicemen Movement (IESM) supporting a political party has raised heckles of many purist veterans who consider such an act to be sacrilege of the worst kind and a step towards politicisation of the services. Undoubtedly, the advisory is the first of its kind in the history of India. Therefore, strong reaction was only to be expected both on emotional and conventional grounds. As it happens with all emotive issues, rationale is the first casualty. Stands are taken more on the basis of personal convictions rather than on logical discernment of the issues involved.
Undoubtedly, the subject matter is of immense importance and needs to be debated at length in public domain to generate better understanding and thereby develop broad consensus on the contentious facets. To start with, it is in order to define as to what is implied by politicisation and apolitical disposition, with particular reference to the military.
Politicisation and Apolitical Disposition
Politicisation as a phenomenon is generally applied to an organisation or a group. In other words, it implies collective disposition and not individual inclination. Social scientists have not been able to agree on a standard definition of politicisation as regards the military. It covers a huge spectrum. On the upper extreme is military’s demand for a formal and institutionalised role in national affairs ─ most military interventions start with a premise that the military being a major stake holder has a right to participate in the governance of the country and formulation of national policies. On the lower extreme lies military’s open display of political preference. Most of the middle ground is occupied by groups harbouring political ambitions to meddle in state’s functioning, albeit to varying degree.
As regards apolitical deportment, it can be collective as well as individual. It reflects a policy of scrupulously avoiding involvement in political matters and affairs. An apolitical military neither associates itself with nor leans towards any political philosophy and ideology. To many, it means political neutrality or a complete hands-off approach with respect to political dispensations.
Apolitical demeanour does not necessarily carry negative connotations. It neither means apathy towards political matters nor lack of political opinion. Every soldier has been granted a right to vote for the candidate and party he deems worthy of his confidence. That implies that he has to be politically aware to make a well considered decision. Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that a soldier should have no political preference.
Many consider the above approach to be contradictory. “How can a soldier have political preference and yet stay apolitical?” they query. As a matter of fact, there is no dichotomy at all. As an assiduous citizen of the country who is concerned with good governance, a soldier forms his own opinion as regards the candidates in the field and votes according to his own free will. He, however, has to confine his political preferences to his personal domain. He can neither do canvassing for any political outfit nor display his leanings publicly. In other words, he does not participate in political activities, affairs and public debates.
Indian Ex-Servicemen and Politics
Once a soldier retires, he becomes a common citizen with no restrictions on his fundamental rights. He has a right to participate in political activities and even stand for elections. A number of ex-servicemen have won elections at state and central levels and have acquitted themselves creditably in the appointments assigned to them. As the constitution grants all rights to retired soldiers, no one can fault them for developing political ambitions and affiliations. In the US and other European countries, ex-servicemen have risen to be the head of their state and led their countries commendably.
It is a misplaced conception that ex-servicemen should continue to remain apolitical. Like other citizens, they are at liberty to form a group and seek furtherance of their interests through political means.
Indian ex-servicemen have been demanding ‘One Rank One Pension’ (OROP) for close to two decades. All political parties make promises at election times, only to renege from them when in power. In its election manifesto for the last general election, the Congress party had declared, “The long-pending issue of one-rank, one-pension will once again be re-examined and a satisfactory solution arrived at expeditiously”. But, at the end of its five years rule, it informed the Parliament that OROP was not unacceptable due to ‘administrative, financial and legal reasons’. All ex-servicemen felt betrayed. BJP’s record is no better. During its rule, it repeatedly ignored recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on Defence as regards grant of OROP.
The concept of OROP is neither unique nor new. It is already applicable to members of Parliament/Legislative Assemblies and senior judges. Under the provision of ‘fixed salaries’, senior bureaucrats and police officials are also enjoying OROP benefits. Even Chiefs and army commanders are covered under the same policy. A number of judgments of the apex court have also gone in favour of OROP for ex-servicemen. Being a deferred wage, its rationale is based on the principle ─ ‘equal service must get equal payment’. Military service has two components, length and responsibility (rank held). Therefore, for soldiers, it means ─ ‘equal service and equal rank should get equal pension’, or OROP in short.
There are major anomalies in the current pension structure. A Sepoy, who retired prior to 1st January 1996, gets 82 percent lower pension than a Sepoy who retires after 1st January 2006. A pre-January1996 retiree Havildar gets 37% lower pension than a Sepoy who retires after 1st January 2006, despite the latter being two rungs lower in the military hierarchy. It has also got to be appreciated that Sepoys start retiring at the age of 35 years and are left to fend for themselves on a meagre pension in the prime of their youth, with family responsibilities staring them in the face.
Issuance of Advisory
Having exhausted all other options and having been taken in by false promises for decades, ex-servicemen gathered under an umbrella organisation IESM to seek justice. According to IESM, demand for OROP is a demand for equity and justice and not merely for more money. IESM started a highly dignified campaign to attract Government and media attention.
With no response coming from the Government, many disenchanted veterans decided to return their medals to the President of India till their just demands are met. Thousands of medals were returned by disillusioned soldiers in three tranches during February- March this year. It must have been a terribly difficult decision to part with medals as they are the most prized possession of a soldier. Medals bear testimony to a soldier’s long service in the defence of the country and become inseparable part of his personality as they adorn his broad chest.
Sadly, the President was totally kept in the dark and every time a junior staff officer was detailed to receive the medals. Such blatant disregard for their sensitivities convinced the ex-servicemen about Government’s apathy. However, the Government remained unmoved and unconcerned. Not a soul from the Government or the ruling alliance tried to contact agitating ex-servicemen to assuage their hurt feelings. On the other hand, sensing opportunity to garner additional votes, leader of a national party visited the agitating ex-servicemen and publicly promised to implement OROP, if voted to power. It also included the same in its manifesto.
It was a life-line thrown to IESM. Whereas the ruling party had rejected OROP outright, the opposition party was giving a solemn undertaking to sanction it. IESM, therefore, considered it prudent to support the opposition party and give them a chance to fulfill their promise. It issued an advisory accordingly. It rightly clarified that it was one-time support and its continuation was contingent on the party fulfilling its promise. It may be unfair to term the advisory as a ‘fatwa’, as some opponents call it. Explaining reasons for extending support to the opposition party, the advisory asked ex-servicemen to make their own choice and vote for the party they consider the best. There is no element of coercion at all.
The Way Forward
Relationship between serving soldiers and ex-servicemen (veterans) is unique and cannot be easily understood by others. Veterans retire from active service but their association continues without any slack. No other service treats its veterans with so much of respect and affection. Veterans are considered as conscience keepers and looked up to as father figures. They are invited to all unit functions and treated with utmost deference. In other words, bonds between serving soldiers and veterans remain extremely intense and strong. Consequently, the state of well-being and morale of the veterans has profound influence on serving soldiers. Additionally, they see themselves as joining the ranks of veterans in not too far a future and empathise with them.
Undoubtedly, the military as an organisation must not get politicised. Its members should be politically aware but stay apolitical. They may have political preferences but their conduct must be without any political bias. While 'committed' bureaucracy and police have done immense damage to the body-politic of the country, consequences of ‘committed’ military can be far worse. India is proud of its apolitical military. Nothing should ever be done to dent it.
The Government has to ensure that the soldiers never feel discriminated against. Soldier forfeits his fundamental right willingly in the firm belief that the state will ensure that his interests are safeguarded and not let him suffer. He judges Government’s commitment by the treatment meted out to the ex-servicemen. The famous saying ‘soldiers mirror morale of veterans’ aptly underlines the criticality of ensuring well being of ex-servicemen. Therefore, the political leadership must be sensitive to the sensitivities of the veterans and not ignore them. Veterans should never get the feeling of having been used and discarded. It can have debilitating effect on the morale of serving soldiers and dent Government’s credibility in their eyes.
The recent advisory issued by Indian Ex Servicemen Movement (IESM) supporting a political party has raised heckles of many purist veterans who consider such an act to be sacrilege of the worst kind and a step towards politicisation of the services. Undoubtedly, the advisory is the first of its kind in the history of India. Therefore, strong reaction was only to be expected both on emotional and conventional grounds. As it happens with all emotive issues, rationale is the first casualty. Stands are taken more on the basis of personal convictions rather than on logical discernment of the issues involved.
Undoubtedly, the subject matter is of immense importance and needs to be debated at length in public domain to generate better understanding and thereby develop broad consensus on the contentious facets. To start with, it is in order to define as to what is implied by politicisation and apolitical disposition, with particular reference to the military.
Politicisation and Apolitical Disposition
Politicisation as a phenomenon is generally applied to an organisation or a group. In other words, it implies collective disposition and not individual inclination. Social scientists have not been able to agree on a standard definition of politicisation as regards the military. It covers a huge spectrum. On the upper extreme is military’s demand for a formal and institutionalised role in national affairs ─ most military interventions start with a premise that the military being a major stake holder has a right to participate in the governance of the country and formulation of national policies. On the lower extreme lies military’s open display of political preference. Most of the middle ground is occupied by groups harbouring political ambitions to meddle in state’s functioning, albeit to varying degree.
As regards apolitical deportment, it can be collective as well as individual. It reflects a policy of scrupulously avoiding involvement in political matters and affairs. An apolitical military neither associates itself with nor leans towards any political philosophy and ideology. To many, it means political neutrality or a complete hands-off approach with respect to political dispensations.
Apolitical demeanour does not necessarily carry negative connotations. It neither means apathy towards political matters nor lack of political opinion. Every soldier has been granted a right to vote for the candidate and party he deems worthy of his confidence. That implies that he has to be politically aware to make a well considered decision. Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that a soldier should have no political preference.
Many consider the above approach to be contradictory. “How can a soldier have political preference and yet stay apolitical?” they query. As a matter of fact, there is no dichotomy at all. As an assiduous citizen of the country who is concerned with good governance, a soldier forms his own opinion as regards the candidates in the field and votes according to his own free will. He, however, has to confine his political preferences to his personal domain. He can neither do canvassing for any political outfit nor display his leanings publicly. In other words, he does not participate in political activities, affairs and public debates.
Indian Ex-Servicemen and Politics
Once a soldier retires, he becomes a common citizen with no restrictions on his fundamental rights. He has a right to participate in political activities and even stand for elections. A number of ex-servicemen have won elections at state and central levels and have acquitted themselves creditably in the appointments assigned to them. As the constitution grants all rights to retired soldiers, no one can fault them for developing political ambitions and affiliations. In the US and other European countries, ex-servicemen have risen to be the head of their state and led their countries commendably.
It is a misplaced conception that ex-servicemen should continue to remain apolitical. Like other citizens, they are at liberty to form a group and seek furtherance of their interests through political means.
Indian ex-servicemen have been demanding ‘One Rank One Pension’ (OROP) for close to two decades. All political parties make promises at election times, only to renege from them when in power. In its election manifesto for the last general election, the Congress party had declared, “The long-pending issue of one-rank, one-pension will once again be re-examined and a satisfactory solution arrived at expeditiously”. But, at the end of its five years rule, it informed the Parliament that OROP was not unacceptable due to ‘administrative, financial and legal reasons’. All ex-servicemen felt betrayed. BJP’s record is no better. During its rule, it repeatedly ignored recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on Defence as regards grant of OROP.
The concept of OROP is neither unique nor new. It is already applicable to members of Parliament/Legislative Assemblies and senior judges. Under the provision of ‘fixed salaries’, senior bureaucrats and police officials are also enjoying OROP benefits. Even Chiefs and army commanders are covered under the same policy. A number of judgments of the apex court have also gone in favour of OROP for ex-servicemen. Being a deferred wage, its rationale is based on the principle ─ ‘equal service must get equal payment’. Military service has two components, length and responsibility (rank held). Therefore, for soldiers, it means ─ ‘equal service and equal rank should get equal pension’, or OROP in short.
There are major anomalies in the current pension structure. A Sepoy, who retired prior to 1st January 1996, gets 82 percent lower pension than a Sepoy who retires after 1st January 2006. A pre-January1996 retiree Havildar gets 37% lower pension than a Sepoy who retires after 1st January 2006, despite the latter being two rungs lower in the military hierarchy. It has also got to be appreciated that Sepoys start retiring at the age of 35 years and are left to fend for themselves on a meagre pension in the prime of their youth, with family responsibilities staring them in the face.
Issuance of Advisory
Having exhausted all other options and having been taken in by false promises for decades, ex-servicemen gathered under an umbrella organisation IESM to seek justice. According to IESM, demand for OROP is a demand for equity and justice and not merely for more money. IESM started a highly dignified campaign to attract Government and media attention.
With no response coming from the Government, many disenchanted veterans decided to return their medals to the President of India till their just demands are met. Thousands of medals were returned by disillusioned soldiers in three tranches during February- March this year. It must have been a terribly difficult decision to part with medals as they are the most prized possession of a soldier. Medals bear testimony to a soldier’s long service in the defence of the country and become inseparable part of his personality as they adorn his broad chest.
Sadly, the President was totally kept in the dark and every time a junior staff officer was detailed to receive the medals. Such blatant disregard for their sensitivities convinced the ex-servicemen about Government’s apathy. However, the Government remained unmoved and unconcerned. Not a soul from the Government or the ruling alliance tried to contact agitating ex-servicemen to assuage their hurt feelings. On the other hand, sensing opportunity to garner additional votes, leader of a national party visited the agitating ex-servicemen and publicly promised to implement OROP, if voted to power. It also included the same in its manifesto.
It was a life-line thrown to IESM. Whereas the ruling party had rejected OROP outright, the opposition party was giving a solemn undertaking to sanction it. IESM, therefore, considered it prudent to support the opposition party and give them a chance to fulfill their promise. It issued an advisory accordingly. It rightly clarified that it was one-time support and its continuation was contingent on the party fulfilling its promise. It may be unfair to term the advisory as a ‘fatwa’, as some opponents call it. Explaining reasons for extending support to the opposition party, the advisory asked ex-servicemen to make their own choice and vote for the party they consider the best. There is no element of coercion at all.
The Way Forward
Relationship between serving soldiers and ex-servicemen (veterans) is unique and cannot be easily understood by others. Veterans retire from active service but their association continues without any slack. No other service treats its veterans with so much of respect and affection. Veterans are considered as conscience keepers and looked up to as father figures. They are invited to all unit functions and treated with utmost deference. In other words, bonds between serving soldiers and veterans remain extremely intense and strong. Consequently, the state of well-being and morale of the veterans has profound influence on serving soldiers. Additionally, they see themselves as joining the ranks of veterans in not too far a future and empathise with them.
Undoubtedly, the military as an organisation must not get politicised. Its members should be politically aware but stay apolitical. They may have political preferences but their conduct must be without any political bias. While 'committed' bureaucracy and police have done immense damage to the body-politic of the country, consequences of ‘committed’ military can be far worse. India is proud of its apolitical military. Nothing should ever be done to dent it.
The Government has to ensure that the soldiers never feel discriminated against. Soldier forfeits his fundamental right willingly in the firm belief that the state will ensure that his interests are safeguarded and not let him suffer. He judges Government’s commitment by the treatment meted out to the ex-servicemen. The famous saying ‘soldiers mirror morale of veterans’ aptly underlines the criticality of ensuring well being of ex-servicemen. Therefore, the political leadership must be sensitive to the sensitivities of the veterans and not ignore them. Veterans should never get the feeling of having been used and discarded. It can have debilitating effect on the morale of serving soldiers and dent Government’s credibility in their eyes.
No comments:
Post a Comment