SOURCE :
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/The-underage-optimist/its-time-to-analyze-orop-with-our-head-not-our-heart/
"तिरछी नज़रों से ना मारो आशिकी दिलगीर को
रेबुट्टल आखरी में
CHETAN BHAGATS SONGS FROM " TWO STATES "
BHAGAT DISLIKED HIS FAUJI FATHER & PREFERRED HIS "IAS " MOTHER
HENCE HIS NOVEL " TWO STATES "
HIGHLIGHT, CLICK & LISTEN
http://gaana.com/album/2-states?utm_source=toidotcom&utm_medium=article%20&utm_campaign=refer2gaana
NO WONDER CHETAN HAS TO TAKE OUT HIS FAUJI FATHERS "GOOSA" ON MILLIONS OFFAUJI VETERANS AND " VEER NAREES ". ANY HOW THIS IS LIFE
NOW READ CHETAN'S VEHEMENCE
Let me kill this point first. Whoever has spread
The second point is about the BSF and others who also guard the
borders. We have no issue with them, as they are sister organizations.
But this comparison must cease forever, because apart from the
retirement age, there is a major factor which sets the armed forces
apart.
The Armed forces can take over their role, but they can never
take over the role of the armed forces.
Also if there is a desire to give the OROP to paramilitary forces and
police, for some unfathomable reason, please do so. We are not in
competition with them. Or give us the same conditions of service as
the PMF, where the defence soldier also retires at sixty.
Let an ageing Army handle your country and see if it passes muster in the
National Security Council.
Then there are two points that appear innocuously inserted in the
article but have far reaching consequences. The first is this stuff
about ‘whether to pay the veterans more to pay the new hires more’.
This actually presupposes that a person in service will continue to
serve in perpetuity and never retire. A serving soldier of today is a
veteran of tomorrow; so what is applicable to the veteran of today is
applicable to serving as well, albeit with a time delay.
And to ask whether to pay the officer more or the jawan more smacks of
a mischievous intent. Everyone knows that the pay scales are on a
sliding scale of rank, so relationship between these cannot be
divorced from each other.
Is there an intent to drive a wedge between
the soldier and the officer class?
The results will be disastrous,even if it remotely comes to someone’s mind. The subject is best left
at that.
The next is that the Army ‘intrinsically believes in the concept of
rank and even allows one to keep it after retirement’. Let me give you
a back ground to the Army ranks. Military ranks like ‘Colonel’ etc are
authorised military titles as mentioned in the Article 18 of our
constitution.
‘Abolition of titles.
No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall
be conferred by the State.’
And here is the reason for it. Commissioned officers are given these
titles because in exceptional circumstances they are delegated certain
judicial, executive, and operational powers which in normal course is
vested with the President. These are:-
(
a) Confirmation and execution of death
sentences in times of war without any reference to
the president for all accused so sentenced under
military law.
(b) Establishing government in occupied and captured
territories where the authority of constitution of India does not
exist.
(c) Govern the areas under martial law where the writ of the
civil government has ceased to run.
The last point is about the financial effect and affordability by the
government. There is a mention of ‘many sectors don’t even have
pensions’. Yes they don’t. Because they have a eight hour job. They
have overtime. They retire at 60. They sleep at home. They don’t have
field areas. Their service conditions are friendly. It is an endless
list. Pension is a security that, if you give your youth to the
nation, the latter will look after you in your ageing years.
Don’t ask
this question from the defence forces; ask this to those who
ironically are having the best of two worlds.
Then let me go back in history. I am sure that all are familiar with
the fact that at the time of independence, the then honourable PM Shri
Nehru appealed to the military to accept reduction in their
compensation including pension, as poor Government of India couldn’t
pay them that high salary with their stressed revenue collections.
Military accepted the reduction showing true commitment to democracy,
freedom and national development. But somehow the campaign of
reduction of comparative compensation packages to military, which
started as one time measure, is still continuing as a practice.
It will be out of place to recount the kind of government expenses
that are taking place and how little this amount of OROP is in terms
of percentage; especially when it amounts to paying dues that should
not have been taken away in the first place.
And I end, in good humour, requesting everyone not to fire these
skewed arrows at us. If there is a problem, we are open to debate,
provided it is one on one, and live on TV.
"तिरछी नज़रों से ना मारो आशिकी दिलगीर को
कैसे तीर अंदाज़ हो , सीधा तो कर लो तीर को "
‘Tirchi nazron se naa maaro aashike dilgeer ko,
Kaise teer andaaz ho, seedha to karlo teer ko’
( Don’t shoot obliquely from a position of advantage. At least have
the confidence to confront head on )
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/The-underage-optimist/its-time-to-analyze-orop-with-our-head-not-our-heart/
"तिरछी नज़रों से ना मारो आशिकी दिलगीर को
कैसे तीर अंदाज़ हो , सीधा तो कर लो तीर को "
रेबुट्टल आखरी में
CHETAN BHAGATS SONGS FROM " TWO STATES "
BHAGAT DISLIKED HIS FAUJI FATHER & PREFERRED HIS "IAS " MOTHER
HENCE HIS NOVEL " TWO STATES "
HIGHLIGHT, CLICK & LISTEN
http://gaana.com/album/2-states?utm_source=toidotcom&utm_medium=article%20&utm_campaign=refer2gaana
NO WONDER CHETAN HAS TO TAKE OUT HIS FAUJI FATHERS "GOOSA" ON MILLIONS OFFAUJI VETERANS AND " VEER NAREES ". ANY HOW THIS IS LIFE
NOW READ CHETAN'S VEHEMENCE
It’s Time to Analyze
OROP
With our Head, not our Heart
Few government professions in India enjoy as much public goodwill as our defence forces. Mention the Indian Army (for the purpose of this article, Army includes all forces — Air Force and Navy as well) and our chests swell with pride. The Army works well, stays quiet, is apolitical and does a great job protecting our borders from some of our not-so-friendly neighbours. Even in times of domestic trouble, such as riots or floods, the Army is called in and things begin to get better. In times of war, or during terrorist acts, our soldiers lay down their lives or suffer grievous injuries in the line of duty. With all this selfless sacrifice, it is not difficult to see why the Army enjoys so much support from our civilian population. Our local culture, films and songs show the Army in a positive light (unlike the police and politicians). Media coverage, too, focuses on their sacrifice and hard work.
While this positive image is great, it can cloud an objective analysis of how we manage our defence resources in certain situations.
One such issue is the OROP scheme.
While OROP means ‘one rank, one pension’, it is a bit of a misnomer. It actually means one rank, the latest, highest pension for that rank, irrespective of when you retired. Army veterans essentially want an upward pension revision system for all past veterans or their surviving spouses, estimated to be around 3.2 million in number. There are several reasons why their demand is justified. Pension discrepancy between an officer who retired in 1990, versus an equal-ranked officer who retired in 2015 can be dramatic. A certain consistency was required, especially since the Army intrinsically believes in the concept of rank, and even allows one to keep it after retirement. Most political parties had also promised OROP in their election manifestos, so the government had to deliver at some point. Popular and social media also sided with the veterans, with arguments ranging from “they guard our borders so we should give them what they want” to “how can we disrespect our soldiers?”
Somewhere in all this, things became too simplistic. The Army was good and the veterans were always right. The political class and the government were all stingy, greedy and insensitive. After all, those who protect our borders must be treated well. OROP was seen as something that meant soldiers were treated well. Hence, you better give OROP, and now!
People who wanted to do an objective analysis had to scurry and hide in a corner. For nobody could hear a word against OROP, and with the veterans protesting in the Capital, even the government was pushed to a corner. OROP was announced. The government estimated a liability of around Rs 12,000 crore per year to just implement this one recommendation. However, the veterans were not happy. As you read this, other protests are being organized as the veterans feel many of their demands are not met.
What should we do? Should we still maintain the ‘Army Good, Politician Bad’ argument? Should we still say ‘give them whatever they want because they guard our borders’ (by the way, the Border Security Force, or BSF, does not get OROP)? Or should we now at least look at various aspects of OROP and, dare we say, its pros and cons?
We should. For, in a country of limited resources like India, an expense as big as OROP must be examined carefully, and kept in limits. At present, our defence budget is Rs 250,000 crore. In addition, we pay defence pensions of around Rs 60,000 crore per year. OROP will add another Rs 12,000 crore to it annually. Note that these pensions are, by definition, for services already rendered.These funds are given out with no output obtained in return. While we all agree we should treat Army personnel well, what’s better? To pay the veterans more, or to pay new hires in the Army more? To pay the officers more or the jawans more? To pay more to get better talent, or pay more and create more jobs? Should more money be spent on pensions, or more hospitals for veterans? Should war-affected veteran families be paid differently from those who retired safe and sound? As a solution to increased pension expense, can veterans be re-hired in certain jobs useful to the economy? Also, if we have OROP for defence, why not for our paramilitary and police? Can we afford to pay them all?
All these issues make OROP more complex than it seems, and it is about time we have a sane, objective debate about it rather than an emotional, army-is-amazing-so-just-give-
DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.
REBUTTAL TO CHETAN
A very interesting rebuttal to CB by Lt Gen BPS Mander (Retd).
As received.
There is a very peculiar syndrome in India that
when you excel in onefield, you tend to believe that
you have become in an expert in all.
That is precisely Chetan Bhagat’s problem. Writing
fiction, which he does well, is far removed from
delving in facts and reality. While in
fiction, the only limits are your own imagination,
the latter requires attention and analysis of hard
boiled facts which is not everyone’scup of tea. OROP
can never be analysed with the ‘heart’, and it
never was; so let us desist from throwing red
herrings into a smouldering pot.
Let me kill this point first. Whoever has spread
this canard that the Army is asking for OROP
because it ‘guards the borders and so it should get
what it wants’, has reached the nadir of thought. Nobody is
asking you to follow the ‘Army good, politician bad’ argument. It is invention of an empty mind and just goes to show that the concept of OROP has not been understood at all. Please recall the manner in which
the defence forces have been short changed from independence to now,not only in finances, but in stature; and then say what you have to.
Then also, sit and compare the NFUs and self fattening doles of the bureaucracy, not to mention the perfidious insertions in the CPCs
recommendations; before making any such insinuations.
the defence forces have been short changed from independence to now,not only in finances, but in stature; and then say what you have to.
Then also, sit and compare the NFUs and self fattening doles of the bureaucracy, not to mention the perfidious insertions in the CPCs
recommendations; before making any such insinuations.
The second point is about the BSF and others who also guard theborders. We have no issue with them, as they are sister organizations.
But this comparison must cease forever, because apart from the
retirement age, there is a major factor which sets the armed forces
apart.
The Armed forces can take over their role, but they can never
take over the role of the armed forces.
Also if there is a desire to give the OROP to paramilitary forces andpolice, for some unfathomable reason, please do so. We are not in
competition with them. Or give us the same conditions of service as
the PMF, where the defence soldier also retires at sixty.
National Security Council.
Then there are two points that appear innocuously inserted in thearticle but have far reaching consequences. The first is this stuff
about ‘whether to pay the veterans more to pay the new hires more’.
This actually presupposes that a person in service will continue to
serve in perpetuity and never retire. A serving soldier of today is a
veteran of tomorrow; so what is applicable to the veteran of today is
applicable to serving as well, albeit with a time delay.
And to ask whether to pay the officer more or the jawan more smacks of
a mischievous intent. Everyone knows that the pay scales are on a
sliding scale of rank, so relationship between these cannot be
divorced from each other.
Is there an intent to drive a wedge between
the soldier and the officer class?
The results will be disastrous,even if it remotely comes to someone’s mind. The subject is best left
at that.
The next is that the Army ‘intrinsically believes in the concept ofrank and even allows one to keep it after retirement’. Let me give you
a back ground to the Army ranks. Military ranks like ‘Colonel’ etc are
authorised military titles as mentioned in the Article 18 of our
constitution.
These military titles are unique and have been given an
exceptional status in the Constitution which says
exceptional status in the Constitution which says
No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall
be conferred by the State.’
And here is the reason for it. Commissioned officers are given thesetitles because in exceptional circumstances they are delegated certain
judicial, executive, and operational powers which in normal course is
vested with the President. These are:-
(
a) Confirmation and execution of death sentences in times of war without any reference to
the president for all accused so sentenced under
military law.
(
b) Establishing government in occupied and capturedterritories where the authority of constitution of India does not
exist.
(
c) Govern the areas under martial law where the writ of thecivil government has ceased to run.
(d) Provide leadership and mange wars in a physical space
falling outside of the jurisdiction of Indian Constitution.
d) Provide leadership and mange wars in a physical spacefalling outside of the jurisdiction of Indian Constitution.
The last point is about the financial effect and affordability by thegovernment. There is a mention of ‘many sectors don’t even have
pensions’. Yes they don’t. Because they have a eight hour job. They
have overtime. They retire at 60. They sleep at home. They don’t have
field areas. Their service conditions are friendly. It is an endless
list. Pension is a security that, if you give your youth to the
nation, the latter will look after you in your ageing years.
Don’t ask
this question from the defence forces; ask this to those who
ironically are having the best of two worlds.
Then let me go back in history. I am sure that all are familiar withthe fact that at the time of independence, the then honourable PM Shri
Nehru appealed to the military to accept reduction in their
compensation including pension, as poor Government of India couldn’t
pay them that high salary with their stressed revenue collections.
Military accepted the reduction showing true commitment to democracy,
freedom and national development. But somehow the campaign of
reduction of comparative compensation packages to military, which
started as one time measure, is still continuing as a practice.
It will be out of place to recount the kind of government expenses
that are taking place and how little this amount of OROP is in terms
of percentage; especially when it amounts to paying dues that should
not have been taken away in the first place.
And I end, in good humour, requesting everyone not to fire theseskewed arrows at us. If there is a problem, we are open to debate,
provided it is one on one, and live on TV.
"तिरछी नज़रों से ना मारो आशिकी दिलगीर को
कैसे तीर अंदाज़ हो , सीधा तो कर लो तीर को "
‘Tirchi nazron se naa maaro aashike dilgeer ko,
Kaise teer andaaz ho, seedha to karlo teer ko’
( Don’t shoot obliquely from a position of advantage. At least have
the confidence to confront head on )
Sincerely,
Sincerely,
जाते जाते
No comments:
Post a Comment