OROP KRANTI ::JM Agitation to continue as OROP declared by Govt is not as per definition

Dear Members

 

MOD/Bureaucrats have again played a trick on ESM family. 3 Feb 2016 Wednesday is a black day in history of Armed Forces, ESM and India. Government has yet again rudely reminded Armed Forces Personnel and ESM that they are the stepchildren of India and have no rights in this country. All the perks and subsidies are to be enjoyed by politicians and bureaucrats, pseudo kings of modern India. They can increase their status, pay and perks at their will and are not answerable to Indians who vote them to power. It is interesting that a MLA or MP will get life time pension even if he has served in his position for one day. Bureaucrats will write any amount of perks for themselves without even taking permission of Indians who pay for luxury of bureaucrats by paying heavy taxes. But the same bureaucrats will deprive OROP to the Armed Forces Personnel and ESM on flimsy grounds just to show their authority. All political parties including the ruling party promise OROP to Armed Forces Personnel and ESM but when it is time to implement OROP they develop cold feet all abrogate their responsibility.

 

The unwritten agreement between union of India and Armed Forces is in severe strain today. This agreement writes the duties and responsibilities of GOI and Armed Forces in peace and war. This agreement stipulates that a soldier will embrace martyrdom willingly to protect the motherland and for safety and well-being of citizen and on the other hand GOI is supposed to look after the well-being of soldier and his family. And GOI is supposed to ensure that family of a soldier is well taken care and would lead good life even after he has attained martyrdom in serving the motherland. While the soldier of this great Army, Navy and Air Force has lived up-to his solemn oath but the GOI has been lacking in their part of responsibility. This is a very sad story as widow of a soldier, whose husband had willingly attained martyrdom for this great country, was getting a meager pension of Rs 3500/ only and under this langdi OROP announced by MOD, her pension would be increased to Rs 4070/ only. Is it not ironical that a veernari is given a meager pension which is even less than an Indian family pays to a maid? It is a joke being played by GOI/bureaucracy with Armed Forces Personnel, ESM and brave widows of this great country. We the ESM of India beseech the conscience of great Indians and request to take up the issue for correction this anomaly. 

NDA Govt had announced approval of OROP for Armed Forces Personnel with great fanfare on 10 June 2014 in their budget but did not have the courage to implement it because of bureaucratic resistance. However NDA Govt announced truncated OROP on 5 Sept 2015. This announcement had four major anomalies. These anomalies were pointed out to MOD by the ESM agitating at Jantar Mantar. MOD did not heed to the request of agitating ESM and issued notification of defective OROP on 7 Nov 2015 without correcting any anomaly. Govt has not corrected even one anomaly out of four anomalies pointed out by the ESM of India.  MOD decided to form a one man commission along with this announcement of OROP which is clear acceptance that the announced OROP was defective and would not be accepted by the agitating ESM of Jantar Mantar.

 

The notification of 7 Nov 2015 also has not addressed the issue of increasing pension of Majors (only less than 1000 alive) with 20 yrs or less than 20 yrs of service as Major to min of pension of Lt Col with MS Pay of Majors and also pension of Nb Sub to be given to Hony Nb Sub. An appeal was made to Government to approve this as a special case. This has also not been approved by the Govt.

 

ESM family is convinced that announced OROP is not as per the definition of OROP approved by the Parliament. In-fact the announced OROP violates the definition of OROP and also violates will of Parliament. This effort to tweak with the definition is in-fact contempt of Parliament. UFESM (JM) has sent an appeal to all Ms P to take the issue with speakers of both houses.

 

MOD has issued tables of OROP on 3 Feb 2016 as per truncated announcement of OROP of 7 Nov 2015. These tables completely defy the definition of OROP as pension of past pensioners of all ranks will be fixed far lower than the pension of the soldiers retiring in 2016. Whereas principle of OROP is that past pensioners must have the same pensions as that of soldiers retiring today. Comparison of pensions given to past pensioners viz a viz pensions as per approved OROP are given below. 

 

 

Rank	No of Pre 06 retirees	group	Qualifying service	Pension as on 24-09-12		Proposed pension as per tables of 3 Feb 16	Pension as per PPO 1 Mar 2014	Pension proposed by RM in his note	Increase to  a past pensioner as per 3 Feb 2015 letter	Inc of pension as per full OROP
1	2	3	4		5	6	7	8	9=(6-5)	10=(7-5)
Sepoy	67161	Y	15		5176	6665	7605	7200	1489	2429
Nk	500805	Y	22		6599	7170	8295	8295	571	1696
Havildar	481891	Y	24		7375	7808	9320	9320	433	1945
Nb Sub	70093	Y	26		10029	10405	10852	10852	376	823
Sub	128101	Y	28		11970	12268	11970	11970	298	-
Sub Maj	16177	Y	30		12285	13045	12285	12285	760	-
Veernaris  Sep	App 3 lacs	Y			3500	4070		4320	570	-
Veernaris Nk	App 3 lacs	Y			3500	4302		4611	802	-

 

 

It will be noticed that widows and ORs will get less pension than expected.  This ill treatment of Widows, ORs and JCOs is not acceptable. Apart from this notification of 3 Feb 2016 dilutes the definition of OROP and hence is not acceptable.  In view of this it has been decided that our fight at JM will continue as the tables issued by MOD are not acceptable to ESM. Officers table is not given as most of them must have seen the tables and noted their entitlements

 

It will be pertinent to mention that GOI has indicated that the funds outgo on OROP is to the tune of Rs 7500/ crore per year. It is surprising that the GOI is ready to spend Rs 7500/ crore and is still leaving the back bone of Armed Forces as unsatisfied and frustrated for a few hundred crores. This will be affecting morale of serving soldier as today's soldier is tomorrow's veteran. Moreover every soldier has a veteran in his family. And if a serving soldier sees his older generation being treated so shabbily by the Govt, he is likely to lose his enthusiasm to fight to martyrdom and this will not be good for nation.

 

UFESM(JM) is in constant dialogue with Sh Ram Jethmalani eminent lawyer of India for representing our case to get justice for ESM family. He has very kindly consented to represent ESM free of cost. All possible avenues to find an amicable solution  will be explored before going to court. Court option will be resorted only after first installment of OROP is paid to all veterans and families. Environment will be kept informed about all the developments on the legal case and any other developments on the OROP.

 

UFESM(JM) has written to Govt to correct the tables without any delay so that the pension of past pensioners is brought at par with the pensions of soldiers retiring in 2016. RHS at JM has entered in 238 day.  It has been decided to continue with the agitation at JM and if required agitation will be intensified further if the Govt does not correct the anomalies pointed out by ESM. 

UFESM(JM) hopes that environment will question those ESM who were propagating that Govt had approved full OROP on 5 Sep 2015 and agitation at JM must be closed. UFESM(JM) has been proved right that Govt had not given full OROP and hence did not close agitation at JM. 

UFESM(JM) requests all ESM to come to JM and participate in their struggle for approval of true OROP as per definition approved by Parliament. 

  

 

Regards

Gp Capt VK Gandhi VSM
Gen Sec IESM
Flat no 801, Tower N5

Narmada Apartments

Pocket D6 

Vasant Kunj

Nelson Mandela Marg
New Delhi. 110070
Mobile   09810541222

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OROP is our right. Dilution in OROP will NOT be accepted.

 

IF YOU SEE SOMEONE WITHOUT A SMILE GIVE HIM ONE OF YOURS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SARKARI OROP : A WONDERFUL INSIGHT INTO THE WHOLE GAMUT OF OROP ORDER PREPARATION

SOURCE : 

CURTSEY


 SUNLIT BLOG at


http://sol-dozdoz.blogspot.in/2016/02/first-impressions-of-orop-table_5.html






 A WONDERFUL INSIGHT INTO THE WHOLE GAMUT OF OROP  ORDER PREPARATION


      First Impressions Of The OROP Table

In what should have been a straight-forward matter of implementation, unexplained delays, accompanied by publicly displayed recriminations and complaints, do sometimes give a rather unsettling impression of wheels within wheels, often seeming to spin in opposing directions.

As to why a clearly defined manner of rationalizing pensions has had to go through the cycle of evasions, accusations, public protests and foot-dragging can never be fully clear to most stake holders. The problem has been aggravated for affected veterans by the marked reluctance, on part of the authorities and the representative bodies engaged in steering the matter to some form of conclusion, to share the nature of their deliberations or details of the modalities of implementing OROP.

Of direct concern to stake holders was the precise manner in which OROP pensions needed to be calculated, the actual data on which these calculations were to be based and the manner of validation that needed to be put in place to ensure freedom of the final award from errors and mis-calculations. 

Even now, in-spite of a rather vocal movement over the implementation of OROP, there is precious little clarity on how the definition of OROP has to be adhered to. With that in mind, it is a bit of relief that the "tables" for OROP have now at last appeared. A word of appreciation for the government sraff who must have worked hard to ensure implementation would not exactly be out of place. Most importantly, with the tables having been circulated, those affected have something in black and white to base their queries upon.

There is no place like the beginning. At the risk of repetition, it may be useful to choose to be guided by the official pronouncement on how OROP was to be implemented. To summarize the manner of fixing pensions under OROP, and these are authentic quotes from Govt Of India, MOD, DESW Letter No. 12(1)/2014/D(Pen/Pol)-Part

II dated 07November 2015:

* "Pension of past pensioners would be re-fixed on the basis of pension of retirees of calendar year 2013 and the benefit will be effective with effect from 01 July 2014."

* "Pension will be re-fixed for all pensioners on the basis of the average of minimum and maximum pension of personnel retired in 2013 in the same rank and with the same length of service."

We can now approach the implementation details and tables that have been issued vide GOI MOD DESW  letter number 12

(1)/2014/D(Pen/Pol) - Part II dated 03

February 2016. Firstly, this letter refers to the previous letter dated 07 November 2015 and makes it clear that the tables attached are based on the principles enunciated in the earlier letter.

So, one should safely assume that all figures quoted in the tables are based on averages of minimum and maximum pensions of personnel, with the same service, who retired in calendar year 2013. All that is required to validate the tables, and to assure oneself that these conform to the principles stated in the letter dated 07 November 2015, are access to basic information as to what service number, name, rank with x years of service who retired in calendar year 2013 had the minimum pension amounting to how much and, also, what service number, name, same rank, also with x years of service also retired on 2013 with the maximum pension amounting to how much.

Simple! One only has to take these minimum and maximum pensions, add them and divide them by 2 and then check that that the OROP pension for x years of QS for that rank is the same as the average. We can then be sure that at least the tables say what the original "principle enunciating" letter of 07 Nov 2015 had, well, enunciated.

Now, and this is very important, every one may not agree with contents of that letter. It may be argued:

• The revision of OROP pensions should not be quinquennial, as the letter says, but be annual or at the very least biennial.

• Some sections may feel the OROP pension should not have been the mean of maximum and minimum of pension in calendar year 2013 for same rank and same service, as the letter has laid down, but should have been equal to the maximum.

• People could disagree with the principle stated in the letter that the calendar year 2013 would be considered for taking into account the maximum and minimum pensions of pensioners who retired in that year, stating the financial year 2013-14 should have been considered. 

• Associations and groups could even argue that the date of implementation be 01 April 2014 as was the original intention stated by the Govt of the day and not 01 July 2014 as has now been implemented . After all, parties in power change but the Govt is Govt. What the Govt has stated once should not be undone merely because another political party has come to power.

Could veterans not argue and protest on those lines? Of course they could and they have to the point of, if I may put it, contracting laryngitis.

But accepting all the shortcomings or lacunae in the Nov 7 letter, we do, I think, have an entitlement in trusting that, if not true OROP, then at the very least the contents of the 07 Nov 2015 letter would be implemented in letter and spirit and that the implementation instructions and tables issued would do exactly that. We would be entitled to transparency and clarity in the implementation which would have total conformance with what the letter dated 07 Nov 2015 says. We would have the handy means of checking conformance of tallying the averages against figures in the implementation tables as described.

But coming to the actual tables, one is presented with a slightly puzzling situation. There is, of course, no means of verifying the figures presented in the tables. There is no amplifying statement accompanying the table for clarity saying, "Minimum/Maximum pensions for Rank x, Service y years in calendar year 2013 are Amt A/Amt B", or words to that effect. Not that there is any doubt in anyone's mind that the official figures would reflect anything but the actual pensions diligently collated by the agencies assigned the task.

But any stake-holder first looking at the tables could justifiably experience some degree of confusion with the manner in which figures have been reproduced in the table. Let us take Table 1 to start with. It starts with a qualifying service of 0.5 years. The table lists the pension of Lt Col/Lt Col(TS) as well as as pension of Col(TS) as 17233/- for a QS of 0.5 years. Now, no matter how close to the stereotypical description of "military intelligence" an individual be, it should be easy enough to realize that no one is a Lt Col or Lt Col(TS) or Col(TS) at QS of 6 months. Also, if one's memory serves one right, no one gets a pension after a qualifying service of 0.5 years.

Clearly, no one could have retired in calendar year 2013 in the rank of Lt Col(TS), Lt Col or Col(TS) with a qualifying service of 0.5 years. Definitely not with a pension! So how did they get the minimum and maximum pensions for Officers retiring in 2013 with Lt Col(TS), Lt Col, Col(TS) ranks and having a QS of 6 months?

When the letter dated 07 Nov 2015 very clearly stated, and I repeat, "Pension will be re-fixed for all pensioners on the basis of the average of minimum and maximum pension of personnel retired in 2013 in the same rank and with the same length of service", did it leave any room for doubt as to how the OROP pension was to be calculated/fixed/displayed in the tables? When the letter dated 03 Feb 2016 clearly mentions that the tables are for implementing the letter dated 07 Nov 2015, there is even less room for doubt that the letter dated 07 Nov 2015 is a commandment of sorts.

How do we then explain the pensions for Lt Col(TS), Lt Col, Col(TS) ranks at a qualifying service of 0.5 years as mentioned in the table when, obviously, there was no pension, minimum, maximum, or average in calendar year 2013 for a QS of 0.5 years? That figure has not been calculated as per the rule stated in the letter dated 07 Nov 2015. Some other method has been used to establish that figure. Why has the process or method of calculation not been clearly spelt out?

Where is the guarantee the entire table is not based on some manner of calculation other than just getting the "the average of minimum and maximum pension of personnel retired in 2013 in the same rank and with the same length of service"?

Was the calculation based on the pay-bands for different ranks and not on the "the average of minimum and maximum pension of personnel retired in 2013 in the same rank and with the same length of service"? Was it some increment based calculation as in the case of the 7 CPC matrix? Was it some other thumb rule devised by the specialists in accountancy that some veterans are in such awe of, perhaps with good reason?

To further illustrate the ambiguities one can associate with the tables, how is it that the afore-mentioned table mentions the OROP pension of a Lt Col/Lt Col(TS) at QS of 32 years as 34765/- ? Where was this figure obtained from? Did officers with Lt Col/Lt Col(TS) with a QS of 32 years actually retire in "calendar year 2013" based on whose minimum and maximum pensions this OROP pension was calculated? Can the reason for a Lt Col/Lt Col(TS) with 32 years of service, retiring in that rank in "calendar year 2013" be shared with all the older Lt Col retirees whose pensions are to be fixed based on that figure?

Such doubts, in the absence of clarifications, attach to all the tables. It can only enhance trust and understanding if the authorities and those in the forefront of obtaining a just OROP share these basic details with all stake holders.

2 comments:

1. 
   GaviniVN05 February, 2016

   How true Sir.
   
   Thanks for giving a wonderful insight into the whole gamut of OROP order preparation.
   
   It is pure short-changing. The figures given by the Army/AF Pay cells in Jan 14 letter, at least was based on some data.
   
   It is high time, that the matters of personnel (Armed Forces) be removed from the clutches of the so-called elite IDAS/MOD cronies and decided by the Forces themselves, like in Indian Railways.

   ReplyDelete
   Replies

   
   sunlit05 February, 2016
   @GviniVN: "..pure short-changing.."
   That is a different matter, altogether. I am sure the associations and the authorities would gradually be able to remove whatever the shortcomings are.
   
   My worry is on account of the possibility of some kind of short-cut approximation having been made in working out the figures and that too not in a transparent manner.

 

OROP KRANTI : On behalf of the GB overseeing JM may I humbly...‏

 On behalf of the GB overseeing JM may I humbly...‏

	Facebook
	Anil Kaul posted in Indian Ex Servicemen Movement.         Anil Kaul February 5 at 2:49pm   On behalf of the GB overseeing JM may I humbly accept all the good words stated by all of you. Much appreciated. Having said that may I also submit that we may have won a battle but war is far from over. It would not be prudent on my part if I was not to share with you all our thoughts on future course/s of action.      1. The tables have been rejected in their present form as they DO NOT address any of the four anomalies highlighted by us.  2. On first look Hav, Sub,SM, & widows seem to be worst affected by this award. 3. Tables are being scrutinised in detail by our pension div team with a fine tooth comb. 4. Case is being prepared based on  for legal route. Whether judicial commission, AFT, HC or SC is yet to be decided.  5. Our actions will in no way come in the way of planned payments of the award, whatever they may be. 6. on the Face of it, it would seem that offrs have got a good deal. Far from it. Also some JCO's who are playing foul need to understand that they were brought at par with post:06 retired in 2012, hence may not, get much more. 7 RHS to continue and JM to stay till final closure. 8. Our consolidated view PPO OF DEC '15 & that of pre 2006 to be compared and fig in fresh ppo of same rank and service be given to past pensions. Nothing more, Nothing less.  Sada haq to dena he Padega !!!

MOD PROCUREMENTS PROFESSIONAL DISHONESTY : Reality Bites "Make-in-India"

SOURCE:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/reality-bites-make-in-india-defence-dream/191046.html




                       Reality Bites "Make-in-India"
                                  Defence Dream  
                                              By
                              DINESH KUMAR

 Feb 3 2016


The Maareech Advanced Torpedo Defence System developed by the DRDO on display during the 67th R-Day parade at Rajpath in New Delhi. The DRDO was set up in 1958. PTI




For several months now the Modi Government has been pegging its emphasis on the need for developing greater self-reliance in defence equipment on the mantra of “Make in India”. Coining of slogans apart, successive governments in New Delhi have been emphasising this necessity for a nation that aspires to be a major power and is among the world's fastest-growing economies. Instead, India in recent years has earned the dubious distinction of being among the world's largest importer of defence equipment.  

Largest Importer of Arms

 

Consider the following: India was the world's largest importer of major arms from 2010 to 2014, accounting for 15 per cent of the global total. This amounted to three times more imports than China and Pakistan, both of which are nuclear weapon states, major adversaries and the country's biggest neighbours. In monetary terms, between 2010 and 2014, India paid a staggering Rs 1,03,535 crore for capital acquisitions from foreign vendors. In contrast, India earned a paltry Rs 1,644 crore on defence exports in the three-year period from 2010 to 2012.  

A major defence export contract that India signed in recent years is the sale of seven indigenously produced Dhruv advance light helicopters to Ecuador for $45 million in 2008. And this has run into trouble. Within six years, four of these helicopters crashed, forcing the Ecuadorian government to place restrictions on flying the remaining three thus putting a question mark on Brand India as a maker of defence equipment. Dhruv's flight safety record has been even worse in India with the armed forces losing as many as 16 Dhruv helicopters in an 11-year period, from 2005 to 2015.  

Overall, India's self-reliance index has remained static at about 30 per cent for the last two-and-a-half decades, with 70 per cent of the country's defence requirements being sourced to foreign vendors making the Indian armed forces overly import-dependent. Even India's 30 per cent indigenous capacity is suspect as it is based mostly on transfer of imported technology and a “buy-and-assemble” principle. This has led defence scientists and engineers to derive comfort rather than pursue a quest to create indigenous capabilities.

It is not that previous governments have not made efforts to increase indigenisation. Soon after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, which until then was India's most important source of defence equipment, a specially established “Self-Reliance Review Committee” conceived  a “ten-year plan for self-reliance in defence systems,” starting from 1995, aimed at increasing India's self-reliance index to 70 per cent by 2005.


 This seemingly unrealistic deadline remained a pipe dream. Since then, several studies have been conducted to examine what can be done to increase India's self-reliance capability so as to reduce dependence on imports. More recently, a Ministry of Defence committee has now suggested 2027 to be set as the revised target for achieving 70 per cent indigenisation.  

Government Measures

 

Since the 1990s, the Government has taken a number of steps to realise the make-in-India dream. Permitting forging of an Army-industry partnership and an Air Force-industry partnership, starting from the early 1990s; devising of a defence procurement procedure (DPP) in 1992, which has since been  reviewed, revised and updated eight times (in 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2011 and 2013), with the latest DPP expected to be notified in two months. Other measure taken are: opening Indian private sector participation in developing defence equipment to up to 100 per cent; an offset clause in all foreign defence purchases worth Rs 300 crore (it is now being revised to a minimum Rs 2,000 crore); and permitting foreign direct investment from an initial 26 per cent to currently 49 per cent to even 100 per cent in identified areas of critical technologies subject to cabinet approval. The DPP-2016 even proposes 90 per cent funding to private companies to develop defence equipment to give private participation a boost. The question is whether these measures are enough. The answer is probably not. India has made little headway in achieving self-reliance, despite a large state-owned infrastructure comprising a Defence Research and Development Organisation or DRDO (established almost 60 years ago in 1958), eight defence public sector units, 40 ordnance factories and 50 government-owned research and development laboratories. There are serious doubts whether India even possesses competence and know how to develop core or high-end technologies. 

Limited Success

 

The DRDO, which has a history of time and cost overruns, has been unable to develop a reliable rifle for the Army let alone an engine for the main battle tank (Arjun). Attempts at developing the Kaveri engine for the Tejas light combat aircraft have resulted in failure as have attempts at developing an airborne early warning and control system (AWACS) radar, to be mounted on an aircraft. The list of such failures is long. The DRDO's limited success lies only in developing a few variants of the Prithvi and Agni surface-to-surface missile and some sub-systems for ships and aircraft, to name a few. So does the Government expect the private industry to achieve what the state- owned industrial complex has been unable to? It cannot be an “either-or” solution. Both have a role to play as has been the case in the United States, Israel and other western countries.

 The DRDO, whose functioning has been described as “disappointing” and been accused of “poor conceptualisation and over ambition in trying to make world class products” by a report on its functioning prepared by a Parliamentary Standing Committee on defence, needs major restructuring. It needs to focus on fewer but high-end technologies of strategic significance. After all, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has developed into a world-class space agency and could be a model that needs studying.

Nobel Advice

 

Perhaps the Government needs to give serious thought to some advice proffered by the Nobel laureates who attended the recent Science Congress held in Mysuru earlier this month. A “Make-in-India” programme, they observed, will not benefit the country in the long term unless it is backed by sustained investments in basic science and the fostering of the spirit of curiosity. Suggesting that Make in India be replaced with the slogan “Discover, Invent and Make in India”, American Nobel laureate in Physics (2004), David Gross, observed that: “New inventions, technologies, products that can compete on the world stage are in the end based on new discoveries, new understanding of the workings of nature — what we call basic science, which eventually translate into applied science and technologies”. French Nobel laureate in Physics (2012), Serge Haroche, was quoted, saying: “The challenge for democracies, including India, is in getting politicians now focused on short-term electoral gains to invest in long-term goals like the development of basic science”. Indeed, in order to be an economic superpower, India must first strive to be a science and technology super power which China has achieved with a considerable measure of success.

For the past 15 years, India has been investing an average of just 0.9 per cent of the GDP in research and development,  compared to 2.7 per cent by tUS, 2.1 per cent by China and 4.4 per cent by South Korea. The government needs to seriously work out a doable roadmap with a clear time frame in order to make “Make in India” happen. Else, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's call for “Make in India” will remain just another slogan. In the meantime, considering that New Delhi is unlikely to pull off any miracles in achieving self-reliance, India is expected to spend a staggering $620 billion (Rs 41 lakh crore) on defence imports between 2014 and 2022.

dkumar@tribunemail.com.

 

O R O P : KRANTI: केंद्र सरकारको सुप्रीम कोर्ट में गसीटेंगे

                               केंद्र  सरकारको  सुप्रीम  कोर्ट  में  गसीटेंगे 
                             मेजर जनरल  सिंह

              

ADM & MORAL KO JAI HIND :: “SIRS, I AM DISILLUSIONED AND DEVASTATED”

SOURCE:
http://www.thecitizen.in/NewsDetail.aspx?Id=6705&%E2%80%9CSIRS%2c/I/AM/DISILLUSIONED/AND/DEVASTATED%E2%80%9D

 

          ADM & MORAL  KO JAI HIND 

             “SIRS, I AM DISILLUSIONED
                                   AND
                         DEVASTATED”

Tuesday, February 2, 2016



 

A photograph released by the Press Trust of India: Beating of Retreat

 

http://www.thecitizen.in/NewsDetail.aspx?Id=6705&%E2%80%9CSIRS,/I/AM/DISILLUSIONED/AND/DEVASTATED%E2%80%9D:

 

Letter addressed to the Chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force

 

 

“SIRS, I AM DISILLUSIONED AND DEVASTATED”

 

LT GEN VIJAY OBEROI

(former Vice Chief of Army Staff) 

 

 

Dear Chiefs,
 

Since the evening of 29 Jan 2016, I have been fighting an inner battle on whether to share my dismay and disappointment with the three worthy Chiefs of the armed forces of our country, the same armed forces that have not just brought glory to the nation since our independence, but have secured the nation from both external and internal threats. After a great deal of introspection and soul-searching, I have come to the conclusion that I must apprise you of my misgivings, which incidentally are shared by the majority of my brother and sister officers, both serving and retired. 

 

Let me commence with the absurd spectacle of 29 Jan 2016, when a solemn ceremony – ‘Beating of Retreat’ was reduced to a ‘tamasha’ of sorts, for want of a better word!. You, the custodians of all things military and the wisest amongst us all (that is why you are the Chiefs of our fine military), have unfortunately set a deplorable precedence by the manner the sacred, ceremonial and military pageantry ‘Beating of Retreat’ this year was conducted. I need not remind you worthies that traditions are the core of the Indian Military and flouting them on account of pressures/ requests from political and other bosses amount to letting down the troops whom you lead and who are always ready to even sacrifice their lives at your orders, but please do note that they will do so only if the orders are legitimate and legal and not to please your bosses or others. 

 

It would be churlish of me to remind you of why the ‘Beating of Retreat’ Ceremony is performed and what the traditions and sequencing are that must be observed; I am quite sure that your staff dealing with the subject would have done so, or would do so when this epistle of mine appears in the public domain. Suffice to highlight only three of the ‘wrongs’ (or shall I call them blunders) that manifested themselves in this year’s ceremony. 

 

Firstly, our bandsmen, besides playing martial music, are also adept at playing symphonies (both western and Indian), but there is a place and occasion to play them.  By all accounts, a ‘Beating of Retreat’ ceremony is not one of them! I was also amazed to see non-military instruments like tablas, sitars and santoors being played. I do hope we do not add more colour to it in future on account of directions from the higher ups and ask them to wear dhotis and kurtas to add authenticity to the proceedings! 
 

Secondly, while some of our bandsmen, particularly drummers do get into the spirit of the moment and start swaying, if not gyrating, as they play, but is it forced on those poor boys or they do so automatically, as the spirit moves them? It was really distressing to see some of the drummers, specially, from the Naval Band, breaking out into some sort of a bhangra or akin to it, either in their enthusiasm or to impress their Chief! Maybe, the proximity to Bollywood may have inspired them!  At this rate, we may in future years witness dances to showcase our wide variety of dance forms, or God forbid gyrations by the Bollywood ‘nautanki’ crowd and rappers to liven up the staid proceedings! 

 

Thirdly, I was quite shocked to see police bands amidst the military bands during the ceremony. I have no idea why you forgot or you agreed to these police bands taking part in this highly exclusive military spectacle. I have nothing against the police, but the way they are being permitted to participate in military ceremonies spells another doom for the Indian Military. I am all for egalitarianism, but the line must get drawn at the appropriate place. I or my comrades cannot draw such a line; it is only you who can do so. I do hope that you will do that, unless you have reached so far in the “Yes Sir, Three Bags Full Sir” syndrome that you feel you have no choice but to conform! 

 

Let us move on then, for having stuck my neck out already, I might as well go the whole hog. Since we have been talking about ceremonials and pageantry associated with the month of January, let me draw your attention to the Republic Day Parade, which is so meticulously organized by Headquarters Delhi Area, but somewhere the plot is lost when the netas and the bureaucrats gather all the praise and the sweat, energy and time spent on such a major military event is usurped by them. Hallelujah, why has the military become so subservient? 

 

For the first time since I took part in the parade, as a cadet from the National Defence Academy (NDA) in 1959 I think, I was shocked to see no participation by the veterans, who have sacrificed their lives and limbs for the nation. Are they of no consequence? Are they spent forces (khali Kartoos), as far as the nation is concerned. Let me rub it in, because you as Chiefs of both serving personnel and veterans agreed to have a shoddy cardboard tableau marked OROP, trying to show the false magnanimity of this self-serving government, which having gone back on its word to sanction OROP in its totality and parliamentary approved definition, has reneged at the behest of those darling blue-eyed boys, also known as the bureaucrats. 

 

Do you think the people of India will go along with such a fraud! You may be fully committed to your bosses, but why have you become such ‘Ji Hazoors’ that you have now forgotten even your comrades in arms, who incidentally were at least partly responsible for assisting you to reach the present high appointments you hold! 


Three more small points, as I have already vented most of my ire. I fail to understand why it is our valiant jawans who are press-ganged into laying mats on the Rajpath so that the government (read the Prime Minister) can showcase mass yoga to the world. What do the huge armies of civil servants do? While it is good to showcase women power in the military, it is wrong for lady officers to be made to carry rifles in the squads while participating in the Republic Day Parades. Since we do not have women enrolled as the rank and file so far, let lady officers lead squads of their regimental/corps contingents, as male officers do. 

 

My last point relates to a group photograph taken at the ‘At Home’ of the Army Chief that has gone viral on the e-mail circuit and on the social media that shows the three Chiefs subordinated to the back seat, during their own ‘At Home’, while the netas, both present and past are reposed on comfortable chairs in the front row. Have the armed forces been reduced to such a state on their own function? See, how the mighty have fallen! Hallelujah and Jai Ho, simultaneously!!! 

 

Let me end this epistle on an optimistic note by conveying my best wishes to you Sirs. I do hope you will reflect on what an old soldier feels and perhaps carry out at least some of the suggested changes so that our sacred military traditions are preserved and not sacrificed at the altar of expediency. Hopefully, your legacy would not be repeated in future by your successors. 
 

Jai Hind.