India’s national interest lies in formulating a strategy jointly with the Afghan government to ensure that a Taliban takeover can be prevented. If invited, India must put boots on the ground. A brigade group can be logistically sustained and would make a good contribution to peace and stability.

Gurmeet Kanwal

Former Director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi

Afghanistan’s National Security Adviser Hamdullah Mohib reportedly used a visit to New Delhi to privately press on a request for at least a brigade — perhaps even a division — of Indian troops to be deployed in a peacekeeping role, ahead of a peace deal with the Taliban which is expected to lead to the final withdrawal of United States forces,” a CNBC TV18 report said on January 27.

The present situation in Afghanistan can be described as a strategic stalemate. Forces of the Afghan National Army (ANA), supported by the US-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), are not losing, but the resurgent Taliban now controls about one-third to half of Afghanistan. Even in the rest of the country, while the ANA controls the towns, the writ of the Taliban runs in large areas of the countryside, especially at night. The devastating conflict has taken a heavy toll over two decades. According to an estimate, direct war-related casualties comprise over 1,11,000 dead and 1,16,000 wounded.

The US President, Donald Trump, had announced his administration’s policy for the resolution of the conflict in Afghanistan in August 2017 as part of his strategy for South Asia. Contrary to his campaign promise to pull out, he has pledged continuing US support for diplomatic, military and financial commitment to peace and stability and political reconciliation. He has also reiterated that US efforts for the elimination of the Al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan would continue. Trump left the decision on the number of troops to be maintained in Afghanistan to the then Defence Secretary, General James Mattis. Consequently, about 4,000 additional troops were sent to reinforce the 9,800 American troops who were then stationed in Afghanistan.

In a major departure from the policies of the Obama administration, Trump had invited India to join the US as a partner to work towards conflict resolution in Afghanistan. He had called India a ‘key security and economic partner of the United States’ and said that developing a strategic partnership with India was a ‘critical part of the South Asia strategy for America.’

The new strategy was welcomed in the region, except by Pakistan. As had been widely anticipated, Trump put Pakistan on notice for encouraging terrorist organisations to destabilise neighbouring countries and warned the country that ‘it has much to lose by continuing to harbour criminals and terrorists.’ Despite immense American pressure, Pakistan’s ISI still supports several factions of the Afghan Taliban and provides them a safe haven.

Efforts made towards political reconciliation to find a negotiated end to the protracted conflict have borne no tangible results. The reconciliation talks between former US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban representatives from its office in Qatar had stalled after some progress. A parallel Russian initiative, called the ‘Moscow format’, succeeded in bringing together the Taliban and Afghan representatives, but the Afghans were from the High Peace Council, a ‘national but non-government institution’.

According to a communique issued by the Russian Foreign Ministry, ‘The main topic of discussion was the question of the speedy launch of a direct inter-Afghan dialogue on peace in order to stabilise the situation in this country.’ Though there is a general agreement that reconciliation negotiations should be ‘Afghan-led and Afghan-owned’, the Taliban have consistently refused to meet representatives of the Afghan government.

The Taliban continue to haunt government forces. Ambushes, suicide bombers, car bombs and IED explosions are commonplace. Sporadic strikes by the terrorists belonging to the ISIS Khorasan — the local branch of the ultra-extremist Islamic State that follows the Sunni-Wahhabi and Salafi school of Islam — to stoke sectarian conflict by attacking the Shias continue unabated. Governance is weak, crime is rampant and corruption and tax evasion are widespread. The presidential election that was scheduled for April 2019 was postponed to July that year.

The troops’ drawdown ordered by President Trump has further emboldened the Taliban and weakened the Afghan government. One of the Taliban leaders gloated that they had ‘defeated the world’s lone super power.’ They will now demand the withdrawal of all foreign forces before they agree to continue further negotiations without themselves making any concessions.

Given its geographical location on the strategic crossroads to the Central Asian Republics (CARs) and West Asia, a peaceful and stable Afghanistan is in vital national interest for India. By definition, vital national interests are required to be furthered or defended by using military force, if necessary. India has not been invited to join the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), nor is there any support for military intervention in India’s policy community. However, after being kept away from the high table for decision-making for conflict resolution by the George W Bush and Barack Obama administrations in deference to Pakistan’s sensibilities, India is now being urged by the Trump administration to do more to help resolve the conflict.

India has invested over $3 billion in projects for reconstruction in Afghanistan, donated four Mi-25 attack helicopters, provided training to Afghan military personnel, civilian pilots and administrators and has been regularly providing humanitarian aid and medical supplies. The Indian embassy in Kabul and Indian consulates as well as road construction protection parties of the ITBP have been attacked by the Taliban and have suffered a large number of casualties.

With the US drawdown likely to begin soon and others sure to follow, the clichéd Taliban taunt, ‘You have the watches, but we have the time’, has begun to ring true. The worst case scenario for India would be the Taliban’s return to power in Kabul, because Pakistan’s ISI would be sure to divert many of the hardcore fighters — of the factions over which it has control — to Kashmir.

India’s national interest lies in formulating a strategy jointly with the Afghan government that ensures that a Taliban takeover can be prevented. If invited, India must put boots on the ground. A brigade group can be logistically sustained and would make a good contribution to peace and stability.

Arun Sharma

Tribune News Service

Ropar, February 10

Even as the state government and the Opposition are busy targeting each other over jobs to the youth in the past three years, a government schoolteacher has done what those in power could not do. Sixty of Sher Singh’s students have already joined the Army.

Singh, a Punjabi lecturer at Government Senior Secondary School in Phulpur Garewal village, Kandi area, started coaching poor students in 2014. His aim was to get them jobs.

Singh’s efforts yielded results as 60 of his students got into the Army, 25 of whom were commissioned on Saturday. Many others got jobs in the Police Department and government sector, he said.

Singh, a postgraduate in English and science, doesn’t charge a penny from students. He even arranges books and stationery for those in need.

Three of the 25 successful students, Vir Barinder Singh, Zorawar Singh and Sharanjit Singh, have been able to make it to the technical trade in the Army against the total quota of eight posts allocated to the entire state.

Gurvinder Singh (22), son of a labourer from Rasoolpur village, said he was looking for a job after completing his graduation from Industrial Training Institute (ITI) when he came to know about Singh’s coaching centre. He studied science and mathematics for a month there and was able to crack the examination, said Gurvinder.

Similar is the story of Akashdeep Singh, a Class XII pass out, and Parminder Singh, a graduate, both from the Chamkaur Sahib area.

Singh said he thought of started coaching classes when he noticed that a majority of the students after passing out from schools and colleges roamed aimlessly in the area.

Ropar district was yet to be developed and people had small land holdings here, the youth didn’t have much to do even at home, he said.

First, he started putting up newspaper clippings regarding vacancies at the school gate so that people in the area could notice it and apply for suitable jobs. Then, he started coaching Class XI students, who were physically fit and wanted to join the Army. Soon, others contacted him and the number of students started increasing, he said. A WhatsApp group of job aspirants has been created in which information regarding jobs is shared every day.

It was not easy for students belonging to poor families to reach the school from far-off villages. Many couldn’t afford to spend on books required for coaching, he said.

“Initially, I spent money on books and other stuff, but later those belonging to well-off families started extending help,” he added.

New Delhi, February 11

Indian Army “received” banned anti-aircraft ammunition worth around Rs 39 crore from the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) in August 2015, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) said in its latest report that was tabled in Lok Sabha.

As an accident had taken place with this ammunition “K” at Gopalpur firing range in November 2014, the Army Headquarters (AHQ) had asked the OFB to stop its production from December 2014 onward, the report noted.

This ban was lifted in September 2015 when a recommendation by a board of officers regarding improvements in the ammunition “K” were accepted by the AHQ, the CAG noted.

The AHQ, however, had “intimated” the OFB that the ammunition “K” produced between December 2014 and September 2015 will not be accepted.

According to the CAG report, which was tabled in the lower house recently, the OFB had supplied 52,369 numbers of the ammunition “K” worth around Rs 39 crore to Army’s Central Ammunition Depot (CAD) in Pulgaon in August 2015, “when the ban had still not been revoked”.

“The OFB justified continuation of production even after December 2014 on the ground that ammunition were under various states of assembly or finishing i.e. work in progress (WIP) stage as on date of receipt of AHQ’s directions,” the CAG report stated.

The CAG mentioned that the AHQ is reviewing use of ammunition “K” that was supplied during the ban period.

“Audit is of the view that the OFB should not have supplied ammunition during the ban period, the CAD Pulgaon should not have received the supply and, even if the supply had been received, it should have been isolated and not issued to the user units,” the report stated.

The replacement of balance holding of affected ammunition “K” had not been carried out by the OFB as of July 2018, even as “three years” have passed since the CAD Pulgaon received it, the CAG noted.

“Further, the proposal for replacement by the AHQ was an indication that the same (ammunition “K”) cannot be used for intended purpose,” the CAG stated. — PTI

Water, electricity subsidies abolished Centre’s muscular nat
Centre’s muscular nationalist pitch rings hollow as it aboli

take a look at thisthe reason for sending it is that the cost of funding all the military veterans is ₹1.5 lac crores and that for the civilians paid from Defence Services Estimates is ₹5.38 lac crores, put differently, the tail costs the GOI 3.6 times more than what they give the uniformed force. Yet they make it seem as if what they give to the soldier, sailor and airman, is what is bleeding the exchequer dry.

Defence pensions are pensions paid from the Defence Services Estimates. Approximately 36 percent of amount budged for defence pensions is on account of defence civilians.^[1] The Defence pension bill for 2015–2016 was ₹ 54,500 crores, including pension outlay for about 400,000 defence civilians, and about Rs1000 Crores on account of allowances and establishment of Ministry of Finance personnel attached to MOD.^[2] On an average a defence civilian pensioners cost five times more than military pensioner.^[1] The per capita expenditure on 25 Lakh military veterans is approximately Rs. 1.5 Lakhs annually, in comparison with ₹ 5.38 Lakhs a year for civilian pensioners paid from the defence services estimates.The per capita bill on account of defence civilian pensioners is higher mainly because defence civilian officers serve longer, reach the highest grades in the pay scales, are eligible for One Rank, One Pension (OROP) pensions, and are entitled to Non Functional Upgradations (NFU). current ratio of military pensioners to serving military personnel is 1.7 to 1.^[2] In comparison, the ratio of civil pensioners to civil work force is 0.56 to 1.^[2] Reducing the ratio of pensioner to serving in the military will, it is argued, greatly reduce the defence pension bill.^[2] To reduce the military pension bill, the 6 CPC and Koshyari Committee, had urged the Government to absorb Armed Forces personnel after their military engagement in Civil Government organization including Police Organization as is the custom in many countries, including in China, and in advanced economies like S Korea, Singapore, Israel, Switzerland, and the United States.^[6]Ratio military pensioners to serving personne

The transfer and absorption of Armed Forces personnel after the end of their military service into government organizations and departments where their unique skills, training, discipline and strengths can be optimally used, despite recommendations of the Parliament and Pay Commission, has been mostly ignored by successive Governments, mainly on account of want bureaucratic commitment in MOD, and sustained obstruction by IPS bureaucrats in MHA.^{[2][6] :para 5}

Measures to reduce Armed Forces pension bill

Lateral move to civil organisations

Fifth Central Pay Commission (5 CPC) The 5 CPC, in its report submitted in January 1997, recommended increase in posts for Armed Forces personnel in Group C and D in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) from 10 percent to 25 percent. For Short Service Commissioned Officers, on completion of their military service, 5 CPC recommended earmarking 25 percent officer’s post in the CAPFs. The intent of these recommendations was to reduce the defence pension bill, save on training and recruitment costs, provide trained manpower to government departments, and provide soldiers a second career after their term of military engagement.^{[7]:p 139, para 2.4.4} The Pay Commission recommendations were, however, mostly ignored by the Janata Dal (United Front), and BJP Government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee that followed. Mulayam Singh Yadav, Defence Minister (1 June 1996 – 19 March 1998), Indrajit Gupta (Communist Party of India-United Front), Home Minister (29 June 1996 – 19 March 1998), and L K Advani (BJP), Home Minister (19 March 1998 – 22 May 2004) did little to implement these recommendations. The problem festered, and the pension bill ballooned.^{[7]:p 139, para 2.4.4}

Sixth Central Pay Commission (6 CPC)

The 6 CPC found that Indian Para Military Forces, called Central Armed Police Forces—CAPFs, which has a total strength of about 9,00,000 (2014), and defence civilians in Ministry of Defence, which had a strength of 4,00,000 [2014], have a combined annual intake of around 35,000 personnel; in comparison Armed Forces personnel (Army, Air Force, and Navy) pensioned off every year (in 1996) was approximately 40,000.^{[7]:para 2.4.5, p 139} The 6 CPC on the basis of its analysis concluded that “potential to allow lateral shift of nearly all Defence Forces personnel to CPOs and various cadres of defence civilians exists”.^{[7]:para 2.4.6}

The 6 CPC recommended that in future posts in the “CPOs/defence civilian organisations” should be filled by lateral transfer of Armed Forces personnel, including Short Service Commissioned Officers, after they complete their term of military service.^{[7]:para 2.4.6p 140} Improving the post military service prospects of Short Service Commissioned Officers finds a prominent place in the BJP manifesto 2014, a pledge on which the BJP has till to act.^[8]

The recommendation of 6 CPC on lateral movement, however, were mostly ignored by the Indian National Congress-(UPA) Government. A K Antony, the Defence Minister (24 October 2006 – 26 May 2014), at the time did little to follow up on these recommendations. P Chidambaram, Home Minister (30 November 2008 – 31 July 2012), the minister responsible for implementing the recommendations on lateral movement, according to the 6 CPC, resisted implementing these reforms which would result in savings of tens of thousands of crores.^{[7]:p 141, para 2.4.8} In the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) the resistance to these imminently sensible measures was from the civil and police bureaucracy, especially from the heads of Indian Para Military Forces, also called Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs).^{[7]:p 141, para 2.4.8} The seven CAPFs are headed by officers from Indian Police Service. They have direct access to the Minister of Home Affairs, and were elevated by the UPA Government to apex pay grades, a grade higher than that of most Lt Generals, including those in command of Corps of the Indian Army.^{[7]:page 645–46, para 11.18[9]}

Savings from lateral movement of Armed Forces personnel

The 6 CPC estimated that the “at the end of 13 years the annual savings” from transfer- absorption of Armed Forces personnel to civil departments, including police, “will be to the tune of ₹ 7,800 crore at constant price index“. Lateral transfer- absorption, in the longer term result in savings in the overall pension bill, and would more than off set projected expenditure on OROP.

One Rank, One Pension

One Rank One Pension (OROP), or “same pension, for same rank, for same length of service, irrespective of the date of retirement”, is a longstanding demand of the Indian armed forces and veterans.^{[1]:p 1} The demand for pay-pension equity, which underlies the OROP concept, was provoked by the exparte decision by the Indira Gandhi-led Indian National Congress (INC) government, in 1973, two years after the historic victory in the 1971 Bangladesh war, and shortly after Field Marshal SHFJ Manekshaw retired, to decrease armed forces pensions by 20–40 percent, and increase civilian pensions by 20 percent, without consulting armed forces headquarters.^{[2] :paras 10.4 and 11.2 [3]}

In 1986, the sense of unease and distrust prompted by the Third Central Pay Commission (CPC) was exacerbated by the Rajiv Gandhi led Indian National Congress (I) Government’s decision to implement Rank Pay, which reduced basic pay of captain, majors, lt-colonel, colonels, and brigadiers, and their equivalent in the air-force, and the navy, relative to basic pay scales of civilian and police officers.^{[4]:Chapter 28, para 28.13, and p 304[5]} The decision to reduce the basic pay of these ranks, implemented without consulting the armed forces, created radically asymmetries between police-military ranks, affected the pay, and pension of tens of thousands of officers and veterans, spawned two decades of contentious litigation by veterans. It became a lingering cause of distrust between the armed forces veterans and the MOD, which the government did little to ameliorate.^[5]

In 2008, the Manmohan Singh led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government in the wake of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (6CPC), discarded the concept of rank-pay. Instead it introduced Grade pay, and Pay bands, which instead of addressing the rank, pay, and pension asymmetries caused by ‘rank pay’ dispensation, reinforced existing asymmetries. The debasing of armed forces ranks was accompanied by decision in 2008 to create hundreds of new posts of secretaries, special Secretaries, director general of police (DGP) at the apex grade pay level to ensure that all civilian and police officers, including defence civilian officers, retire at the highest pay grade with the apex pay grade pensions with One Rank One Pay (OROP).

Background

Between 2008-14, during the tenure of the UPA Government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, myriad Armed Forces grievances prompted by perceived inequities subsumed with OROP issue to make OROP a potent rallying call that resonated with veterans of all ranks. Against the background of perceived discrimination, and slights, and dismissive response of the Government, armed forces veterans, in the later half 2008, started a campaign, of nationwide public protests, which included hunger strikes. In response to the OROP protests, which underscored the growing pay-pension-status asymmetries, the UPA Government, in 2011, appointed a parliamentary committee which found merit in the veterans demands for OROP.^[2][9][10]

Issues

The causes that inform the OROP protest movement are not pension alone, as armed forces veterans have often tried to make clear, and the parliamentary committee recorded. The issues, veterans emphasize, are of justice, equity, honor, and national security.^[11] The failure to address issue of pay-pension equity, and the underlying issue of honor, is not only an important cause for the OROP protest movement, but its escalation.^{[2]:para 2,10.2,10.4 and 11.2 [12][11]} The causes and grievances that inform OROP protesters and their high ranking supporters, in addition to failure of the government to implement OROP, are a string of contentious decision taken by UPA Government, in 2008-9, in the wake of Sixth Central Pay Commission (6 CPC), that sharply degraded Armed Forces pay grades and ranks. Decisions, that have had a radical impact on the armed forces sense of self-esteem, honor, and their trust in the government and security bureaucracy, some of which come to dominate policy under the UPA government, and remain unaddressed by the BJP Government, are outlined in the succeeding paragraphs ^{[2] :para 10.4 and 11.2 [13]}

Reduction of armed forces pensionsIn 1973, the Indira Gandhi led Congress (I) terminated ‘One Rank One Pension’ the basis for deciding pension of Indian Armed Forces Personnel ‘which had been in vogue for 26 years since independence’ through an ex parte administrative order.^{[2]:para 10.1–2, and 6.2} In addition, the Government, on the basis of the report of third Pay commission, from which Armed Forces representation was excluded, and which was dominated by bureaucrats, increased the pension of civilians, who retired at 58, from 30 to 50 percent, a net increase of 20 percent; and reduced the pension of soldier, Non Commissioned Officers (NCOs) and Junior commissioned Officers (JCOs), by 20 percent, from 70 to 50 percent of basic pay, with the caveat that for full pension the minimum service was 33 years. But as soldiers in 1973 retired after 15 years service, at the age of 33-36, they got less than 30 percent of the pay as pension. Soldiers pension was thus decreased not by 20 percent but 40 percent from 70 to 30 percent. In addition to down grading military pensions, the government, without assigning reason, down graded the status of soldier by equating “infantry soldier with less than three years’ service” with a “semi-skilled/unskilled labour”. These decisions were all the more galling for the armed forces as these were based on the recommendation, and endorsement of Defence Secretary K B Lall, ICS, whose job it was to ensure the well being of the armed forces. The decision was announced two months after Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, who led the army in the victorious 1971 war, retired from service.^[3] The reason for depressing the armed Forces pensions, which continues to rankle veterans and servings personnel, given by the Congress I government was that it wanted to ensure ‘equivalence’ of Armed Forces pensions with civilians.^[11][13]

Rank Pay

The concept of rank-pay introduced in 1986,^{[4]:Chapter 28, para 28.13, and p 304} affected tens of thousand of serving and retired officers of the three armed forces. It started the process of undermining military ranks and making them subordinate to the police. Its discriminatory provisions reinforced the growing sense of distrust between the MOD and the veterans. It debased the military ranks of captain, majors, lt-colonel, colonels, and brigadiers, and their equivalent in the air-force and the Indian Navy.

The legacy of rank-pay, and 4CPC, found echo in the 6CPC, and the 7CPC and continues to be a cause of distrust, false parities and anomalous pay scales.^[5] The implementation of BJP Government in 2016 of separate pay matrix for the police, and the armed forces, accentuated the anomalies in time scale pay grades between armed forces officers and the IPS, which had remain unresolved since 1986, when the congress government had reduced the basic pay of armed forces officers relative to police officers, by deducting ‘rank-pay’ from the basic-pay.^[14][15][16] The 7CPC decision on pay grades for the armed forces were called blatantly ‘discriminatory’ by former Chief of Indian Army General Ved P Malik, who said the intent was to degrade armed forces ranks in comparison with police time scale ranks.^[5][17]

OROP-2008 for Civil-Police Officers

Even though OROP was not a transparently stated civil service or police officers demand, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rewarded senior civil servant and IPS officers with OROP at the apex scale, the highest pay grade in the government. The decision to grant ‘ OROP’ to the senior most government servants was taken, not by parliament, or ministerial committee, but by bureaucrats in Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare (DOP&PW), and the Prime Minister’s Office. According to Avay Shukla, a former officer of the Indian Administrative Service, ( 1975 batch, Himachal Pradesh cadre), who retired at the apex grade, and is recipient of Apex Grade OROP-2008 linked pension, the decision to grant OROP-2008 to the civil and police services was implemented not by public notification, but a cunningly worded internal memorandum issued by Department of Pensions and Pensioners’ Welfare, a department under the Prime Minister’s office. Avay Shukla, in 2015, at the height of the OPOP protests, in a newspaper article revealed that apex OROP for the civil services was done slyly. As ‘Apex-OROP’ was done secretly it has neither been discussed or scrutinized by the media, or the Ministry of Finance, and for this reason remained little known, and only gained salience after the veterans started their protests.^{[6][7][8]:para 1.2.8–9}

‘Apex-OROP-2008’, is not as selective as it appears. Apex grade pay OROP pension covers thousands of retired, serving, and future Civil Service officers, including 4802 Indian Administrative Service officers,^[18] 600 Indian Foreign Service officers,^[19] and 4720 the IPS officers majority of whom because of their cadre structures( proliferation of apex ranks) are guaranteed that they will retire at the apex scale, not with standing what their responsibilities or duties entail.^[7][20]

Most senior police and civil service officer are shy to acknowledge that they had been granted Apex OROP. Prasad, IAS, former defence secretary, who retired on 30 June 2004, on 22 August 2015, in a debate on national TV denied that he was getting Apex-OROP.^[21] J.K. Khanna, an IPS officer, who retired as DGP, in 2011, and Avay Shukla, IAS, who retired in 2010, confirmed in 2015 that they like other IAS and IPS officers are getting Apex OROP.^[6][7]

In contrast to almost hundred percent Apex-OROP coverage to past and future retiree from the civil services, including majority of defence civilian officers in Ministry of Defence responsible for providing secretarial, logistic, and rear area services to the Armed Forces, like accounts and audit, land, only one tenth of one percent of the armed forces officers, as ‘stratagem’ and hedge against their opposition to the scheme, were also included in the apex OROP scheme.^[7][22] Those covered include the three heads of the Defence Forces, Army Commanders, and few other Lt Generals, and their equivalents in the Navy, and Air Force. The attempt to buy the silence of the Chiefs of the armed Forces on an issue that affects the entire officers corps, not unexpectedly, has not gone down well with veterans.^[7] Those excluded included Lt Generals, Major Generals, Vice Admirals, and Rear Admirals, and Air Marshals, the commanders of the Armed Forces largest formations: its Corps, Divisions, air commands, bases, fleets and training establishments.^[22]

Sanction of Apex-OROP to thousands of officials, among other factors, has contributed to wide support that OROP protest enjoys; it has become an additional “causus belli” for the veterans protest over OROP.^[6][9][10] It is also the probable cause for the unprecedented letter by former Chiefs of Defence Forces of India to the Government declaring their support for OROP for the Armed Forces.^[23]Non Functional Upgradation (NFU) for police officers and others[edit]

Sanction of OROP at apex scale to all civil services and Police officers was accompanied by grant of “Non Functional Upgrade” (NFU) also called “non-functional financial up-gradation” (NFFU) ^{[8]:para 11.20} to all civil services including the Indian Police Service^{[24]:p 156 note 3, and Annexure -I, p 319} by the Congress(I) led United Progressive Alliance(UPA) Government, in 2008, to reward civil servants of 49 ‘Organized Central Group A Services’, with automatic time bound pay promotions till the Higher Administrative Grade(HAG), a grade equated by Government with Lt Generals, Vice Admirals, and Air Marshals of Armed Forces.^{[25] :para 7.3.18-7.3.25[26][27][28]}

The unexplained exclusion of Armed Forces officers corps from the NFU, despite representation by the Chief of Staff,^[27] has wide-ranging implications :^[29] it impacts adversely the pay and pension structures, of colonels, brigadier and generals, and their equivalents in the navy and the air-force; it like OROP, become an emotive ‘honor‘ issue;^[30] and, according to former senior military commanders, has had a corrosive impact on the Armed Forces morale, status, cohesion, and national security,^{[25] :para 7.3.25[27][31]} Despite the serious long term implications of NFU, the issue was ignored by the UPA government, and even the BJP Government has chosen not to dwell on it.

Up Graduation of heads of Central and State Police Forces

In addition to NFU, Apex OROP for police and civil servants, the UPA Government, in 2008, in recognition of the growing influence of Indian Police service in Ministry of Home (MHA), India’s Interior Ministry, promoted the heads of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF), and even of the smaller MHA Forces, like the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) (CISF) and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), The Railway Police, an IG level post, to the highest grade pay, or the apex scale, with pay scale of Rs.80,000 (fixed).^{[32]:page 645–46 [32]:para 3.2.12} In addition, the Government upgraded heads of Police in all states, small or large, to Director General level to the highest grade pay, or the apex scale of Rs 80,000(fixed). This increased the number of IPS officers with several dozen, and made the Director Generals(DG) of these Central and state Forces at par in rank, pay, and status with Armed Forces senior most Lieutenant Generals, Air Marshals and Vice Admirals.^[24] The only MHA Armed Forces left out from up gradation to the higher grades was the Assam rifles, which is headed by an army Lt General, and the National Security Guard (NSG), which has a sizable army component.

The implication of these up gradations are many: the immediate effect was that scores of IPS officers not withstanding their responsibilities were immediately made senior in pay grade, and status to Armed forces formation and fleet commanders, who were denied proportionate upgrades despite representation by the COSC committee; mass up-gradation and creation of new posts of secretaries and special secretaries, and DGs with apex grade pay level, also affected relative pensions.^{[8]:pages 645–46; para 3.2.12} ‘Non-functional financial up-gradation'(NFU) was not extended to Armed Forces.^[33]

Asymmetries in time scale pay, pension, and allowances[

The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government headed by Manmohan Singh, following the recommendations of the sixth pay commission, mandated with effect from 01.09.2008, six time scale pay grade promotions on completion of 4, 9, 13, 14, 16/18 years of service for all officers in civil services including defense civilian officers in the MOD responsible for providing secretarial, and logistic support to the armed forces, and police officers including custom, revenue, railway, and industrial police.^{[34] :p 31, para 2} In comparison with six time-scale pay upgrades-promotions for the police, and defence civilian officers, the government approved three time scale pay upgrade-promotions for armed forces officers on completion of 2, 6, and 13 years of service, and at a far lower scale.

The decision by UPA government to introduce and aggravate asymmetries in the pay and pension and allowances between the different police organizations and armed forces even in the time scale pay grades, which the government did not explain, was cause of widespread disappointment amongst veterans and serving officers, and is a cause of orop protests movement and the continued support that it receives, and is likely to continue to get.^{[1]:p 1 [35]}

The time scale promotions and related increases in pay, and allowances for government officers, including the police, are not contingent on vacancies or change in responsibilities. But are accompanied by increase pay, allowances and significant perks, difficult to accurately monetize, such as entitlements for hotel accommodation, class of air and rail travel, type of passport, use of staff car, size of office, increase in dedicated personal staff, etc.

Civil -Police- Military Officers Timescale promotions-pay grades (2008–16)

Asymmetries in time scale pay-grades for civil-police-and the armed forces officers as result of government decision in 2008 are tabulated below

The objection, they said “is not only highly regressive but also completely contrary to the demonstrated record and statistics”.

he petitioners said the government had already adopted the policy of a permanent commission for WOs in the Army in the combat support stream. (File)

Women Army officers who moved the Supreme Court for a permanent commission have countered objections raised by the Centre against giving them command posts in the ten command support arms where they are currently working saying denying them the posts will be an “extremely retrograde step” and “will inflict irreparable injury” to their dignity.

The court has already reserved its verdict in the case.

In their written submission, filed through senior Advocate Aishwarya Bhati, the officers also objected to the contention that given the current composition of the largely male Army and the background of the troops, they “are not yet mentally schooled to accept WOs (Woman Officers) in command of Units”.

The objection, they said “is not only highly regressive but also completely contrary to the demonstrated record and statistics”. The petition said “the demonstrated fact is that the WOs have been serving in the 10 Combat Support Arms for the last 27-28 years and have proven their mettle and courage under fire. They have been found suitable by the organisation itself and have led platoons and companies… in the 10 Combat Support Arms. There has never been any occasion of soldiers/men having refused or not accepted the command of women on account of their perceived ‘rural background, with prevailing societal norms’.”

The petitioners said the government had already adopted the policy of a permanent commission for WOs in the Army in the combat support stream. “Further, the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy, also having adopted the policy… it is extremely unfortunate that reasons of women lacking on various counts, prevailing societal norms and lack of combat exposure etc., are being cited as lame excuses.”

“The issue is denial of command appointments and criteria appointments i.e. non-staff appointment to WOs who are found suitable and fit… in the 10 combat support arms that they are working in for almost last 3 decades”, they said.