Click to play videoIt's perhaps the biggest victory for the Indian military in the recent times. An almost embarrassing eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation between the defence forces and the Government over parity in pay hikes ended with the soldiers claiming victory.
But at what cost?
The Government, which is accused of being soft on terror, would be loathe to be seen as opposing the interests of soldiers, making it vulnerable in the military agitation.
The brass hats first welcomed the Pay Commission deal before doing an about turn.
The impression that the forces were defying the Government and using ex-servicemen in political-style campaigns made the establishment distinctly uncomfortable.
So are the soldiers arm-twisting the Government? Following is a look at the disparity between the pay of a soldier and a bureaucrat. (All salaries calculated on per month basis.)
A Cabinet secretary is paid Rs 1,03,000 while the service chiefs of Army, Navy and Air Force are paid Rs 90,000. A secretary gets Rs 90,000 as salary and a commander in the armed forces get Rs 80,000. Rs 70,000 is the salary for an additional secretary when a colonel has to be satisfied with just Rs 52,700. A joint secretary is paid Rs 60,000 while a lieutenant colonel is just paid Rs 25,200
To debate the issue on Face the Nation were Former chief of navy staff Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat; ex-Army officer, now the CEO of Fireball Group of Companies Capt Ravee and former secretary to Government India, U C Agarwal.
Does the protest by the Forces indicate that civilian control over military – a basic tenet of democracy – is under threat?
Bhagwat said it was an interesting question given that the definition of civilian control had been distorted by vested interests. "Civilian control is the accountability of Cabinet to Parliament which is supreme. It pertains to issues of war and peace and not to matters of administration which are vested to Parliament by the Defence Services Regulation 1957. So this term has been bandied about so loosely that we've got stories of defiance and of control heads of service. This amounts to disservice to nation," he said.
It's all about the money?
However, the fact remains there was a Cabinet directive that three chiefs decided to not obey. It was the first time in Indian history that service chiefs decided to refuse an order taken by the Government of the day.
Was there no solution to the stand-off? Could this eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation have been avoided? When asked, Bhagwat sounded another warning and reminded how Vajpayee government lost its vote of confidence on a similar issue. "Cabinet is not the final body in this country. Parliament is," he said.
Looking at the turn of events, it seems the issue has become more of a battle of egos between bureaucrats and the military. The logic looks simple: If a chief secretary gets a salary benefit why not an Army officer, who's a part of the highest-paid government service. However, Captain Ravee countered the argument with an interesting logic.
"I don't visualise that officers join the military for money. They join Army for its charm and pride. Because of this disparity, the levels and protocol is going down. I am proud to say I did not know my first salary, I did not know majorly about my last either," he said, saying the manner in which the Forces were agitating was right.
U C Agarwal responded to that argument. He said the Pay Commission had decided on the comparative salary status after having looked into all details. "It is not one service that runs the country. It's various services," he said. Agarwal said while what the Forces got was right, the way they got it wasn't "proper".
Admiral Bhagwat responded by arguing the Pay Commission was supposed to include a member of the Force. "After the report was presented there was a 40 members anomalies committee and while all services were represented, not a single uniformed officer was part of it," he complained.
But Agarwal said every service could not be represented in the Pay Commission. This led to a war of words between Agarwal and Bhagwat who argued the Forces were the largest paid service of the Government and merited the representation. "When the smallest services could be represented, the armed forces deserved to be there," he said, pointing the Government got it wrong all along – be it the constitution of the Pay Commission or the Anomalies Commission. "Defence is a national institution that shouldn't be trifled," he said.
Pay more, get more
Bhagwat insisted the service chiefs weren't protesting and that they had taken the step in good discipline, to keep up the morale.
This is the time when armed forces are being utilised for not just protecting and taking care of the borders but also in insurgencies and law and order situations. Hence, representatives of the Forces feel they should be paid extra. But Agarwal said oranges shouldn't be compared with apples. "No one is questioning the services of the Defence personnel. They are doing a great service to the nation – be it in Himalayas or in deserts. But other services like the Railways too are important," he said.
There is a perpetual fear that the exodus from the ranks would continue – and perhaps even escalate – if corrective measures aren't taken. Capt Ravee said the problem of attrition was already big enough. "There are 15,000-18,000 officers short. If no one joins, who will defend the country?" he asked, stating a lieutenant in the Army knows he won't make it easily to the next rank as the parameters for selection were narrow.
But at a time when the Government is struggling to deal with terrorism, have Armed forces exploited a weak spot and brought them to accepting their demands? Admiral Bhagwat had the last word on the show. He said the issue was not of money. "It's about honour of the Forces, parity, justice and non-discrimination. The Armed forces have been called out 1,200 times for civilian purposes," he said.
Results of SMS/Web poll:
So are the soldiers arm-twisting the Government?
Yes: 26 per cent
No: 74 per cent
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter and Google+)
displayed with permission. Use of the CNN name and/or logo on or as part of CNN-IBN does not derogate from the intellectual property rights of Cable News Network in respect of them.