Wednesday, 4 April 2018

I AM THE DAUGHTER OF AN ARMY OFFICER

I am the daughter of an Army Officer. I was born privileged and I am aware of it. Yes, I grew up in safe cantonments, amidst greenery and civility. As a child I had access to beautiful swimming pools and large lawns. I had access to tennis courts and skating rings. I could go to fantastic libraries and attend wonderful socials. In short, I had a childhood that people only dream of. Every two or three years, we would move to a new city and I made new friends. I was encouraged to take part in sports and extra-curricular activities. I was always surrounded by children of my age and most neighbors had very amicable pets. As a family, we had access to ‘canteens’ and military hospitals. For vacations, we would go trekking to remote corners of the country because of the privilege my father’s profession offered us. When children of my age were playing hide and seek, my sister and I were exploring activities like tank riding and rifle shooting; paragliding and horse riding. While they watched series on TV, we would be out on the ground watching the Army Day parade.
Most kids, whose parents have served in the Indian Army, will paint you this beautiful picture. And it is as true, as it is incomplete. Growing up, life was also, about wondering why my father couldn’t take time off from work to attend my annual day. I never understood why only my mother would attend my PTA meetings in school. I knew my father was fantastic at tennis, but I could never understand why he couldn’t spend more than one evening a month, to teach me how to be that good. I never understood why annual trips in June, to my Grandparents’ hometown would never involve my father for more than a week, why did he have to return abruptly on ‘call of duty’? Why did he coach me for all my debates over the telephone? Why was he not there for so many of my birthday celebrations? Why was I not allowed to put on his uniform for fun? When I was in grade two, for weeks we had drills in the middle of the night, in preparation to evade bombs attacks. Why was only my mother present then, to hug me and say “It’s okay, we are going to be fine”? Where was my father when I was growing up? Why did he leave for work before I left for school and return after I went to bed? Why did he wake up every single day; snow or hail to go for his morning run? Why did some of my father’s friends have bullet injuries? When I was a kid it took my mother five minutes, to distract me from those questions. But today I know better. I have my answers.
My father is an Army Officer. A passionate and intelligent man who has dedicated every day of the past 25 years of his life, to this nation. He has worked on holidays and through the nights. He has served with pride and conviction; two emotions I never fully comprehended till last year. Because last year, I had the opportunity to visit Ladakh. All those dormant tales of men with courage and zest suddenly came to life. As I am writing this narrative, far away from that paradise; there are men sitting with rifles at altitudes of more than 15000 feet, at temperatures of -35 degree Celsius, vigilantly monitoring the Indian borders. If there’s a lapse in their attention for even a second, they might lose their lives. Is that what motivates them to get frost bites, to celebrate Diwali and their children’s birthdays in an isolated, deserted mountain far away from civilization? Or is it the discount in prices of canteen items? Oh no, it must be the ‘discounted’ medical facilities they would have access to, if the enemy shot at them. I am so sorry; it must be the glorious salaries. But hold on, the money does not seem to be too much; in fact that’s why the Army has catered for reduced prices of groceries in the canteens. So why would any man with a sound mind, sacrifice everything; his family and comfort of living, and risk his life for an ungrateful nation which sits back and talks only of the “privileges” he gets? I don’t know. I honestly don’t know.
I don’t know how in every war that independent India has fought; our men have effortlessly scaled up altitudes of 20,000 feet overnight, without a day of medical acclimatization. I don’t know why they didn’t think twice about their families that they left behind. The father who’s growing old and can’t walk anymore, the daughter who needs to be educated, the infant who doesn’t even recognize him yet; the wife who might get widowed at 21. What gave them the courage to spend days in trenches without food or water, ensuring that a fellow soldier doesn’t have to spill a drop of blood as long as he is breathing? How did they breathe at all for that long? At that altitude? And for those who didn’t, what fire must have burned in them, to die fighting a war, for a nation that didn’t give tuppence for what happened to them. How is it that these men didn’t once think about the religion or caste of their brothers fighting with them in that trench, for a nation, that burns buses and loots shops in the name of caste reservation? How is it that a Hindu was willing to give up his life for a fellow Muslim so long as the ‘Tiranga’ was afloat on the highest peak of Kargil? Why did Christians fight on behalf of the Sikhli regiment and Sikhs on behalf of the Gorkha regiment? Why did an officer take a bullet for his soldiers and die with a smile on his face? Why do we not even know the names of these martyrs whose last words were “Jai Hind”? What could possibly motivate any man to live a life of anonymity and sacrifice everything for the glory of a nation that fails to recognize his contribution? I don’t know.
All I know is that I am an immensely proud daughter. A proud daughter of a man who has given his everything, for a cause he’s believed in. The proud daughter of an exceptionally talented woman who sacrificed her career to raise a family almost single-handedly; and taught it to respect her husband’s contribution to the nation. I am proud of all those times when my mother had to fill in for my father, because he was on duty. I am proud, because all those times, my parents were looking at the bigger picture and serving a larger family, expecting absolutely nothing in return. I was NOT born privileged because of all those perks I had as a child. I was born privileged because I had parents who taught me that living only for yourself is a life not worth living. I am privileged because I learnt through their actions and the lives they have led. They taught me that as long as you live in accordance with your ideals and beliefs, a life of passion and courage, you can hold your head high. They taught me that you don’t serve, expecting returns. You serve because it’s your duty to give back to the society, to think beyond yourself. And they did just that.
Yes, growing up as the daughter of an Army Officer was a privilege and I’ve always valued it. But it was only last year that it hit me, that all the chivalry and courage I had seen in the people around me, the ridiculous amount of patriotism they had; the spirit of expectation-less commitment, the pride they took in adorning their uniforms and the fervour with which they saluted the ‘Tiranga’ shouting Jai Hind, was unique. Does it infuriate me, when people don’t value it? Yes. Do I expect them to understand the lives the soldiers and their families lead in return for a salary they could have got anywhere else; but choose to remain in the army, serve and sacrifice because of the pride they have for their nation? Yes. But if they fail to comprehend this, will these exemplary men and women stop serving us? No. They signed up for a lifetime of commitment to “Service Before Self”. It has taken me long enough, but I now understand that serving in the Indian Army is not just a career; it’s a way of life.

Thursday, 11 January 2018

 
FRDI ‘Hajamat’: Don’t Worry I Won’t Shoot, 

Then Why the Gun ?

Finance Ministry’s assurances are illusory

S.G.VOMBATKERE | 11 JANUARY, 2018

The Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance (FRDI) Bill 2017, is intended to resolve the financial distress that may develop in financial institutions (called “financial service providers”), specifically in banks.

It is also intended to provide a basis for providing depositors in banks with a degree of assurance that a specified minimum of deposits will be secure in the event of a financial crisis in the bank. The method of doing this is by raising a Resolution Corporation (RC) with appropriate powers.

RBI’s Financial Stability Report, 2016, mentions that by forming a Resolution Corporation (RC), India would be adhering to the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) “Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions” published in October 2014. FSB is an international organization established in 2009, to regulate international financial reform. So apparently, the FRDI Bill is intended to comply with international best practices in our national financial management.

Since this is about banks and their financial stability, it is well to note that banks survive by providing loans and earning interest on the loans provided. The capital for providing loans is from institutional and individual depositors, both small and large, who as creditors, earn interest on their deposits from the bank.

The bank uses its capital to provide loans. Simplistically put, when interest is not paid by a borrower, the bank takes measures to recover the interest and the principal. These measures include recovering the security based upon which the loan was provided, issuing legal notice to the guarantor to pay up, legally auctioning the borrower’s property to realise the moneys due, and taking civil or criminal action against the borrower.

If the amount due is not fully realised after auctioning the assets of the defaulting borrower, the unobtainable balance is “written-off” from the books with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance (MoF) and RBI. These methods are in use, but when the amounts are very large and the borrowers are politically very powerful, and in particular for public sector banks (PSBs), Government of India (GoI) provides money to the PSBs from public funds to “bail out” the bank. This is not unlike the case of a person arrested by police being bailed out of judicial custody by a friend who pays the bail money.

According to one estimate, GoI has been providing the big corporations tax holidays by excusing corporate income tax and excise and customs duties of around Rs.90 lakh-crores in the 11-years period 2005-2016, reflected as “Revenue foregone” in successive budgets. That is, revenue which would have been available for use in the health, education and social welfare sectors including MNREGA has been foregone, even while GoI rues lack of funds for these very sectors. To be fair, this is a legacy problem, but the present government has done little different from its predecessors.

Benefit to the corporate sector through “Revenue foregone” is merely one half of the dodgy benefit to the corporate world. The other half of the dodge is providing enormous loans to the beneficiaries of “Revenue foregone” in the name of boosting the industrial sector in pursuit of the Holy Grail of economic growth. And when these loans are not serviced, the bank either declares the loan as a non-performing asset (NPA) or else proffers another loan which is used to pay back the earlier loan (this is termed “re-financing”), so that the NPA is taken off the books.

Of course, the names of corporates which avail the holiday on corporate tax and excise and customs duties may not all figure among the names of defaulting borrowers, but many really big corporates benefit by tax holidays and also borrowing money which become NPAs which are then written-off. Impeccably smart footwork by successive finance ministers in consultation with their prime ministers, to keep the corporates in good spirits, using public money! Today, PSBs are finding it difficult to lend because around 40 large corporate groups owe around Rs.10 lakh-crore rupees.

That borrowings from PSBs are used by big corporates to finance mega-projects which cause population displacement, impinge adversely on the environment, and exacerbate global warming and climate change, is another dimension which is outside the scope of the present article.

With this mode of financial operation within the oversight of MoF and RBI, PSBs have NPAs which are treated as “losses incurred” and are a significantly dangerous proportion of their balance sheets. Thus, PSBs are in a position of precarious financial stability. These same PSBs are where you and me and umpteen others have invested our life savings as deposits, which are entered as liabilities in the balance sheet of the bank.

And so we come to the matter of resolution of financial crises and insurance for the deposits made in banks by members of the public, which is the reason for the FRDI Bill, 2017.

Journalist P.Sainath says: “A large part of the trillions in NPAs ... was run up by the wealthy who can’t be named due to ‘secrecy laws’ ”. Hence in the past, to resolve the problem of financial stability, GoI has bailed out banks, re-financing them by pumping in tax payers’ money. But that is not deemed sufficient in the present precarious financial condition of financial institutions, and hence the need for a bail-in option, described in FRDI Bill Section 52, to
 “absorb the losses incurred or reasonably expected to be incurred”.

The FRDI Bill caused fears among depositors principally due to the implications of the bail-in option available to the Resolution Corporation. However, Government made an attempt to allay these fears. [
“Fears over FRDI Bill misplaced, says Government”; January 3, 2018; The Hindu;http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/fears-over-frdi-bill-misplaced-says-government/article22354147.ece"].
MoF is reported to have made the following statements to allay fears:
1. “Most certainly, it [bail-in] will not be used in case of a public sector bank as such a contingency is not likely to arise”.

2. “The implicit guarantee for solvency of public sector banks remains unaffected as the government remains committed to adequately capitalise them and improve their financial health.”

3. “Cancellation of the liability of the depositor beyond insured amount will be possible only with the prior consent of the depositor”.

4. “In case of injudicious and unreasonable exercise of bail-in power by the Resolution Corporation, for example, where the depositors of a bank get less value than in liquidation, such affected depositors will have the right to get compensation from the Resolution Corporation on an order of the National Company Law Tribunal”.


Basically, Government assures depositors that

- Depositors’ misgivings regarding the depositor protection in the context of the bail-in provisions, are entirely misplaced,

- bail-in has been proposed as merely one of the resolution tools in the event a financial firm is sought to be sustained by resolution,

- the bail-in clause will only be implemented with the consent of depositors, and

- it reiterates its implicit guarantee for the solvency of PSBs.

Let us consider these assurances together with the quoted statements of MoF. First off, the depositors concern is precisely why at all the bail-in provision should be made available – at least in the case of PSBs – when the cause for resolution is primarily NPAs, mostly due to default of the big borrowers, possibly in collusion or connivance with bank officials and MoF officials. Assuring a depositor that bail-in will not be used as such a contingency is not likely to arise, is akin to holding a gun to a depositor’s head and assuring the depositor, “Don’t worry, I won’t shoot”.

Next, MoF’s assurance that the bail-in clause will only be implemented with a depositor’s consent is patently illusory, because not a single depositor in all of India would be crazy enough to consent to MoF taking away deposits made with his hard-earned money representing his life savings, to settle the banks NPAs in the resolution process.

It is bad enough that the bail-out process using tax-payers’ money to balance the books of banks which have huge NPAs is being used, instead of recovering dues from borrowers and punishing colluders and connivers among bank staff and MoF staff.

Stating that if the RC injudiciously or unreasonably exercises its bail-in powers, the “... affected depositors will have the right to get compensation from the Resolution Corporation on an order of the National Company Law Tribunal” involves a decision concerning judiciousness and reasonableness which is outside the depositor’s control. Several questions arise at this point.

Even if the decision favours the depositor, would this apply to all the millions of depositors, how would they know the decision and demand compensation, what is the quantum and process of compensation, what is the depositor’s access to the RC and NCLT, how will the inevitable corruption in the compensation process be handled, etc.

Saying: 
“Most certainly, it [bail-in] will not be used in case of a public sector bank as such a contingency is not likely to arise”, containing the phrases “most certainly” and “not likely to arise” at the start and finish of the very esame sentence, bringing the “Don’t worry, I won’t shoot” message to mind. If the man with the bail-in ‘gun’ assures that he will not pull the trigger, what indeed is the need for the bail-in ‘gun’?

The statements: “
The implicit guarantee for solvency of public sector banks remains unaffected as the government remains committed to adequately capitalise them and improve their financial health “(presumably by bail-out using tax-payers’ money) and also that bail-in “... will not be used in case of a public sector bank as such a contingency is not likely to arise”, do not create confidence, but on the other hand cause apprehension whether these are duplicitous statements.

In the FRDI Bill, "haircut" is one of the terms used concerning bail-in. It means a percentage reduction in the amount that is payable to the creditors (depositors) as a means of adjusting for losses due to non-recovery of NPAs. It is piquant that the word “hajamat” is Hindi for “haircut”, with the alternate meaning of fleecing somebody, with words or phrases carrying precisely the same double meaning in other Indian languages. The FRDI Bill does not inspire public confidence.

____________________________________________________________
AIM of the FRDI BILL: To provide for # the resolution of certain categories of financial service providers in distress; # the deposit insurance to consumers of certain categories of financial services; # designation of systemically important financial institutions; and # establishment of a Resolution Corporation for protection of consumers of specified service providers and of public funds for ensuring the stability and resilience of the financial system and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
*********************

The bail-in clause in Sec 52 of the Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance (FRDI) Bill, 2017, reads as follows:


52. (1) Notwithstanding anything in section 49, the Corporation may, in consultation with the appropriate regulator, if it is satisfied that it necessary to bail-in a specified service provider to absorb the losses incurred, or reasonably expected to be incurred, by the specified service provider and to provide a measure of capital so as to enable it to carry on business for a reasonable period and maintain market confidence, take an action under this section by a bail-in instrument or a scheme to be made under section 48.

(2) The bail-in instrument or scheme referred to in sub-section (1) shall be in such form and manner as may be specified by regulations made by the Corporation, and contain—

(a) a bail-in provision; or

(b) a provision for the purposes of or in connection with any bail-in provision made by that instrument or by another instrument.

(3) Subject to sub-section (5), a bail-in provision means any or a combination of the following, namely:—

(a) a provision cancelling a liability owed by a specified service provider;

(b) a provision modifying or changing the form of a liability owed by a specified service provider; and

(c) a provision that a contract or agreement under which a specified service provider has a liability shall have effect as if a specified right had been exercised under it.

(4) The Corporation shall, by regulations, specify the liabilities or classes of liabilities of a specified service provider, which may be subject to bail-in.

(5) The appropriate regulator may, in consultation with the Corporation, require specified service providers or classes of specified service providers to maintain liabilities that may be subject to bail-in and the terms and conditions for such liabilities to contain a provision to the effect that such liabilities are subject to bail-in.

(6) In addition to the actions laid down in sub-section (3), the Corporation may, in consultation with the appropriate regulator, take the following actions in respect of a central counterparty, namely:—

(a) direct the haircutting of the collaterals and margins;

(b) direct the issuance of equity to the creditors.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, “haircut” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in section 44.

(7) The bail-in instrument or scheme under this section shall not affect—

(a) any liability owed by a specified service provider to the depositors to the extent such deposits are covered by deposit insurance;

(b) any liability that the specified service provider has by virtue of holding client assets.

Explanation.—In this clause, the expression, “client assets” shall include such assets as may be specified by regulations made by the appropriate regulator;

(c) any liability of original maturities upto seven days;

(d) any obligation to a central counter party;

(e) any liability, so far as it is secured;

(f) any liability owed to employees or workmen including pension liabilities of the specified service provider except for liabilities designated as performance based incentive under section 51;

(g) any transaction covered under section 47; and

(h) such other liabilities as may be specified by regulations made by the appropriate regulator in consultation with the Corporation and the Central Government.

(8) The Corporation shall forward the bail-in instrument made under this section to the Central Government together with a report in such form and manner as may be prescribed, which shall contain—

(a) the reasons why a bail-in instrument under this section was made;

(b) the effect of the bail-in instrument; and

(c) the deviations, if any, from the requirements of sub-section (3) and the reasons therefor.

(9) A copy of the report received under sub-section (8) shall, as soon as may be after it is received by the Central Government, be laid before each House of Parliament.

(10) The provisions of sub-sections (3) and (6) of section 49 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the bail-in instrument or scheme under this section.

Major General S.G. Vombatkere, VSM, retired as Additional DG Discipline & Vigilance in Army HQ AG's Branch. His area of interest is strategic and development-related issues.





Sunday, 7 January 2018

THE TIMES OF INDIA
January 6. 2018
BJP’s ARTFUL ILLUSION
By
Pavan K. Varma
A word that has gained increasing currency in recent times is ‘fringe’. Every excess, outlandish statement, aberration, deviation, derogation from the law, or arbitrary act of violence, is ascribed to the ‘fringe’. This fringe is distinguished from the ‘mainstream’. The aim is to portray the fringe as the extreme, and, by contrast, the mainstream as its opposite.
But it is now becoming increasingly clear that the categorical divide between the two is artificial and expedient. Indeed the two are not different entities. A fringe has an organic connection to the mainstream because, after all, without the mainstream there cannot be a fringe. And if it is from the mainstream that the fringe derives its strength, then the difference between the two becomes only a matter of convenience.
Let us test this thesis against some recent examples. In December 2014, Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti, a minister in the central government, made the atrocious remark about ‘ramzadon and haraamzadon’. Obviously, she represented the fringe, because Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s lofty slogan on assuming power was ‘sabka saath, sabka vikas’. His approach was the mainstream, and the Sadhvi’s comment was the loony fringe. But when only a perfunctory apology was sought from her by the PM, and she was not even asked to resign, one is entitled to ask who was the fringe, and who the mainstream?
The raging controversy about the film Padmavati offers another good example. The Rajput Karni Seva, described as a fringe group, demanded a ban on the film because it ‘distorted history’. Consequently, it openly resorted to violence, the issuance of threats, including beheadings of the film crew, and payments of vast amounts to those who would kill the director, Sanjay Leela Bhansali, and cut off the nose of Deepika Padukone. But, it was soon apparent that the Karni Sena fringe had substantial support from the mainstream.
Suraj Pal Amu, who held the responsible post of BJP’s chief media coordinator in Haryana, openly doubled the bounty – to Rs 10 crore – for eliminating Deepika and Bhansali. Rajasthan chief minister weighed in to say that no community’s sentiments should be hurt. And, in an unprecedented move, even before the designated authority, the Central Board of Film Certification, could pronounce its verdict, five BJP ruled states, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, UP, Rajasthan and Bihar banned the film!
Sangeet Som, a two-time BJP MLA, made the outrageous comment in October 2017 that the iconic Taj Mahal is a blot on India’s history. Obviously the assumption would be that his is an insane voice from the fringe. But his comments were subsequently endorsed by Vinay Katiyar, who has been the national general secretary of BJP and three times member of the Lok Sabha.
What is worse, GVL Rao, the national spokesperson of BJP, while disagreeing perfunctorily with Som, proclaimed the mainstream view in a generalised indictment of epic proportions: “The period of Islamic rule – around 800 years – was a period of extreme exploitation, insane barbarism, and unprecedented intolerance.” Ergo, the fringe and the mainstream were identical.
The umbilical cord between the fringe and the mainstream is both transparent and verifiable. If the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, one of the larger affiliates of the Sangh Parivar, makes a clarion call for India to become an exclusive ‘Hindu rashtra’, it is the fringe. But if a Union minister, Anant Kumar Hegde, said last month that BJP is here to change the Constitution to rid it of the word ‘secular’, is he fringe or mainstream?
Sakshi Maharaj, who had once said that Nathuram Godse’s martyrdom should be commemorated, is definitely the fringe. In September 2017 he announced that couples who indulge in ‘vulgar behaviour’, (read being physically affectionate in public), instigate rape.
But his statement had the support of Manohar Lal Khattar, no less than the chief minister of Haryana, who said in 2014: “If a girl is dressed decently, a boy will not look at her in the wrong way.” When queried about whether girls should have freedom of choice, he reportedly retorted: “If they want freedom, why don’t they roam around naked?”
Dina Nath Batra, and his unverified assertions that ancient India – for all its creditworthy achievements – had achieved everything that science has discovered today, is definitely the fringe. But, no less a person than PM Modi, echoed what Batra said when in October 2014 in Mumbai, he claimed that the manner of the birth of Karna in the Mahabharata, and Ganeshji’s adorable form with an elephant head, showed the existence of advanced genetic science and plastic surgery in ancient India. Is Batra the fringe, or is he the mainstream?
In April 2017, Pehlu Khan was carrying cattle for his dairy farm in Nuh, for which he had a valid licence. He was lynched in full public view, by a mob of cattle vigilantes. In spite of substantial evidence to nail the culprits, they were all let off. Was the Rajasthan government the fringe or the mainstream?
The truth is there are no such distinctions. The fringe reinforces the mainstream, and the mainstream nurtures the fringe. They are two sides of the same coin. One should have no illusions on this score

Wednesday, 27 December 2017

THE 10th WORLD CONFLUENCE OF HUMANITY & SPIRITUALITY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv67ndH-9yQ

Thursday, 27 October 2016

Civil-Military Rank Parity: 
Can a Defence Board 
Address Wage Woes?
Navdeep Singh
(Preface edited by Samuel Dhar)
Preface
A Circular issued by the MoD on 18 Oct, 2016 and another one on Oct 27, reiterating on rank-equivalence, has irked Defence personnel no end, as the govt has further lowered the status of the Defence officers vis-a-vis civil service officers.
The stand of the Govt that the redefined equation is only within the four walls of the offices and has no bearing on the status of the officers outside the offices, defies logic, as all else, over the last nearly 30 months has.
A civilian principal director at par with a brigadier has been equated to a major general; hierarchically major general’s rank is higher than a brigadier.
Anomalies in pay structure across ranks due to the exclusion of rank pay from the basic pay, an issue not addressed even by the sixth pay panel.
Govt panel tried to address the issue of parity as Lt-Col officers were under the Pay Band-3 while civil officers were elevated to Pay Band-4.
With Supreme Court saying, rank pay shouldn’t be deducted from basic pay, govt should set up a defence board that can address wage-related issues.
(Infographic: Rahul Gupta/ The Quint)
First Hints of Trouble
 Ex-armymen protest over One Rank One Pension at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. (File Photo: PTI)
Veterans protest over One Rank One Pension at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. 
  • Rank Pay Ignored
An Indian army soldier guarding a post inside his bunker in Kashmir. (Photo: Reuters)
An Indian army soldier guarding a post inside his bunker in Kashmir.
  • Panel to Look into the Anomalies
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar.   (Photo: Reuters)
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar
  • Supreme Court on Rank Pay


(Infographic: Rahul Gupta/ The Quint)
(Infographic: Rahul Gupta)
  • MoD’s Latest Circular
While the Sixth Pay Commission had equated a Lt Col with a Deputy Secretary to Government of India/Joint Director and a Colonel with a Director – which was later altered by the GoM stating that the rank of Lt Col would be senior to a Deputy Secretary to Government of India/Joint Director but slightly junior to a Director/Colonel, the CAO of MoD has equated a Joint Director with a full Colonel and a Director with a Brigadier.
ITBP personnel sit on the embankment of an artificial fountain during a rehearsal for the Republic Day parade   in New Delhi,  20 January, 2012. (Photo: Reuters)
ITBP personnel sit on the embankment of an artificial fountain during a rehearsal for the Republic Day parade in New Delhi, 20 January, 2012. 
  • Bane of Bureaucracy


(Infographic: Rahul Gupta/ The Quint)
(Infographic: Rahul Gupta )
Concept of Defence Board
At times I am questioned for giving the political executive too much of a benefit of doubt on the end result of the machinations which start at the lower levels of the official chain, ultimately leading to embarrassment at the very top. And it almost seems that certain elements are out to bring discomfiture to all stakeholders and generate friction between the Defence Services and the government. 
Close on the heels of the hullaballoo over presentation of incorrect data and statistics by the Defence Accounts Department to the Pay Commission on disabled soldiers, a controversy on civil-military rank equation has again erupted with the Chief Administrative Officer of the Ministry of Defence unilaterally issuing an order stating that a Joint Director of the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Service (AFHQCS) would be equated with a Colonel, a Director with a Brigadier, and a Principal Director with a Major General.
The said communication cites certain earlier administrative orders issued in 2003, 2005 and 2008 to buttress the argument.
Till the Third Central Pay Commission, pay-scales of the military were almost at par to that of civil services with the military enjoying a slight edge. Though a point-by-point comparison of military and civil scales was not possible due to a higher number of ranks in the former than grades in the latter, right in the middle of the structure, the pay of a Lt Col (Rs 1750-1950) was roughly equal to a Selection Grade/Non-Functional Selection Grade officer (Rs 1650-1800 and 1800-2000) of the civil services (Director, Government of India in the present times).
Then the Fourth Pay Commission introduced a concept called the rank pay which was carved out of the basic pay, and which, as per cabinet approval was to be added into the basic pay for all intents and purposes. The said concept continued even in the 5th Pay Commission regime. However, while comparing the military scales with civil scales, the Ministry of Defence issued an order stating that for purposes of comparison of status or facilities, the rank pay shall not be added into the basic pay, thereby overriding the stipulation of ‘all intents and purposes’ which was approved by the Cabinet and was also part of the official government order on military scales.
The Sixth Pay Commission also did not take into account the rank pay of military officers while tabulating a comparison chart on Page 73 of the report and provided for an equation of a Lt Colonel with the Junior Administrative Grade (Deputy Secretary to Government of India/Joint Director) by granting Pay Band-3 with a Grade Pay of Rs 7600 to both. Similarly, a Colonel was equated with the Selection Grade/Non-Functional Selection Grade (Director to Government of India) both being granted Pay Band-4 with Grade Pay of Rs 8,700. A Brigadier was granted a Grade Pay of Rs 8,900.
The above equation of a Lt Col with a Deputy Secretary to Government of India/Joint Director created quite a stir since the starting pay of a Lt Col (Rs 15,100 including Rank  Pay) was much higher than even a Director (Rs 14, 300). The Defence Services demanded the equation of Lt Col with a Director. Ultimately, the matter was referred to a Group of Ministers (GoM) headed by the current President of India.
The GoM examined the issue threadbare. Though the GoM did not agree to restore Lt Col to the position of Director, it agreed that a Lt Col was senior to a Deputy Secretary to Government of India/Joint Director and partially removed the anomaly of the Sixth Pay Commission by granting Pay Band-4 to Lt Col with a higher Grade Pay of Rs 8,000. While the GoM therefore stated that a Lt Col shall outrank a Deputy Secretary to Govt of India/Joint Director, it also underlined that the said rank shall remain slightly lower than a Director to Govt of India who was now equated with a Colonel. The following was recorded by the GoM:
“...this measure will ensure that Lt Cols maintain their position above Deputy Secretaries and below Directors...”.
The GoM also provided that though Lt Cols were senior to Deputy Secretary to Govt of India/Joint Director level posts, they shall remain eligible for the lower Grade Pay of Rs 7,600 in case they wished to seek deputation at these lower posts.
The recommendations were accepted by the Prime Minister’s Office and also the Cabinet and ultimately the higher pay was notified for Lt Cols. Orders to this effect were issued in January 2009.
Settling a long-pending controversy on non-inclusion of rank pay into basic pay for fixation of pay, the Apex Court on 4 September 2012 finally directed that rank pay could not be deducted from basic pay of Commissioned Officers, thereby laying this controversy to rest.
The latest letter issued by the CAO of the MoD relegates military rank to a position even lower than the one controversially projected by the Sixth Pay Commission for which the GoM was constituted.
While a Joint Director of the AFHQCS is a promotee from Group B (Class II) with only about four to five years of Group A Service, Colonels of the Army have minimum 15 years of Group A level (Class I) Commissioned service to credit. To reiterate this position, the CAO has cited irrelevant letters issued in 2003, 2005 and 2008 all of which cannot in any manner supersede or override the decision of the GoM, the PMO and the Cabinet or the directions of the Supreme Court.
The controversy again brings into sharp focus the pitfalls of the one-way file noting sheet system, a bane of the Westminster model, by which files are initiated from below but the senior level functionaries or even the political executive have no way of determining the truth or the veracity of what is put up to them. This assumes an even higher danger in the Ministry of Defence wherein the stakeholders are not a part of the file movement and have no manner of rebutting incorrect postulations in real time. This also leads to embarrassment among the highest echelons when multiple decisions are then referred for rectification to other bodies.
The simplest manner to offset this malaise is to introduce a collegiate form of decision-making rather than the one-way file movement method wherein stakeholders and decision makers could sit together with their representatives and experts and take well-rounded decisions. Another option in the military backdrop could be the introduction of the concept of a ‘Defence Board’ on the lines of the Railway Board for taking such decisions. The ruling party did admirably state in its manifesto that it shall promote the involvement of the defence services in the decision-making process.
Creation of schism between the government and the armed forces or embarrassment to the political executive, even when they themselves might be well-intentioned, is too high a price to pay and it is hoped that there would be a silver lining in all these hiccups becoming a catalyst of serious reforms in the higher defence set-up. Having interacted with the current Defence Minister and also assisted him in reformatory process in certain aspects, this author, though politically neutral, is not willing to buy the theory that Mr Parrikar is not inclined to bring a positive change in the system. However to reign in the malaise, what is required is a hammer from the top, instead of mischievous notes from below.

Monday, 17 October 2016

GOVT'S RAW DEAL 
TO THE SOLDIERS AND 
ITS DOUBLE SPEAK 

Please Read TOI Article :
Dated OCT 12, '16 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Disability-pension-Government-aims-to-bring-more-equity-among-different-ranks-in-forces/articleshow/54803449.cms

Also 
ITS PERFIDY :


Press Information Bureau 
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
13-October-2016 19:49 IST

Issue of Disability Pension for Defence Forces Personnel referred to 7th CPC Anomaly Committee 


The 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommended a slab based system for determining the disability pension for Defence Forces Personnel, which was accepted by the Government. Percentage based system was followed in the 6th CPC regime for calculating disability pension for Defence Forces Personnel as well as Civilians.


Service Headquarters have represented that the percentage based system should be continued under the 7th CPC for calculating disability pension for Defence Services at par with their Civilian counterparts.

The Ministry has referred the representation of the Service Headquarters to the Anomaly Committee of 7th CPC for consideration.

Also Read :


Govt's Brazen Claim -

"The Disability Pension has been increased, 
  not decreased." 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Government-trashes-media-reports-says-disability-pension-not-reduced-but-significantly-increased/articleshow/54785090.cms



Updated on Oct 22, 2016

Two more articles on the subject are reproduced below :

Prakash Katoch 

Fact or fiction, abuse of disability benefits by defence personnel must be thoroughly probed


A national daily has alleged that a former lieutenant general when heading the Armed Forces Medical Services (AFMS) as director general wrote to the Defence Secretary alleging: one, top military officers nearing retirement are abusing disability benefits for higher and tax-free pensions; two, “alarming trend” of absolutely fit generals, admirals and air marshals are exploiting the welfare measure by getting themselves placed in the lower medical category.

Representative image. Reuters

A medical downgrade entitles a soldier to better retirement benefits. And the provision was allegedly being misused by few veteran officers who claimed disability benefits for diseases such as corns in their feet, eczema (a skin disorder), and hearing loss. The daily, Hindustan Times, says it has in its possession the letter which was purportedly written by the said DG, AFMS, in December 2014, but has not apparently been made public.
The daily, however, has printed excerpts of the letter, which reads: “I would like to apprise you of an alarming trend evolving in the services, with regards to claims for disability pension being preferred by senior officers of the rank of lieutenant general and major general and their equivalent... Specialists and medical officers working in hospitals under their command find themselves constrained to oblige these officers... Top officers who retired in Shape-1 were submitting 'post discharge claims' for disabilities... they claim to have contracted while in service... The provision was being misused by few veteran officers who claimed disability benefits for diseases such as corns in their feet, eczema, a skin disorder, and hearing loss contracted while in service."
The said former DG who retired in June 2016 has reportedly told Hindustan Times that he pursued the matter for one-and-half years after writing the letter, and the details that emerged were shocking. The daily quotes “sources” stating that the claims for disability pensions have shot up significantly during the last 10 years following the implementation of the sixth Central Pay Commission (CPC) in 2006 that enhanced benefits.However, according to the report, “A detailed scrutiny of records showed that before 2006 hardly any top officers claimed disability pension. But by 2015, about 21 percent of them were claiming benefits. If someone has disability, they should declare it earlier in service and not a few months before retirement.”
The timing of this letter “accessed” by the daily is noteworthy since the government is under considerable fire for a notification issued by the Ministry of Defence on 30 September 2016 (two days after the successful surgical strikes) which grants pensionary awards based on recommendations of the seventh CPC. The said notification reduces the amount of admissible disability benefits to pensioners relegating rates to the "slab system" that was prevalent prior to the 6th CPC. It places disabled defence pensioners at a sharp disadvantage.
Minister Manohar Parrikar reportedly told the Service Chiefs to immediately implement the seventh CPC despite it denigrating the military to lowest levels, even below the police, and an unprecedented stand by military asDefence king it to wait for the anomalies to be resolved before implementing seventh CPC. And the Service Chiefs are right in wanting the anomalies to be tackled first. In fact, even the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a notice to the Central government directing it to use a sensitive approach while hearing views of the defence personnel. It also directed the Anomaly Committee to take into account the views of the defence personnel.
Sure the Defence Minister has referred the issue of calculating disability pension for soldiers to the Anomaly Committee of the Seventh CPC last week, but why was he not aware of it before issuing the notification from MoD on 30 September? And who has leaked the above-purported letter (if there is one) to the media, and why now?
The game of denigrating the military and hitting at the morale of soldiers is not new. It is part of the asymmetric war of our enemies, and the infusion of foreign funds are very much part of itIf the huge amount of money spent on moulding perceptions in the Westland Helicopter deal is any indication, why not weaken the military? In India, under the cliché of "free speech", anything goes anyway, even if Hafiz Saeed showers accolades on someone. Remember the fellow who headlined the fake story of an army coup. He was reportedly briefed by a Union minister (presently sitting in Rajya Sabha) because his son’s arms dealings were somehow not getting adequate attention.So, this journo goes and posts his story even as he is living way beyond his means, and is loathed by majority journo colleaguesBut who can really touch him when he is smart enough to gain the tutelage of a Union minister, including in the present set up? So, no one is happier than the guys across the border.
But let us assume that the above-mentioned letter is genuine and that the government would not have "leaked" it if had not been slammed for drastically reducing the disability pension of military personnel through MoD’s 30 September notification. Many would be unaware that the Directorate General of the Armed Forces Medical Services (DG AFMS) functions directly under the MoD. The Kargil Review Committee (KRC) and the follow up Group of Ministers (headed by then deputy prime minister and home minister LK Advani) reports, under which Headquarter Integrated Defence Staff (HQ IDS) was established, had recommended that both DG AFMS and the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) be brought under HQ IDS. However, this did not happen. Little wonder then that when a service chief went to call on the defence minister for the first time, the latter wanted to know how his relatives could be treated at the Army’s Research & Referral Hospital.
As for DGQA, the bottleneck for "certifying" items is well known, and you can well guess how bottlenecks are greased. There was a time when no reserves of special clothing for soldiers deployed on the Saltoto Range in Siachen Glacier area were maintained. Instead, there was a system called ‘Annual Provisioning Review’ which meant that the process of import of the items commenced with the new financial year) and by the time the items were imported, cleared by the DGQA and reached the troops, winters would have set in with many frostbite cases for the lack of adequate special clothing. The DGMS and DGQA continue to be under MoD, not under HQ IDS.
As to the former DG AFMS who reportedly authored the above letter, few questions need to be answered: One, since he was elevated to DG AFMS after serving as DG MS (Army) under Army HQ, did he, as advisor to the Army Chief (s), apprise the Army Chief of such happenings and recommend action against defaulters, or, did he keep quiet currying favour least he missed out elevation to DG AFMS. 
Two, since misuse of the provision has been reported by him since 2006, was he as a medical doctor pressurised to give the wrong certification? Did he submit to such pressure? 
Three, can he come on record to say he did apprise the Army Chief of such purported wrong practices? 
Four, if he did not apprise the Army Chief about such wrongdoings, did he issue any instructions or advisory as DGMS (Army) to Commands and hospitals warning them about such practice? Did he ask that he be informed immediately of any such incident on occurrence? 
Five, did he issue a similar advisory to the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force once he became DG AFMS? Five, did he send the full names and particulars of the defaulters when he reportedly wrote to the Defence Secretary, and if so, what action did he recommend?
Six, was he, as DGMS (Army) or DG AFMS, aware that post-retirement grant of the disability pension is admissible to both military personnel and defence employees, and the reasons why it is permitted.
Seven, since he retired in June 2016, why did he wait till the government was slammed because of the 30 September notification. Who, asked him to do so and why is he currying favour now? 
And, lastly, eight, is he amenable to release names of the so-called defaulters (both person granted disability and the medico certifying the same), or request the government to do so in order to clear his name because of the above questions? If not then this so called DG AFMS should stop using the title of Lt Gen.
The bottom line is that whether fact or fiction, the issue needs to be thoroughly probed, not left out as just another issue.
The author is a veteran Lt Gen of Indian Army.

Navdeep Singh.

India has the distinction of exhibiting disdain towards the cause of disabled soldiers

India is quite a paradox. 
There is excessive chest-thumping for our men and women in uniform on the one hand and pride in laying constant siege to the benefits and legal rights of those very personnel whom we superficially cheer while on parades on the other.
And bearing the brunt of this all are our disabled soldiers. The deleterious effect the stress and strain of military service has on a soldier’s health is a universally recognised phenomenon. In fact, most nations go out of the way to make the lives of their troops more comfortable — as seen in rising payouts for their loss of health. However, India has the distinction of exhibiting utter disdain towards the cause of disabled soldiers. At a very rudimentary level, for example, one has defence services accountants asking how ailments such as heart disease, neurosis, backache, seizures — common in civilians too — can be affected or aggravated by military service.
The service-disability connection
It is not difficult to discern that a highly unsettled and regimented life, away from family most of the year, and at times under the shadow of the gun, the inability to cope with domestic commitments, and a lack of community living, sexual fulfilment and physical proximity, curtailed freedoms and rights, can all lead to an aggravation of common medical conditions. The life of military personnel or even paramilitary troopers who are on duty almost 24 hours a day and who require permission to use even a washroom or visit a market after signing multiple registers, cannot be compared with civilians who live with their families and have fixed and reasonable working hours in a week.
Disability rules in India and other democracies are balanced and work on the presumption of a military service-disability connection. But the army of accountants and financial wizards often rejects such disability claims leading to numerous instances of judicial intervention. When disability benefits are awarded by courts and tribunals, there is more shock in store. The Ministry of Defence appeals against the claims of disabled, at times over amounts as little as a few hundred rupees. Between 2012-2013, 90 per cent of all appeals filed in the Supreme Court by the Ministry of Defence were against disabled soldiers. The efforts of the Defence Minister to control the litigation malaise are being met with strong resistance from the official-legal ecosystem which thrives on the miseries of disabled soldiers.
Paring pension rates
A recent example was the recommendation made in the Seventh Central Pay Commission to slash disability pension rates. The observation was that as there was an increase in the percentage of disabled officers in the defence services vis-à-vis the lower ranks, benefits needed to be slashed from the “percentage of pay system” to a “slab system” which would be more equitable for ranks other than officers. The recommendation was that from the current formula of “30% of pay for 100% disability”, the disability element should now be granted at the fixed rate of Rs. 27,000, Rs.17,000 and Rs.12,000 for Commissioned Officers, Junior Commissioned Officers and Other Ranks respectively for 100 per cent disability, and proportionately reduced for lesser disability. Surprisingly, no such corresponding “equitable” change was recommended for civilian disability pensioners, including those from the Central Armed Police Forces, who continue to receive benefits on the basis of “percentage of pay”.
Statistically, there is a higher probability of officers incurring disability than jawans since the latter start retiring in their 30s after about 15-plus years of service. Officers retire in their 50s after a service period spanning 30 years or more. It shocks one that those who are maimed and infirm have to bear insults when instead there should be concern about the rise in stress and strain and a deteriorating health profile among defence personnel.
The recommendation was made suo motu based on data by the Defence Accounts Department to the commission and without being authenticated by the defence services. No opportunity was granted to discuss the issue. The accounting jugglery is even more jarring since the slab system would result in a better payout only to those rare cases where those in the lower ranks are medically boarded out at the start of their careers, while it results in a loss to all jawans who are released on completion of regular service terms. In the higher ranks, the difference is more glaring. A Lieutenant General who is 100 per cent disabled and drawing a disability element of Rs.52,560 as of December 31, 2015, would now get Rs.27,000 on January 1, 2016. His civilian counterpart, on a par earlier, would now get Rs.67,500. While the pay commission has handsomely increased all pensions, which includes civil disability, it has slashed those for military disability; in some instances by more than half. The fact that vested interests have twisted the issue on social media citing ‘government sources’ makes this even more unfortunate.
What is the use of all the pomp and show at military displays or basking in the glory of our military achievements if we cannot take care of our disabled soldiers? They may form a minuscule percentage, but they certainly deserve much better.
Major Navdeep Singh is an advocate at the Punjab & Haryana High Court. He was the founding President of the Armed Forces Tribunal Bar Association, Chandigarh., and is Member of the International Society for Military Law and the Law of War at Brussels.