OROP and collateral damage

THE OROP movement is an unprecedented landmark for the defence forces in the Indian context. Never before were issues pertaining to the forces relegated to the streets of Jantar Mantar for national and political attention. The impact on the morale of the veterans and the forces due to the procrastination, political hardball and ostensible bargaining (on something that was agreed to in totality as part of electoral commitments by both the NDA and UPA, subsequently ratified by Parliament, and then reneged on flimsy grounds like administrative difficulties and fiscal impropriety) has been deliberated ad nauseam and assimilated by the nation; the forces in particular. While the final verdict on the justness of the OROP, as accepted by the government (fine print still awaited), from that of the construct earlier envisaged and accepted, is still out there, but there are far more consequential fault lines that have emerged out of the procrastination that needs immediate and the highest level of national and executive assuaging. These fault lines are borne of the fundamental ignorance or apathy towards appreciating the construct, structure and ethos of the soldiering comity and its inherent concept of ‘indivisibility’ amongst its rank and file. The OROP movement showed the forces of the land, air and sea to be an integrated setup of an extended family that incorporated all the serving and retired soldiers and officers from the three services. Unexpectedly, and perhaps unwarrantedly, a lesson to the political masters on how an ex-airman from Tirunelveli, along with an ex-sailor from Uttarakhand was seen cheering on the ex-soldier from Punjab, on the fasting dais! All through, they maintained an impeccable code of expressing dissent and refused to entertain any violent, political or mutinous undertones (despite the high-handedness of the police and gross insensitivity of political pundits and armchair experts on matters, military). Ironically, the decorum and the unity in diversity of the protest was a walking, talking personification of the lofty idea of ‘India’, or as all soldiers who swear by the holy grail of the Chetwodian code, “The safety, honour and welfare of your country comes first, always and every time. The honour, welfare and comfort of the men you command comes next. Your own ease, comfort and safety comes last, always and every time.” However, the first clear casualty post-OROP is the ‘us-versus-them’ tonality that has posited the bureaucracy against the defence services and their interests. Worms came out of the woodwork and the systematic degradation of the defence forces over the years has got established and rubbed in — an undesirable civil-military equation in any democratic setup. Delay in the implementation and the interim bargaining has only hardened stands and a deeper mistrust has set in. In an increasingly fragile and active national landscape, where the services of the forces are often solicited by civilian masters in quelling natural and manmade disasters, unrests, insurgencies and protests, it does not augur well for the umbilical cord of trust between the civil and military, to look at the other as the literal, ‘other’. The second key fault line is the unfortunate discourse of comparative work conditions and finger-pointing among the military and the paramilitary, a hitherto healthy respect, has got mutually affronted with lazy attempts by the vested interests in driving a tactical wedge between the two. Our national borders are onioned with layers of intra-military-paramilitary security rings and flanks that have had a tradition of seamless respect, understanding and operational deployment among each other. Today, we potentially acknowledge each other, not as those fellow-brother-in-arms, but as one from a fundamentally different organisation with disparate attributes, work conditions and governmental treatment. However, the most serious threat of collateral damage is one of the officer-soldier divide that could implode the fighting spirit (read abilities) of our forces. Historically, factually and rightfully, they have prided themselves as an unparalleled fighting force, where the officer leads his men from the front. This bond is sacred, with enough and documented facts about the ratio of officer-to-soldier mortality in battlefield, for the Indian defence forces to be among the highest in the world in modern history. Kargil is an example in recent history. This very microcosm was almostbreeching with simmering canards of selective interests among differing ranks (officers vs soldiers) in the OROP movement. It is a crevice, fraught with unimaginable implications. Ironically, a few feet away from the main protest tent on Jantar Mantar was an alternative OROP setup that sought a very specific and restrictive agenda, unlike the more holistic and unified voice of the initial OROP genesis. Time and delay ultimately led to factionalism among the veterans and their principal movement — albeit not on these lines. But, this danger did show its ugly face and its residual impact lurks around the corner, with the implementation of OROP still pending. It strikes at the very heart of the organisation’s capabilities. So far, the officer-soldier bond has never been divided or questioned. Yes, there have been specific and serious flare-ups, even quasi revolts of units (like in ’84), but these are attributable to a charged up political, social or civilian rationale. Adding to the cauldron was the unnecessary and occasional political one-upmanship, the forced quasi-unionisation (and now factionalism) of the protest process that was imposed by procrastination and the reduction of the Kargil Diwas and 50 years of the 1965 victory to a political tamasha, and an eye sore was playing out in the near vicinity of the corridors of officialdom with an 84-year-old soldier being roughed up by a Delhi policeman. Potentially, this very edifice of the forces and their operational imperatives are susceptible to various types and levels of inter-governmental tensions and worse, spectres of self-combustion. OROP is a saga of an avoidable delay, which achieved nothing for the protagonists of procrastination. Therefore, implementation within the committed time frame would have spared the nation, the government and the forces the unnecessary brush to their collective pride and honour. The forces were struggling with deficiencies of manpower, equipment, armaments — OROP may have inadvertently added ‘fighting spirit’ to the list. ‘Indivisibility’ and nationalism form the basic DNA of a soldier’s foundation. The OROP impasse has drifted the narrative towards serious collateral damage that needs immediate course correction beyond financial calculations of pension. This fighting force of veterans and serving combatants feed and march on the incalculable levers of ‘India first’ and pride — reminiscent of the motto of the regiment of the Artillery, Sarvatra Izzat-o-Iqbal (forever with honour and glory). It is this very izzat that has been wounded and that needs to be restored as soon as possible. — The writer is a former Lt Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry