Thought provoker: : ARMY SHOOTS ITSELF IN THE FOOT By Major Navdeep Singh

Indian Military Veterans

Military officers are quick to blame bureaucrats, but it is their own arbitrary and parochial attitude and policies, without any understanding or training for administration, that are to be blamed. In the bargain, the military becomes its own greatest enemy.

Gentleman cadets during their passing-out parade at the Indian Military Academy, Dehradun. The obstructive, inward-looking conservative approach has to go, times are such. Camaraderie has been the hallmark of defence services but the same is not just meant for the battlefield but for normal day-to-day life too which actually and practically affects personnel and their families

HUMANS are alike. Wearing a uniform may suppress, but not fully insulate them from corruption, greed, power-play et al, vices inherent to human race. But besides grit and courage, what sets military personnel apart from the others is the sharp ability to self-destruct and to invent self-defeatist masterstrokes as far as welfare, manpower and personnel policies are concerned.

Whichever side one may be, what the Army Chief's age row has brought fore is that there is a belief doing the rounds, factual or fictional, that meticulous, surgically incisive processes are constantly at play where careers of those who may pose a future threat are played with crudely and ruthlessly and all this happens behind closed doors under a cloak of secrecy marked 'national security', which is not actually in consonance with the age of transparency we live in. The lucky few in key appointments have their way and others can only pull their hair in despair. The number of cases pending before Benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal and other Courts, and the kind of strictures passed on such matters bear testimony to the chaos at work. It is yet another matter that even in well-rounded verdicts, the system, out of egotism, tries its best to wear out its own personnel by litigating till the highest court.

Arbitrary attitude and policies

While military officers are quick to point fingers at the bureaucrat, it is their own arbitrary and parochial attitude and policies, without any basic understanding or training for administration, that are to be blamed. In the bargain, the military becomes the military's own greatest enemy. The examples are many. Recently the Supreme Court reportedly reprimanded the Army for creating artificial hurdles for its own officers when an appeal was filed against a lady officer of the Judge Advocate General's Department whose case had been allowed by the AFT granting her promotions and permanent commission. Till date, the Army, based on an internal artificial interpretation by the Military Secretary's Branch, is promoting Short Service Officers commissioned prior to 2006 as Captains in nine years of service while those commissioned after 2006 are being promoted to the same rank in two years. The impediment was not created by with the Ministry of Defence, but by the Army. When the Military's medical establishment was directed by Courts to grant medical facilities to its elderly retired Emergency Commissioned Officers based on an already existing Government Order, the Army itself was quick to challenge it before the Supreme Court. Imagine, the Army approaching the Supreme Court with a prayer that the same Army may be directed to withdraw medical facilities from its own officers, some of them in their 80s.

When the Navy and Air Force vouched for implementation of the Non-Functional Upgradation for the defence services, as already applicable to civil services, which guarantees the pay of a Lieutenant General in a time-bound manner to superseded officers, the Army was the first to oppose putting across the banal argument that if implemented there would be 'no charm for higher ranks'. When all Doctors of the Central Government were granted a 'Dynamic Assured Progression Scheme', the Army itself tooth and nail opposed its implementation for its own doctors on the pretext that doctors would then start getting higher salaries than other officers.

Faulty interpretation of rules

While the civilian establishment is constantly blamed for degradation of status of military officers, the Army, in the Military Engineering Services (MES) itself places senior promotee military officers of the rank of Major and lady officers of similar rank as Assistant Garrison Engineers, an appointment tenable by Subedar-equivalent civilian officers, while directly commissioned officers of the rank of Major with much lesser length of service are posted on higher appointments such as Garrison Engineers, all again based on an artificial, faulty and forced interpretation of existing rules.

Recently, based on a decision taken by the Prime Minister, young army officers, both Permanent and Short Service Commissioned, up to 35 years of age with 5 years of service and in fit medical category, were sought for lateral induction into the Indian Police Service through a statutory gazette notification. But rather than moving with the times, the Army Headquarters, based on an outdated policy promulgated in 1987, issued a circular pointing out that only those Permanent Commissioned Officers would be permitted to apply for the IPS who had only two years of service left (that is, who were 50 years old), or who were in low medical category, or who had completed 18 years of service but had not passed their promotion exams. Needless to say, it's a no-brainer that all such categories 'allowed' by the Army HQ were actually ineligible to be inducted into the IPS as per the notification.

Whenever there is a welfare oriented proposal or proactive personnel policy under consideration of the Government which elements in the bureaucracy would not like to see implemented, they simply throw it in the court of the defence services for a consultative process for they know that first the Army, Navy and the Air Force would start struggling between themselves, and then the fight would shift inter-se between the fighting Arms, then it would be fighting arms versus support arms and finally arms versus services. The end product would be zilch resulting in sniggers from the ringside.

Shedding obstructive approach

So where does the fault lie? Is it because of the stiff competition and ACR oriented 'smile up - kick down' culture or is it because of plain lack of understanding of finer aspects of personnel management and lack of administrative acumen or downright foolhardiness? The answer is hard to find. It seems that in a nation with the psyche of public servants deriving power by imposing obstacles, red-tape and impediments in the ordinary life of a common citizen, officers holding key appointments in the military feel powerless when they compare themselves with their civilian counterparts. Hence the only way to feel powerful is by posing hindrances in areas of policy where the pen can be used as an authoritative instrument of damage, and that damage unfortunately is restricted to within the uniformed services. As a sequel, creation of restrictive clauses and provisos becomes a tool of ego empowerment through which the policy writer feels potent. Liberal construal is abandoned for sadism and a sub-culture emerges where cribbing is rampant and peer happiness is not tolerated.

The Army has to wake up and smell the coffee. The obstructive, inward-looking conservative approach has to go, times are such. Camaraderie has been the hallmark of defence services but the same is not just meant for the battle field but for normal day to day life too which actually and practically affects personnel and their families. A recent positive example would be the strong efforts of the Army's Personnel Services Directorate in reducing litigation and convincing the Defence Ministry to withdraw appeals filed against its disabled soldiers bringing succour and kudos to the organisation. The positivity must spread and must spread fast to other spheres, otherwise the self-inflicted injury to the heretofore seemingly strong foundation would make the organisation a laughing stock leading to a spectacular derailment of the only institution every Indian has been unconditionally proud of.

The writer practises in the Punjab and Haryana High Court

(SOURCE- VIA E-MAIL FROM Colonel  N K Balakrishnan ( Retd ) ,

DATA AS ON THE DAY OROP DECLARED - 05 SEP 15 : POVERTY STRIKEN ; 1 OF OUT OF 7 IAS OFFICERS CLAIM TO OWN NO LAND OR HOUSE?

Almost 1 out every 7 IAS officers who file property returns claim to have no property, be it land, building or house. 

Analysis of immovable property returns by a website, factly.in, that aims to make public data more meaningful to citizens, shows that of the 3,600 IAS officers who have been filing immoveable property returns since 2010, 559 or 14.5% declared that they have no property in their submission to the Centre for the financial year 2014. The highest number of officials who claimed to own no property were from UP (57), followed by MP (42). The AGMUT (Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram and Union Territory) cadre had 37 such officers, with Maharashtra (33) and Tamil Nadu (31) fourth and fifth.Former chief information commissioner and erstwhile bureaucrat Wajahat Habibullah said, “It is possible for 14.5% of the officers not to have any property but I won't think it is credible. It is a somewhat high number for officials or their spouses not to have any property . “It is a somewhat high number for officials or their spouses not to have any property ,“ Habibullah said.

He added that officers at the beginning of their career may not have property but by mid-career, most of them did.
In analysed IPRs filed by IAS officers from 2010-2014 to find that 14.6% that is 661 of 3,865 -had defaulted at least once in filing their returns.According to the department of personnel and training (DoPT), there are 4,526 IAS officials of which 3,865 filed their returns for all years since 2010. The worst performing batch where most number of officials (83.7%) defaulted at least once in filing returns was the 2013 batch.
The worst performing cadre was Tripura with only 38.2% compliance. Among the best performing batch was 1977 with 100% compliance while the cadre was Maharashtra with 96.3% compliance.
As per rules notified under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, every public servant has to file declaration, information and annual returns of his assets and liabilities as on March 31, every year, on or besfore July 31 of that year.

(Source-https://factly.in/ )

Please read for more details - https://factly.in/1-out-of-every-7-ias-officers-in-the-country-claims-to-have-no-asset/