: DEFENCE FORCES AND THE 7TH PAY COMMISSION

   The background of OROP and NFU with all notings and recommendations. See how the MOD has made a fool of Faujis. That is why Jantar Mantar was started and still goes on under Maj Gen Satbir Singh, despite views to the contrary by many Veterans. Although both the issues are now in the Supreme Court, it is taking its own sweet time to give a decision. The Govt, as usual, dilly dallies and keeps seeking fresh dates at every hearing. This post is basically the harm done to Lt Gens. But the damage done at the functional level in Fmns and units is immense where both military and civil officers serve side by side. Also see the attachment where a Subedar(TA) gets more pension than a Subedar GD.. This is gross injustice inflicted by Babus, who make a fool of Netas. 

      Jantar Mantar opened the ears and eyes of Faujis as to our rights and entitlements.. Other ESM organisations followed later.

----- Forwarded message ------

MAJOR OBSERVATIONS/ANOMALIES ON ONE RANK ONE PENSION BETWEEN TABLE NO 7 FOR ARMY, IAF AND NAVY AND TABLE NO 9 FOR TA (TERRITORIAL ARMY)

-----------

From: Harbhajan Singh [mailto:genharbhajansingh@yahoo.com]
Sent: 15 August 2016 14:09
To: Hsingh1
Subject: Non Functional Upgrade (NFU) or "non-functional financial up-gradation" (NFFU)"

 

Historical perspective and facts about NFU.

Harbhajan Singh

Lt Gen

Pay Band -4 : Rs. 37400-67000 : Pay Band -3 : Rs. 15600-39100 :

Non Functional Upgrade (NFU)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"Non Functional Upgrade" (NFU) also called "non-functional financial up-gradation" (NFFU) is the name of a scheme implemented by the Congress(I) led United Progressive Alliance(UPA) Government, in 2008, to reward civil servants of 49 'Organized Central Group A Services', also called Central Group A Civil Services, including members of the Indian Police Service(IPS), with automatic time bound pay promotions till the Higher Administrative Grade(HAG).

The promotion under NFU scheme are independent of organizational requirements, vacancy, level of responsibility or span of control of a post. NFU scheme ensures that all IPS and civil servants, at a minimum, retire at the HAG pay grade, a grade equated by Government with Lt Generals, Vice Admirals, and Air Marshals of Armed Forces.^{[1] :para 7.3.18-7.3.25[2][3][4]}

NFU scheme was implemented by Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister in the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government in the wake of Sixth Central Pay Commission.^{[5]:para 7.46.20[6] :p 39} No reasoning or explanation was given for implementing NFU except that it would "alleviate stagnation in the civil services".^{[5]:para 7.46.20}

There is no international precedent for NFU scheme which has had wide-ranging financial, organizational, governance implications.^{[1] :Chapter 11.22}

Two members of Central Pay Commission (7CPC) in the report submitted to the government on 19 November 2015 have been very critical of the NFU scheme. They have noted that "exclusion of Defence forces from NFU" by the UPA government was "unfair".

Reviewing the implementation of NFU they have concluded that the Indian bureaucracy and Police has set a world record "for career progression in government bureaucracies", by recklessly de-linking "promotions from career progression". Considering the wide ramifications of the NFU scheme, and the backlash, they have recommended that NFU scheme be abolished.^{[1] :para 6.2.35–36 and Chapter 11.22}

Contents

• 1 NFU and The Armed Forces
  • 1.1 BJP and NFU for the Armed Forces
• 2 Time Line
  • 2.1 2009-2014
  • 2.2 2015
• 3 See also
• 4 References
• 5 External links

NFU and The Armed Forces

The Manmohan Singh government excluded the Armed Forces from the NFU scheme without assigning explanation or reason, despite protest by Armed Forces headquarters.^[5] After persistent outcry against the exclusion of armed forces officers from the NFU including in the form of a detailed written petition by the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) to A. K. Antony, Defence Minister,^[3] Prime minister Manmohan Singh, appointed a 'Committee of Secretaries'.^[4][7] But the committee, predictably, evades the issue.^[8]

NFU has wide ranging impact on the senior hierarchy of the armed forces, its colonels, brigadiers and generals, their pay and pension structure, and the command and control frame work. The exclusion from NFU roils the officer corps of the Armed Forces. It becomes another cause of grievance and distrust of the bureaucracy, and fuels One Rank, One Pension (OROP) protest. And like OROP, it becomes 'honor

and izzat' issue.^[9] Additionally, implementation of NFU and unexplained exclusion of Armed Forces officers corps from the NFU has had a corrosive impact on the Armed Forces morale, status, cohesion, and national security, according to former senior military commanders.^{[1] :para 7.3.25[3][10]}

BJP and NFU for the Armed Forces

The Narendra Modi led Bharatiya Janata Party Government which replaced UPA Government, in May 2014, from which much was expected by the Armed Forces and Ex servicemen,^[11] once in power, much like the Congress Government, let the NFU fester, instead of addressing it. Manohar Parrikar, soon after becoming the Defence Minister, opposes NFU for the armed Forces despite it being flagged by the Chief of staff in the Joint memorandum.^[10][12]

Time Line

March 2008

Sixth Central Pay Commission submits report. It recommends NFU for Group 'A' Central services, to "alleviate stagnation in the civil services". No explanation or reasons are given for excluding the Armed Forces from the scheme.^[5]

July 2008

Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC), consisting of General Deepak Kapoor (30 September 2007 -31 March 2010), Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major (31 March 2007-31 March 2009), and Admiral Sureesh Mehta (31 October 2006 -31 August 2009), send a detailed note to A. K. Antony, Defence Minister, flagging the adverse impact of NFU on the Armed Forces. The COSC urge that Armed Forces Officers be treated at par with All India Services. The minister on the advice of Vijay Singh, Defence Secretary, ignores COSC submission..^[3]

29 August 2008

NFU is implemented after an endorsed by an ‘Empowered Committee of Secretaries" headed by K. M. Chandrasekhar, IAS, the Cabinet Secretary. Decision reads:

"Whenever any IAS officer of a particular batch is posted in the Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific grade pay in pay bands PB-3 or PB-4 , grant of higher pay scale on non- functional basis to the officers belonging to batches of organised Group A services that are senior by two years or more should be given by the Government." "This will also be applicable to the Indian Police Service and the Indian Forest Service in their respective State cadres for which the relevant cadre controlling authorities will issue the orders".No reason or explanation is given for implementing the scheme beyond that it will alleviate stagnation in the civil services.^[6]

IPS Rules incorporate NFU scheme, the relevant rule reads: "whenever any Indian Administrative Service officer .....in pay band 3 or pay band 4, is promoted, members of the Indian Police Servicee and other All India Services (AIS), senior to such officers' become automatically eligible to be "appointed to the same grade on non-functional basis from the date of posting of the Indian Administrative Service officer in that particular grade".^{[13]:p 156 note 3, and Annexure -I, p 319}

Government creates a new pay grade designated as HAG+. It is 'carved out of PB-4', with "A new pay scale of Rs.75500 - (annual increment @ 3%)-80000 ". The new grade is accompanied by large scale upgradation of posts in the police at the HAG + and apex level.. HAG + and Apex grades become proforma time scale promotions. Almost all police officers and group A Officers become eligible to retire with pay and pension at Apex scale, with OROP benefits.^[2]

The new rank HAG+ supersedes all Lt General except for a small fraction that are Army Commanders. HAG+ renders Lt general and their equivalents in the air force and navy, inferior in status, and pay to scores of Police officers in HAG + and apex scales. Increase in hundreds of new posts, and exclusion of Lt Generals from new HAG+ grade effectively degrades the status of Lt General.^{[6] :p 39}

27 December 2008

UPA II Government, in response to sustained outcry by the Armed Forces, and Armed Forces veterans, on the anomalies in the Government decision, issues instructions that [1] "In future, pay revision of the armed forces should be de-linked from that of civilians and separate board or commission should be set up for pay revision of the armed forces." [2] formation of a High Powered Committee to 'resolve issues relating to command and control functions/status of armed forces vis a vis paramilitary and civilians.' [ Despite the announcement no follow action was taken] ^[14]

2009-2014

21 May 2009

UPA Government issues orders to implement non-functional financial up-gradation for all Organized Group-A Civil Services. Armed Forces are excluded from the order. Armed Forces remonstrations have little impact.^[15]

7 July 2009

Seven member Committee, ordered to examine "One rank One pension and Related Issues" by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, on the advice of AK Antony, Defence Minister, submits 21 page report. The committee, from which Armed Forces representation was excluded, includes, K. M. Chandrasekhar, Cabinet Secretary, Chairman; and six members: Vijay Singh, Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence (MOD); Neelam Nath, Secretary Ex Servicemen Welfare, Ministry of Defence; (MOD), Madhukar Gupta, Secretary Home, Ministry of Home Affairs; Rajni Razdan, Secretary Pension and PW; Rahul Sarin, Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT), PMO; and Sushma Nath, Secretary Expenditure, Ministry of Finance.

The Report opposes OROP for the Armed Forces, and does not touch on the 'related issue' of NFU. The committee report evades NFU, but discusses the fraught issue of the civil equivalence, pensions and pay of Lt General, and their equivalents in Air Force and Navy, in the context of NFU, and up gradation of scores of police posts to HAG+ and Apex grades.

The report in its consideration fails to acknowledge that HAG grade has, as result of Government decision, been rendered a time scale grade to which 100 percent of the officers of the 49 Civil Services are promoted as matter of right, and which does not bare comparison with Lt Generals grade, a highly selective rank to which less that one percent of the armed forces officers are promoted. The Report recommends that a new pay scale be created for Lt generals provided all HAG time scale officers are also elevated to the new scale.^{[7] : para 6.9, and 9(c)}

19 November 2009

Against the background of the controversy on rewarding Group A Service with NFU, the Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT), under the Prime ministers Office (PMO), issues an Office memorandum(OM), titled "Attributes of Group-A Central Services Clarification on'.^[16]

July 15, 2010.

AK Antony, Defence Minister (2006–2014), rejects note vetted by General General Vijay Kumar Singh, Chief of army Staff (31 March 2010 31 May 2012), Admiral Nirmal Kumar Verma, Chief of Naval Staff(31 August 2009 31 August 2012), and Air Chief Marshal Pradeep Vasant Naik, Chief of Air Staff (31 March 2009-31 July 2011), on NFU for Defence Officers. The reply dismissing the Armed Forces note on NFU for Defence Officers is signed by a Joint Secretary, a mid-level officer, in the Department of Defence, DOD, headed by Pradeep Kumar, Defence secretary(1 August 2009 -14 July 2011).^[17]

The MOD instead of classifying Lt general as HAG + , as a concession, creates ' Non Function pay grades' like for the police, at the Lt general level, to which some Lt generals and their equivalents are 'promoted'.

12 March 2010

Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT), under the Prime ministers Office (PMO), issues an Office memorandum(OM) on residency, ie minimum service, requirement for various ranks in the higher Civil Service. Organized Group ` A ’ Services: SAG 17 years, HAG scale 20 years, HAG+ 21 years, Apex scale 22 years. CRPF (CAPF) IG scale 24 years. IAS/ IPS/( Indian Forest Service)IFoS: SAG scale 16 years for IAS, 18 years for IPS, and IfoS.^{[1] :para 7.3.20}

17 August 2012

Committee of Secretaries, appointed in 2011, by Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister, to examine the issues raised by the defence services, including Non Functional Upgradation (NFU), submits report. The report does not recommend NFU for officers of the Defence Forces on the basis of rationale provided by Shashi Kant Sharma, Defence secretary, and head of DOD, which was endorsed by MK Antony, Defense Minister.

The MOD rationale for opposing NFU to the armed forces are : [1] service conditions of the defence services are different than civilian officers; and [2] the Defence forces are being given many benefits including Military Service Pay (MSP), The financial implications for the grant of NFU to the Armed Forces is estimated by the ministry as Rs 69 crores.^[4]

13 September 2013

India Today, Delhi based news magazine, cites a MOD letter titled, 'Common VII Central Pay Commission' leaked to it by a Joint Secretary in the MOD. The 'letter' is purportedly written by Chief NAK Browne, the Chairman of the Chief of Staff Committee (COSC), to AK Antony, Defence Minister. According to the 'letter' the Government is in favor of a separate pay commission for the Armed Forces, but the armed forces would rather be part of the 7CPC instead of having a separate pay commission. Air Chief Marshal NAK Browne, according to the 'letter' has [1] opposed formation of separate pay commission for the armed Forces, because "a separate pay commission may not necessarily benefit the services as anomalies are invariably bound to arise in both cases"; [2] the main cause for dissatisfaction the armed Forces is not having separate pay commission but the "non-resolution of anomalies or ex parte resolution of anomalies" ^[14]

24 December 2014

Manohar Parrikar, defence Minister from 9 November 2014 to date, on the advice of R.K. Mathur, Defence secretary (25.05.2013 -24.05.2015), authorizes the Ministry to inform Chairman of the 7CPC, in response to a memo from 7CPC dated 24 December 2014, that he does not favor NFU for the Armed Forces. The justification for not recommending NFU for the armed forces is that the Cabinet Secretary, in 2011, had not made "any recommendations on the issue". The MOD letter recalling the points made in the cabinet secretary's report notes that : " the service conditions of Defence Forces are quite different from those of civilian employees. Benefits in the form of Military Service Pay and various allowances are also available to the Defence Forces officers which are not available to civilian officers. It is, therefore, not logical to compare the earnings of two services.

Further, Defence Forces officers are covered by a separate time-bound promotion scheme up to the level of Colonel. The scheme of non-functional upgradation is applicable only to organised Group ‘A’ Services and was extended to IPS/IFS. The requirements related to command and control, the norms for recruitment, promotion and rank structure of the Defence Forces are not identical to those of Group ‘A’ cadres. The average age of entry of Commissioned Officers is lower than those joining Group ‘A’ Services. In view of the above, the Committee did not make any recommendations on this issue."

The MOD reply not recommending NFU for the Armed forces, for reasons that are unclear notes that though "the Pranab Mukherjee Committee Report' did not consider "this particular issue" of NFU it stated " that for functional purposes, salary cannot be the basis to determine status". The MOD, does in the end offer a comment of its own, which is "However, on account of the steep hierarchical pyramid in the armed forces, a large number of officers stagnate and retire at the level of Lt Colonel. 7th CPC may, therefore, devise may to address this issue suitably. One way to achieve this can be, to grant NFU to those personnel who have been stagnating at the same level (say for 3-4 years) after the promotion of their immediate juniors".

The MOD, in justification of its stand reiterates that " command and control.... promotion and rank structure of the Defence Forces are not identical" with police forces, while knowing that police officers wear army badges of rank, make equivalences with military ranks, and even commands armed forces in the NSG and other organizations. ^[8]

2015

11 July 2015

Five retired Lieutenant Generals, four Major Generals and one Air Marshall of the Indian Air Force, joins the protest at jantar mantar, in New Delhi. Amongst the Lieutenant General is Lt General Rajinder Singh Sujlana AVSM, VSM, former X Corps Commander and Colonel Commandant of the Sikh Regiment.^[18]

13 August 2015

General S F Rodrigues, former COAS, and Admirals L Ramdas, Arun Prakash and Sureesh Mehta, former Chiefs of Naval Staff, write an open letter to President Pranab Mukherjee, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. The letter says, "Recent developments....have not only triggered a process of politicization of the Indian military, but also served to inflict grave damage on its morale and self-esteem"; and that these developments pose grave "implication for national security".^[12]

3 September 2015

Major General Satbir Singh, Vice Chairman of IESM, responding to question on financial implication of One Rank One Pension (OROP) following his meeting with Nripendra Misra, Principal Secretary to PM, asks why similar questions were not raised following the implementation of NFU in 2008.^[19]

13 October 2015

Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal ( AFT) in New Delhi issues notice to the Ministry of Defence(MOD) and Ministry of Finance on a petition filed by Col Mukul Dev, a serving Colonel of the Army's Judge Advocate General's Branch, demanding grant of Non-Functional Upgrade (NFU) to Armed Forces Officers on the lines granted to IAS officers and other Group ‘A’ services. The colonel and his Counsel argue that the Governments failure to extend NFU to the armed Forces has lowered the status and adversely affected the morale of officers the armed forces; and that [1] the stagnation in the armed forces is more acute than the civil services; [2] denial of NFU to the Armed Forces is violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India [3] the aim of NFU is not to equate the monetary benefits or earnings enjoyed by a particular service but is granted with the aim to ameliorate stagnation; [4] well established parity between armed forces and the "All India Services/ Group ‘A’ services and IPS in particular has been disturbed'[5] and that armed forces officers cadre meets all the attributes attached to the Group ‘A’ organised service; and [6] the comparison of Military Service Pay (MSP) and NFU is a "gross mis-concept", as MSP to compensate for difficulties of military service, and NFU is to "alleviate the acute stagnation" which is far worse than in the armed forces than in the Police other civil services, such as the Indian Legal Service and Indian Trade Service, Indian Statistical service, Indian Economic service and Central Information service, which are eligible for NFU.^[20] [21]

19 November 2015

A K Mathur, the Chairperson of 7CPC, recommends that On Non - Functional Upgradation (NFU), should be allowed to continue for Organised Group ‘A’ Services, because it has 'existed for the last 10 years'. He also recommends that NFU should " be extended to the officers of the Defence forces and CAPFs" to " ameliorate the difficulties faced by the officers owing to stagnation at various levels".^{[1]:6.2.36 and Ch 11.22}

Vivek Rae, IAS, and Dr. Rathin Roy, the other two Members of the commission, disagree with the Chairperson. In a dissenting note they recommend that NFU be withdrawn from the Organised Group ‘A’ Services, noting that they are far less deserving than the officers of the Defence Forces. They are also not in favor of extending NFU to the Armed Forces.^{[1]:6.2.36 and Ch 11.22}

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ESTT. (RR) DIVISION

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON NON-FUNCTIONAL UPGRADATION (NFU)

1. What are the recommendations of 6^th CPC for grant of Non-Functional Upgradation to for Officers of Organized Group 'A' Services?

 

The Government should, consider batch-wise parity while empanelling and /or posting at Centre between respective batches of IAS and other

organized Group A services with the gap being restricted to two years. Whenever any IAS officer of a particular batch is posted in the Centre to a particular grade carrying a specific grade pay in pay bands PB-3 or PB-4, grant of higher pay scale on non-functional basis to the officers belonging to batches of organized Group A services that are senior by two years or more should be given by the Government. 

 

2. Whether the recommendations of 6th CPC have been accepted by the Government?

Yes. This will also be applicable to the Indian Police Service and the Indian Forest Service in their respective State Cadres for which the relevant cadre controlling authorities will issue the orders. (Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure Notification dated 29th August, 2008 refers)

 

3. When were the guidelines on NFU issued by DOPT?                                                                                                           

DOPT have issued detailed instructions on grant of NFU to the officers of Organized Group A Services in OM No. AB 14017/64/2008-Estt.(RR) dated

24th April, 2009.

 

4. To whom the instructions are applicable?

NFU is applicable to the officers of Organized Group A services in PB-3, PB-4 and in HAG scale also where there is such a Grade in the Service .No.AB.14017/47/2011-Estt. (RR) dated 1St August, 2012.

 

5. From which date the grant of NFU to officers of Organized group A services is to be made?

The benefit is based on the recommendations of 6th CPC and will be available w.e.f the date of posting of IAS officers in various grades on/after 01.01. 2006.

 

6 What are the eligibility conditions to be met for grant of NFU?

The terms and conditions for grant of NFU are prescribed in the Annexure to the OM dated 24.4.2009. As per the same all the eligibility criteria and

promotional norms including 'benchmark' for upgradation to a particular grade pay would have to be met at the time of screening for grant of higher pay scale under these orders.

 

7. What is the definition of the term 'Batch'?

For the purpose of grant of NFU the 'Batch' for direct recruit officers in the induction grade shall be the year following the year in which competitive

exam was held. In subsequent grades the 'Batch' would remain the same provided the officer is not superseded due to any reason. In case an officer is superseded the officer would be considered along with the 'Batch' with which his seniority is fixed.

 

8. Where the entry of officers in Organized Group A Service by DR is at STS, JAG level, how the 'Batch' shall be reckoned?

In respect of officers entering Organized Group A service by DR at STS, JAG level, they shall be assigned the benefit of 'Batch' corresponding to the 'Batch' of the officers with whom the seniority is clubbed

 

9. Whether the benefit is available to Group B officers inducted into the Organized Group A service?

Yes. Such officers shall b assigned the benefit of 'Batch' corresponding to the batch of the 'direct recruit' officers with whom their seniority is clubbed.

 

10. Whether the officers can exercise option regarding date of fixation in the higher scale as provided in CCS(RP) Rules?

Provisions of CCS(RP) Rules, 2008 will apply.

 

11 Whether retired employees are eligible for the benefit of NFU?

Retired officers who are otherwise eligible as on due date shall be considered for the benefit of pay .No.AB.14017/47/2011-Estt. (RR) dated lst August, 2012

 

WHY NO REFORMS IN MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

 

MAJ GN MISRA

The real reason for this impasse is that the country is not governed from Raisina Hill, as popularly perceived, but from Lodhi Colony. The so called Steel Frame, comprising of nuts and bolts of different sizes from LDC to Under Secretary is a product of Lodhi Colony Enterprise. They, having spent all their years, either in the same office or in its vicinity, are considered experts and usually initiate all files on policy matters. All officers above them, whether civilian or military, as also netajis, are merely players in a game of musical chairs. Even in Army Hq, while visiting some friends occasionally, I have seen them asking for the valued opinion of their babuji in routine matters before taking a decision. Whether Modi or Parrikar, nobody can bring about any change in the functioning of MOD, or in other ministries for that matter, unless the super structure called 'The Central Secretariat Service'  is demolished and staff brought from states on deputation for short tenures.

COMMENT by HS: THEY AND IN PARTICULAR Pas/PSs ARE ALSO A GREAT SECURITY DANGER. THEY HAVE ACCESS TO MOST SECRET, CONFD AND EVEN TOPSEC INFORMATION. They hace very strong Union and can paralyze the functioning of N and S Blocks.

----------

From: CK Sharma [mailto:seekayess@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 August 2016 23:11
To: IndVets; 22NDA; 84th/24th; PSU-SM; AF India
Subject: Beware of Bofors Syndrome

 

Nec temere nec timide!

 

CK Sharma

 

The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.     Danté

Forwarded message.

------------

From: Brijesh Jayal <bdjayal@gmail.com>

Subject: Fwd:

Date: 16 August 2016 at 15:35:24 IST

To:

 

 

Friends,

For your reading pleasure

Jay

 

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1160816/jsp/opinion/story_102641.jsp#.V7a1f_l97IU

Tuesday , August 16 , 2016

Beware of the Bofors Syndrome

Brijesh D. Jayal

During a hearing of a public interest litigation in the AgustaWestland case in the Supreme Court the other day, the solicitor general said that none involved will be spared and charge sheets will be filed this year. Another report quoted the government pushing for a final discount in the negotiations for Rafale fighter jets directly with the French embassy. It appears that after the Prime Minister's Office's surprise announcement to purchase these combat aircraft in Paris last year, negotiations with the manufacturers are meandering. To these different facets of defence purchases, the recent ministerial expansion and portfolio reallocation have added yet another dimension.

Reportedly, barely 10 days before the ministerial reshuffle, the outgoing minister of state, defence, was involved in a major row during a meeting, presumably of the Defence Acquisition Council, chaired by the raksha mantri. The MoS blamed members of the army and the defence acquisition wing for an unfair selection leading to a single vendor, battled for the inclusion of a second vendor and even suggested a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the matter. Not surprisingly, many in the media have linked this episode to his being eased out of the defence ministry.

The case in question was for carbines for the army, which, in financial terms, would be modest as compared to other high-ticket defence systems. That even this has resulted in a piquant situation at such high decision-making levels in the MoD, points to a much deeper malaise afflicting defence procurements, due to which defence modernization and indigenization continue to face an indifferent future.

To those in the know of the system, it was only a matter of time before the perennial conflict between the executive and the user would burst out into the open. Whilst the traditional tug-of-war in the process of endless file-pushing has normally been between the user service and the civilian bureaucracy, both defence and finance, rarely does this involve the political level. Procedurally, the latter comes in only at the finalization stage, being the proverbial rubber stamp. Indeed, one grouse that services often have is that ministers let the bureaucracy have complete sway, even as projects linger for years, if not for decades, and operational capabilities wither.

This episode raises the interesting question of whether a change is creeping in where a minister chooses to be more than just a paper tiger within the defence procurement system and is willing to apply his independent judgment and authority. More pertinently, is the cosy bureaucratic order being challenged within the South Block?<

__._,_.___

View attachments on the web

---

Posted by: Brig S S Jaswal <jaswal972@yahoo.co.in>

---

Reply via web post

•