The Armed Forces
seem to be under siege. The adversary is neither as deadly as terrorists or
enemy soldiers, nor as discernible as them. Silent, slow and insidious, the
damage caused by them wouldn’t be in terms of mortal wounds or loss limbs, but
the long term impact on morale and efficiency is likely to be much more
damaging. The attackers are none other than people providing support and
ancillary services required to keep the forces functioning and fighting fit.
A huge
organisation like the Armed Forces require a plethora of support functions
besides its main job of waging war or preparing for it. Since a trained
soldier/officer is a resource better engaged for the latter, support cadres
consisting of civilian personnel have been set up to take care of former. But
as time has progressed, the imperatives of managing these cadres themselves has
assumed greater importance than the actual function they were set up for.
The Military
Engineering Service (MES) is a part of the army Corps of Engineers. It provides
civil engineering support to the Armed Forces in peace stations. It’s officers
and personnel are drawn from the Corps of Engineers. To avoid diverting too
many combat engineering officers and men towards such tenures, MES started
direct recruitment of civil engineers for some of these posts. Since their
terms and conditions of service were obviously different from army officers,
administrative requirements necessitated setting up a separate cadre for them,
and a separate cadre called Indian Defence Service of Engineers (IDSE) came
into existence.
Now, many years
later, this cadre is attempting to subsume the very organisation it was created
to serve. As is clear from the letters below, something that has a distinct
unpleasant flavour of a trade union has come up amongst the personnel of this
cadre. There are attempts to replace the identity of the parent organisation,
i.e. the MES, with that of the cadre, shockingly sounding like attempts at
secession. It would be unimaginable for any person in uniform (with whom the
post occupied by the originator of the letter is interchangeable) even
imagining writing such a letter.
So IDSE, which began as a small part of the MES to make up for the shortfall of uniformed engineer officers, is now asserting ownership over MES, and trying to make it independent from uniformed control. The purpose behind this is clear – such a move would free them from accountability to the armed forces. Senior commanders would then no longer be able to enforce quality of service that is desired from such an organisation.
Unlike the above
example, which has unfolded away from public gaze, another attempt by a
civilian support cadre to overstep its bounds is in the news. This is because
of the outrage caused by a letter written by the Central Administrative Officer
(CAO) of the Ministry of Defence attempting to downgrade the uniformed
officers’ vis vis their counterparts in the Armed Forces HQ Civil Service
(AFHQCS).
The service,
another support cadre set up to provide clerical and office supervisory support
in the armed forces headquarters, has now assumed proportions that it was never
intended to in the first place. The letter, which issues with the approval of
the Raksha Mantri, lays down an amended equation between armed forces officers
and the AFHQCS officers wherein the former have been downgraded one step from
the existing level. As per it, a Principal Director is now equated with a Maj
Gen.
Not mentioned in the letter, but as an obvious fallout it would mean that senior clerical staff from the forces posted to headquarters would be working under much junior civilian superintendents. Although the attempted downgradation has no direct impact on pay and allowances, it’s yet another attempt at placing the interests of a cadre over those of the very organisation it was created to serve.
These are but two examples of civilian cadres under the ministry of
defence. Apart from the approximately 15 Lakh uniformed personnel, the ministry
pays a large number of civilians of the defence budget. These are personnel
from departments / organizations like DRDO, Ordnance Factories, Defence
Estates, Defence Accounts, MES and Armed Forces Headquarters staff. As per the
Census of Government Employees 2011 (pdf link), this
figure has grown from 3.65 Lakhs in 2008 to 3.75 Lakhs in 2011.
There has been
virtually no corresponding increase in the strength of the uniformed personnel
in the three services. This represents a substantial number – 25% – vis a vis
the strength of the uniformed forces, and therefore a major chunk of the defence
salary bill. In monetary value this share is disproportionately greater than
25% because of a higher ratio of senior posts amongst this vis à vis the armed
forces. For example, it includes 121 Apex grade / HAG civilian personnel
receiving the highest salaries as compared to 24 at the corresponding grades
(Chiefs / C-in-Cs) in the armed forces.
What began as
measures to prevent diversion of uniformed personnel to non-core functions have
transmogrified into self-perpetuating organisations existing for furthering
their own interests. In order to reduce the ‘flab’ and cut down the salary bill
component of the defence budget, time has therefore come to take a hard look at
all these organisations and cadres and prune them wherever possible.
For example,
bulk of the services provided by the MES can be outsourced to large facilities
management firms at great savings. Similarly, greater integration of service
headquarters with the ministry of defence can ensure replacing large number of
civilian officers and clerical staff.
When the tail
begins to wag the dog, it’s prudent to dock the tail.
(Author Lt Col Rohit Agarwal (Retd) is an Armoured Corps officer
commissioned into 74 Armoured Regiment in 1989. Rohit took premature retirement
from the army in 2010 to pursue writing and consulting.)
(SOURCE - OP INDIA BLOG - http://www.opindia.com/2016/10/armed-forces-vs-civil-services-when-the-tail-wags-the-dog/ )
(SOURCE - OP INDIA BLOG - http://www.opindia.com/2016/10/armed-forces-vs-civil-services-when-the-tail-wags-the-dog/ )
sir,
ReplyDeleteno where low rung non commissioned officers of three forces equation is not found, the equation is only for officers,
we ex army soldiers are categorised under which catalogue
only to serve not to have any honour
Col sahab ram ram,
ReplyDeleteSir writing such details reflects our jealousy and frustration.it is surprising,neither serving nor retired community aggressively questioning the sincerity and sense of integrity of IAS officers of mod working in tandem with IAS offrs of FM and offrs of accts who seem working for vested interest and hostile designs trying to achieve dissension and demoralisation in armed forces.govt of the day have failed to take cognisance of the moves,steps affecting armed forces RT from CPC to recent rank parity are nothing but proned to seek agitation and demoralisation in the officer echlon of the armed forces.who is responsible for it all? We will find IAS.but they are ever questioned by the police executive of the land.now, we should demand arrest and interrogation of the IAS who initiated letters as such and assert to find out whose interest they are serving?
Must be serving in the interest of rough nation
DeleteDiscriminatory treatment of armed forces as compared to the civil servants vis their status and parity has come into the fore in recent times. The opinions expressed by veterans from sepoys to top most officers are clear pointer to the growing resentments prevailing among the armed forces cadre be it among officers or ORs.
ReplyDeleteBecause these opinions come from retired personnel the views expressed must not be considered unimportant nor irrelevant. Due to fear of disciplinary action the serving personnel may not dare indulge in free expression of resentment. Once serving people start doing it the situation may take a turn to an entirely different and very serious proportion.
Hon RM in the meeting of 24 oct expressed his serious concern about the adjectives used against the bureaucracy by ESM community. Hon.RM is right to some extend. Very strong terminology was used by some veterans to describe the bureaucracy. Such derogatory expletives emanated from the frustration undergone due to the apathy shown by the bureaucracy towards their genuine grievances. and It is time now for Mantrijee to make an objective assessment of the actual position. His assessment about these matters, so far, most likely, has been from the inputs from the bureaucracy in his ministry. It is not known if he has consulted Service Chiefs on the contentious issues concerning defence forces.To find a lasting solution he has to take into confidence all stake holders including different ESM organisations along with serving personnel and minimise the dependence on biased bureaucratic advice. No doubt that in order to run the ministry the RM has to abide by the advice given by the Babus working under him; but while dealing with matters concerning serving personnel and veterans the views of the affected must take priority.
Eroded morale of armed forces will result not in glory but in ignominy
Good write-up ,after study of historical records.Facts and issues are clear.
ReplyDeleteA simple question?
ReplyDeleteWhy an armed forces officer was/ is not allowed to appear for civil services entrance exam at public expense?
Simple we the under privileged reach our apex to be consumed but all new joinees in govt service, other than IAS/IFS, including IPS and other AIS, continue to have opportunity of career improvement at public expense and consume.
So OROP is justified, not only for officers but for all at arms in defence.