Q & A - `Differences on perfect definition of OROP ... Defence ministry has remained a labyrinth - not easy to tame'





With political parties trading charges on the suicide of ex-soldier Ram Kishan Grewal on OROP , emotions are running high on both sides. Major Navdeep Singh, advocate in Punjab and Haryana high court, who was a member of the defence minister's committee of experts to review service and pension matters which submitted its report in 2015, talked to Nalin Mehta about the OROP controversy and why the ministry of defence needs urgent reforms:What is the current problem with OROP implementation which could have led to this suicide?
There are conflicting reports about the sad demise of the veteran. Some seem to suggest that he was perturbed about non-release of the approved pension under the OROP scheme by his bank. If that is the case, then it is really unfortunate since that would mean that an amount legally approved by the government was not disbursed to him.
Overall the ministry of defence claims to have disbursed Rs 5,507 crore in two instalments for OROP. Apart from other issues, the problem also seems to be in the distribution mechanism down the chain, particularly at the level of bank branches. This needs to be fixed.
Government is implementing OROP but what about the larger veteran demand that what they have got is one rank many pensions, not one rank one pension?
Various sides have differed upon the perfect definition of OROP. Manyveteran organisations have interpretational differences with OROP as notified, including the periodicity of revision. Then there were serious anomalies in OROP tables which were being looked into by a judicial committee. The committee has submitted its report. I think all sides should hold their horses till this is processed. In case, there still are problems, tackle them through remedies provided under law rather than politicise a sensitive subject. A democracy provides full opportunity to exercise legal rights in case of dissatisfaction. I personally do not agree to an approach of excessive emotional rhetoric which has the propensity of stoking discontent.
What about disability pensions and the controversy on downgrading of status? How does that square with the pedestal armed forces are being put on?
The disability pension controversy was shockingly unfortunate and its origin was the twisted data and a sadistic interpretation provided to the 7th Pay Commission on disabled soldiers. In case disabilities in the defence services are increasing due to a higher stress and strain of military life, the answer is to take steps to check the deteriorating health profile and increase the payouts to compensate loss of health, not to slash disability pensions! Ditto for status issues since such moves are unilaterally imposed and result in deleterious effect on morale.
Chest thumping and governmental downgrading can't go hand in hand.Does government's left hand not know what it is doing?
Irrespective of the party in power, the ministry of defence has remained a labyrinth which is not easy to tame.There are structural problems wherein the defence services or even other stakeholders are not a part of the decision-making process and a one-sided view is provided to the higher layers. There is no opportunity granted to rebut or check the veracity of what is put up to decisionmaking authorities. It is not that one hand does not know what the other is doing, actually one hand does not let the other know what it is doing.
What kind of reforms do we need to fix the problems in MoD?
Two very simple suggestions without tinkering with the basic structure. First, the decision-making should be collegiate: probably by a `Defence Board' chaired by the defence minister with a total of three-five members, with inputs of neutral personalities and experts wherever required.When files move up, these should be referred to all stakeholders for their comments so that nobody is able to hoodwink the decision-makers by mischief. Second, there is no institutional mechanism currently for the political executive to know the pulse of the problems of serving defence personnel and veterans, like there is for civil employees and pensioners. This assumes even higher importance since defence personnel (rightly) cannot form associations. Hence, a participative system akin to the Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM) for civil employees should be constituted to resolve grievances.
Similarly , the government had admirably constituted a standing committee for veterans in October 2014 which was to meet after every three months, but the lower bureaucracy has ensured that not even one meeting has taken place till date. The current defence minister appears to be keen to take the bull by the horns, but all personalities should support him in a politi cally neutral manner rather than pinpricking him all the time.

(Source- toi)

Tragic Suicide   Government needs to fix delivery issues on OROP pensions rollout (Editorial - TOI)

The political war over the tragic suicide of ex-serviceman Ram Kishan Grewal needs to be seen in the right perspective. Grewal ­ who had retired in 2004 after serving in the territorial army and defence security corps over 30 years ­ consumed poison earlier this week, apparently over his disappointment with the implementation of the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme. The issue snowballed into a headline-grabbing row when politicians like Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi and Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal tried to meet Grewal's family but were detained by Delhi police. Meanwhile, government minister VK Singh questioned the circumstances of Grewal's suicide and alleged the armyman was a Congress worker.Let's be clear, government can't be held accountable for individual suicides no matter how unfortunate these are. However, given the circumstances a probe into Grewal's suicide to ascertain what exactly drove him to take the drastic step would be in order. Second, politicians who tried to meet Grewal's family were disrupting workings at two city hospitals. Hence the police were within their rights to ask them to leave. Third, disbursal of new pensions under OROP has already begun. True, a section of ex-service men are still unsatisfied with the payout formula. But government too has its financial constraints and can't increase pensions beyond a point.
But there's a larger governance related issue that needs to be fixed. The Centre has certainly rolled out a plethora of new schemes and the notification of OROP last year is a case in point. But it needs to ensure that these schemes are actually reaching their intended beneficiaries through smooth delivery. Reportedly, Grewal's grievance was receiving less pension than what was expected under the OROP formula. The ministry of defence has sought to put the blame on the local bank branch in Grewal's hometown of Bhiwani for making a calculation error.
But such excuses won't wash with people. This is precisely why delivery of government benefits needs to be made transparent and powered by technology to prevent errors and leakages. Lastly , the Grewal suicide also highlights a problem with government communication. When ministers should speak in one voice and express condolences over the tragic case, we have ruling party netas giving disparate opinions including downright churlish ones.This not only leads to confusion and resentment but also provides a legitimate opening for the opposition.

(Source-TOI)





In a democracy the military should be under political control, but doesn't have to be under bureaucracy's thumb : by AVM Manmohan Bahadur (Retd)

Nov 03 2016 : The Times of India (Hyderabad)   Diwali 2016 is past us, but has raised important issues of civil-military relations which are a challenging task for the political leadership of any democracy . They require that respect be exercised for the professional expertise of both sectors and finesse be the guiding principle in tackling divergence of views and contradictions in ambitions of individuals as well as uniformed and nonuniformed entities. The Indian environment is delicately balanced, with the military being in the news due to the challenging prevalent security milieu.In a very laudable move, Prime Minister Narendra Modi spearheaded the `Sandesh to Soldiers' campaign to convey the nation's love and greetings to our men and women in uniform, in a campaign planned to coincide with Diwali. Unfortunately , one more `sandesh' has gone out ­ of downgrading the equivalence of uniformed personnel vis-à-vis bureaucrats. So, a Major General, who returns from the field after commanding a front line division, would have to first deal with a Principal Director, violating the official warrant of precedence laid down by the government. Whatever be the final decision, the unfortunate message that has gone out, whether true or not, is that the powers that be do not care much for the standing of the military; the outpouring of angst on the social media is proof of the strong sentiments that have been generated. That there is an unhealthy civil-military divide in India is a reality. The Kargil Review Committee was perhaps the first body that acknowledged the expertise and professionalism that uniformed personnel could bring to the workings of the ministry of defence (MoD).Among the major recommendations was one asking for integration of service headquarters in the MoD, thereby making uniformed personnel integral members of the ministry. The outcome has been a perfunctory renaming of service headquarters to a convoluted sounding Integrated Headquarters of MoD (Army Navy Air Force), which too is just in name with no lateral placement of service or civilian personnel having been effected. In fact, bureaucrats are loath to serve under uniformed people as seen by no IAS or IFS officer coming to the Integrated Defence Staff (IDS), even though vacancies exist for them. Post-Independence, a change had to occur in the civil-military relationship in a democracy.That political control has to be exercised over the military is a given. But it is also a requirement that there be political oversight over a healthy interaction between the bureaucracy and the military; unfortunately, civilian control has come about to mean bureaucratic control due to the lack of this vital political involvement. Thus, the deep sense of selfesteem that is ingrained in the Forces, and is the basis for the esprit de corps that motivates a soldier to lay his life on the line, has become a casualty; this is a no go area for a fauji and something very difficult for a bureaucrat to understand, unless he has spent time in uniform, or been exposed to the unique military environment for some time. This can be brought about by taking three basic steps. First, true integration at MoD must be effected, with uniformed personnel tenanting important appointments. Thus, a proposal being mooted by a young Colonel working in the Space Cell of IDS could be routed to a Joint Secretary IAS officer who in turn reports to an Air Marshal or a Vice Admiral working as an Additional Secretary in MoD ­ the Kargil Review Committee recommends just that. Second, within the civilian bureaucracy, a pool of officers specialising in defence matters must be created, so that we do not have the case of first exposure to the military being at the level of defence secretary! And third, the political leadership should consider a more hands-on approach to the running of the defence ministry so that true democratic control is exercised. It is time the government catches the proverbial bull by the horn and applies itself to smoothen civil-military relations. Anomalies lingering from the 6th Pay Commission of 2006 (not to mention the 7th CPC) do not convey a good feeling and there is bad blood about reduction of disability pension.Messages sent on Diwali have a welcome sweetness in them but are transitory; the permanence of professional empathy is the need of the hour. The writer is a retired Air Vice Marshal. Views are personal (Source- TOI)

Political war breaks out after ex-soldier's suicide over OROP :Cops Stop Rahul, Kejriwal From Meeting His Kin





The tragic suicide of retired Armyman Ram Kishan Grewal over the One Rank, One Pension (OROP) scheme on Tuesday led to the eruption of a political war the next day.

Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi was detained twice on Wednesday and Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal found his movement restricted by police when they tried to meet Grewal's family .Twelve of Grewal's family members themselves were detained by police. Grewal's kin claimed the cops beat them up when they emerged from RML Hospital.
What the politicians didn't know was that they had arrived at the wrong hospital. The corpse of the 70-year-old retired subedar wasn't lying at Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, where he had died; it had been moved to Lady Hardinge Ho spital for an autopsy . It was later sent to Bhiwani.
The Delhi CM was still in detention at R K Puram police station for insisting on meeting Grewal's family , while AAP members maintained a vigil outside, when reports last came in on Wednesday night.
Rahul, who was detained first at Mandir Marg and then at Parliament Street police stations, said earlier on Wednesday that the Delhi police action was symbolic of the “undemocratic“ mentality of the Modi government, while Kejriwal accused the PM of “deceit“ and “lies“ on the issue of OROP . Rahul and Kejriwal also al leged that the Delhi police resorted to unprecedented “hooliganism“ in quelling their protests.
Grewal, who belonged to Bhiwani in Haryana, had ingested “Sulfas“, a pesticide, while he and 10 others were returning to Jantar Mantar on Tuesday after failing to meet Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan and defence minister Manohar Parrikar over the non-implementation of OROP .He died later that day at RML Hospital. Congress and AAP leaders said the police action was an assault on democracy and fundamental rights. The BJP , for its part, accused the Congress and AAP of playing politics over the suicide.
“A martyr's family is arrested. This is Modiji's India,“ Rahul said at RML Hospital, adding, “How can you arrest the son and father of a martyr? And if you have not arrested them, then why are you not letting them go?“ “A new India is in the making, you have to identify it.What is happening in India today , you have to identify it.It is a result of their mentality. It is a particular type of mentality . It is an undemocratic type of mentality ,“ Rahul said. Surjewala referred to the day's events as “naked goondaism“ by the Centre.
Kejriwal said: “The PM is lying to the entire country when he claims OROP has been implemented. If it was implemented, why did Ram Kishan commit suicide?“ Central Delhi remained on the boil through Wednesday . The drama began when AAP and Congress members staged a demonstration along with Grewal's family members at the Trauma Centre at RML Hospital on Wednesday morning. The police, after trying for half an hour to convince them to disperse, began to detain them and move them away .This led to more functionaries of both parties rushing to the spot.
Grewal left behind an alleged suicide note on the representation they had prepared to present to ministry officials. In a recorded conversation with his son, Jaswant, Grewal confessed he had consumed two to three “Sulfas“ tablets and that he was a man of principles who would sacrifice his life for his motherland and her soldiers. Police said they had recovered a representation to the defence minister on which, at the bottom, it was written that he was giving his life for his motherland and fellow soldiers.

(Source- toi)





Second Opinion - Second-Class Soldiers : Why our babudom continues to be given preference over our defence services - By Jug Suraiya

A reader writes that according to a government notification issued in September this year the disability pension for soldiers is less than half that of bureaucrats.Our official policy regarding our defence services smacks of double standards. At times of armed confrontation with an adversary ­ as in the case of the recent `surgical strike' following the terrorist attacks in Uri and Pathankot ­ the heroism and the sacrifices made by our defence forces are lauded vociferously by the sarkar.Those who fall in action are hailed as `martyrs' and otherwise eulogised.
However, as and when peace returns it's business as usual, with our men in uniform being short-changed as compared with our babudom.
Why is this, and why is this anomaly being allowed to persist? The job of a soldier is, by definition, far more hazardous than that of a typical bureaucrat.A soldier risks losing his life in the course of carrying out his duties. The most a bureaucrat risks is earning the displeasure of a neta and being given an undesirable transfer, or getting an unfavourable confidential report from his or her immediate boss. A civil service officer has far more social cachet in the matrimonial market than a soldier.
A soldier is seen as a chowkidar hired to deter dacoits and robbers from pillaging the Sethji's house. The bureaucrat is seen as the munimji who is entrusted with supervising the day to day running of the household, which includes the handling of the daily hisab and looking after the personal needs of the Sethji, who is the neta.
The soldier's job is to protect the nation. The babu's job is to protect the interests of the sarkar of the day on pain of being transferred into limbo.
As protecting the interests of the sarkar is deemed more important than protecting the nation ­ which is seen as nothing more or less than the zamindari of our netas ­ it's only natural that the babu be better compensated than the fauji.
The babu will always boss it over the soldier. Until and unless they have a war and no one comes. Who will then man the front line? Our babus and our netas?

(Source- TOI / secondopinion@timesgroup.com http:blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.comjugglebandhi ) 

Neo-liberal Agenda - A Death Knell for the National Military Strategic Affairs - By Atul Bhardwaj

Dear All,

A Revelation, indeed, mind blowing, if true  Modi Govt may be leading the services towards a big disaster to a similar situation that led to the Brtish EAST IND[A COMPANY taking control of India . Indeed very alarming scenario . I am pasting the article in full, as the link allows subscribers only to read in full.

http://www.epw.in/journal/2016/31/strategic-affairs/neo-liberal-agenda.html

Its an excellent write up and an eye opener to various international dynamics and related internal politics leading to the present day strain in the civ Mil relations.

REGARDS,

Col A Sunder Rajan

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

The Indian soldier is in a state of stupor. The civil–military relations in the country are in crisis. The government’s policies are aggravating the situation, alienating the armed forces by lowering their status and salaries in comparison to other arms of the state. Neo-liberal forces are using the crisis as an opportunity to introduce military transformation that would splinter the national military and replace patriotism with profiteering.

The Indian armed forces are in a state of shock. The irony is that the nationalist political party considered most sympathetic to their cause is administering the shock therapy. The expectations of the military on pay and pension have been belied. In 2015, the veterans were forced to take to the streets demanding the implementation of One Rank One Pension (OROP). The government unleashed the police on protesting veterans.

After vacillating on the issue, a distorted version of the OROP was announced in November 2015. Contrary to the accepted understanding of the annual revision and equalisation of pensions, the government fixed equalisation to once in five years. Initially, officers who sought premature retirement after completing the 20-year mandatory pensionable service were precluded from the OROP scheme. Later, the government relented and all officers who had taken premature retirement up to the date of issuance of the government notification were included in the OROP scheme. However, the future premature retirees are denied the OROP benefits.

The deliberate attacks on the dignity of the armed forces did not stop after the OROP fiasco. The latest Seventh Pay Commission award has further enraged the armed forces community. The government has conveniently ignored the long-standing grievance of the armed forces on the issue of “non-functional upgradation” (NFU). The military has once again been denied NFU pay, which is enjoyed by the Group A central services. The military has been deliberately lowered in protocol terms. This reshuffling of the order-of-precedence in the government has aggravated the feeling of alienation among the armed forces. The seething rage is strewn all across social media.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi kickstarted his election campaign with an ex-servicemen rally at Rewari in Haryana on 15 September 2013. After becoming the Prime Minister, Modi has been a mute spectator to the sight of the armed forces lurching from one crisis to another as the bureaucracy imposes cut after cut in pursuit of the holy grail of fiscal prudence.

It is intriguing that the affront to military self-esteem is being spearheaded by the ruling dispensation that claims to be nationalist. Perhaps, there is a larger cause for which Modi is inflicting pain to the armed forces.

Penchant for Neo-liberal Solutions

Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine (2007) helps us understand why the Indian military is being subjected to persistent shocks and continuous crisis. Klein explains how neo-liberalism either uses a crisis or manufactures it to soften the public for radical free-market reforms. Klein bases her argument on Milton Friedman’s theory of “economic shock therapy,” which “advised politicians that immediately after a crisis, they should push through all the painful policies at once, before people could regain their footing” (Democracy Now 2007). The question is, what are these reform ideas “lying around” for which Prime Minister Modi is “inducing regression of the personality” in the national military?

Outsourcing defence functions or handing them over to private military corporations (PMCs) is the big Anglo-Saxon contribution to the post-Cold War disruptive ideas basket. The PMCs go beyond privatisation or 100% foreign direct investment (FDI) in defence manufacturing. This involves the remaking of the national military, splintering it to create a niche for the PMCs to be directly involved in battlefield management. It entails outsourcing defence logistic functions to private contractors, making the “corporate warriors” directly responsible for functions ranging from providing rations to missile maintenance.

In the West, privatising defence functions started immediately after the demise of the Cold War. If Agent Orange is the legacy left behind by the Vietnam war, then the introduction of PMCs to modern warfare is what the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will be remembered for. A couple of years ago, the British government went to the extent of handing over the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) entire defence procurement functions to a private company named GOCO (Economist 2013). The programme was shelved only after it indicated to the world the shape of things to come.

Privatisation of warfare is about handing over critical defence infrastructure to private players. It is about replacing the state insignia from the shoulder-badges on a soldier’s uniform with a corporate label. It is mercenarisation of the profession of arms, shearing off the nobility associated with it. It is about making private corporations consume a large chunk of the defence revenue budget. It is the fruition of this very idea for which Modi is aiming. And, this premeditated design is the cause of the collective trauma experienced by the armed forces.

The process of shaping the discourse on the armed forces revenue budget began immediately after the Modi government took over in 2014. When Arun Jaitley was the defence minister, India Today carried a cover story “Chinks in the Armour” (Unnithan 2014). Besides the usual rants about the tardy process of defence procurement and non-performance of defence public sector units (DPSUs), the newness in the story was the discussion on internal reforms in the fiscal management of the revenue budget of the MoD. It was argued that almost 60% of the ₹2.2 lakh crore defence budget is spent on manpower costs. Citing the MoD finance reports from 2011, the article advanced the logic that there was a wastage of more than ₹5,400 crore each year due to manpower costs involved in defence logistics. It gave the instance of the Army Service Corps (ASC) that “buys food worth ₹2,122 crore but spends ₹1,500 crore on manpower, an acquisition cost of 70%. (Food Corporation of India [FCI] has an acquisition cost of 16%.)” (Unnithan 2014).

Examples of the government’s fiscal mismanagement are often used to begin the privatisation debate. The article did exactly that by comparing the FCI’s acquisition costs with that of the ASC. However, the ASC’s manpower is not just involved in food procurement, it performs many other functions, one of them is being directly involved in disaster relief operations.

The “transformation study” of the Indian Army was initiated by General V K Singh when he was the eastern army commander in 2009. The proposals included setting up of a strategic command, synergising the army’s offensive capabilities, and outsourcing many administrative and logistic functions. This effectively meant retaining the core combat role for the state soldiers and privatising the functions performed by four corps of the army: ASC, ordnance, electronics and mechanical engineer, and engineers.

A pattern of splitting the combatants from non-combatants is apparent in the other recent decisions of the government. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s first major decision was to challenge the Armed Forces Tribunal’s (AFT) decision to strike down the army’s discriminatory promotion policy of 2009 in the Supreme Court. The 2 March 2015 verdict of the AFT ruled that promotions to the rank of colonel were biased in favour of the infantry and artillery. The 2009 policy helped 60% of infantry and artillery lieutenant colonels to become colonels, while reducing the promotion opportunities for officers from other arms and services to below 30%. A group of nearly 200 serving army officers went to the Supreme Court with a plea to uphold the decision of the AFT. The Supreme Court’s verdict, in the beginning of this year, upheld the army’s “command and exit” policy, while making provisions for additional vacancies for the support arms and services. The judgment helped the army headquarters soothe the internal division within the army without making alterations in their promotion policy.

When the OROP agitation was at its peak in 2015, the government came out with figures to prove that the burden of pensions was too huge for the government to bear. It showed that the military pension budget of ₹75,000 crore was higher than the combined budget of the navy and air force. The argument against OROP was that it hampers military modernisation by making less money available for buying equipment from foreign vendors.

Accelerating Military Reforms

In May 2016, the government appointed an 11-member committee under the stewardship of retired Lt Gen D B Shekatkar to suggest pruning of “non-operational flab” of the three services, a euphemism for privatisation and corporatisation of the Indian armed forces. The discourse in the mainstream and social media is largely in favour of the government’s effort to rectify the “teeth to tail ratio” of the army by “downsizing” the 13 lakh strong standing army. The arguments, rooted in neo-liberal ideology, question the very purpose of pensions. The MoD’s annual pension bill, which stands at ₹60,000 crore, is cited as the main reason for reducing the size of the army. The large army—once considered the pride of India—is now an eyesore. Unfortunately, the reverent on-screen attitude towards the soldier vanishes when their pay and pensions come into picture.

Men are dispensable because more money is required to be spent on foreign war-fighting machines. Traces of class bias are evident in the arguments put forth by the supporters of privatisation of the Indian defence forces. A former senior finance official grumbling about the high pension bill writes condescendingly:

The contemporary emphasis is on educated soldiers fighting a technology-driven war with modern gadgets and machinery. The Indian soldier, representing the rural gentry, is semi-educated and deployed in the traditional warfare system (Singh 2016).

A senior defence journalist advocating “root and branch reforms,” nonchalantly writes,

Military salaries and lifetime pensions are paid to legions of ‘combatant tradesmen’ who wash, sweep, cook and cut hair. In an equipment-heavy armoured division, every sixth combatant is a mechanic, performing a role that civilians can discharge more cheaply and better. Other soldiers supply rations, clothing, spare parts and fuel, jobs that most armies have privatised almost entirely. Today, even a waiter in an officers’ mess is a full-time soldier, entitled to pay and pension for life (Shukla 2014).

The underlying ideology in Shukla’s argument is that the government cannot determine salaries and disrupt markets. Soldiers coming from poor backgrounds cannot be paid more than civilians engaged in similar jobs. Such class biases against the opportunities for upward mobility that state-care provides to the marginalised are becoming more pronounced. Paradoxically, nationalists who admiringly share pictures of martyr’s wailing wives and daughters on social media go into mute mode when the son of an army cook is awarded the “Sword of Honour” at the Indian Military Academy.

Bailing Out Bourgeoisie

There are two big reasons for privatising the defence support services. First, to bail out the debt-ridden Indian capitalists. Second, to facilitate the entry of multinational PMCs from the United States (US) and the United Kingdom to Indian shores. The 100% FDI in the defence sector leaves little scope for Indian industrialists to hone their manufacturing skills. The capital expenditure will continue to fatten foreign arms manufacturers. Indian companies that have the capacity to provide support services to combat formations are likely to be the biggest gainers from the downsizing of the armed forces.

The Logistic Support Agreement (LSA) that India is on the verge of the signing with the US will pave the way for foreign PMCs to establish their roots in India. According to David Isenberg, the author of Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq (2009), US military

contractors are also key to the maintenance of CSLs (Collaborative Security Locations), where the US uses a host country’s existing military bases … The contractor rents military facilities from the host nation’s military, and charges a fee for the US military’s use of the facilities (Isenberg 2012).

India suffered for centuries at the hands of the East India Company, an unarmed trading company that metamorphosed into a private military company. We are now laying the ground for fully-armed multinational companies working under the charter of the US government to set up shop in our country. It is indeed a sad commentary on Indian security and strategic studies that there is no informed debate on this important issue of national concern.

The armed forces are the bedrock of statehood. That the forces need to avoid wasteful expenditure cannot be denied. However, to hand over many of their roles and missions to corporations is the ultimate assault on the very idea of the nation state. The right wingers must understand that. privatisation of defence and. nationalism cannot coexist. “You can be a patriot or a profiteer ... But you can’t be both”

(Source- Via Gp e-mail)

PCDA CIRCULAR 570 D/D 31.10.2016 : IMPLEMENTATION OF 7TH CPC RECS ON REV OF PENSION OF PRE-2016 DEF FORCES PENSIONERS W.E.F. 1.1.2016

DEAR ALL VET BROS. 

VERY QUICK ACTION(COPY & PASTE) BY PCDA(P), THOUGH NOT NEEDED.

WHILE COPYING ALSO THEY DID LIKE 10TH STUDENTS COPYING.

BLOGGER

==========================================

(SOURCE- PCDA(P) WEBSITE/AFVAI BLOG)