A Justified Struggle
- Army personnel not oblivious of the economics of OROP, it’s just that they are not allowed to be a part of the decision-making process
- Even the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of army, only to be unimplemented by successive governments
- A soldier should not be fighting his own cause but civil society that acknowledges his role ought to be at the forefront of such a struggle
In a recent article in the Business Standard, Nitin Pai suggested that the armed forces should use economic reasoning while pursuing their quest for One Rank One Pension (OROP). Earlier, he had suggested that land available with cantonments should be surrendered for better facilities that are likely to be available 20 kms away from 20 cities of India which are likely to become smart cities. This, according to him, will be a win-win situation for all concerned.
If good economics were the only solution to solve complex social, national security and environmental problems of a country we would not be faced with paradoxes and dilemmas that need more than economy-led solutions.
To put it succinctly, imagine the surrender of green spaces of Bengaluru cantonment to grey monsters and the resulting chaos caused by pressure on water, power, clean air, a host of other environmental issues including exploding traffic and, most of all, the mafia-politician nexus to make a killing. Pai may argue that he said so at the end of the article. That begs the question.
The suggestion that economic reasoning is preferred to emotional appeal for OROP has some merit, but if there is indeed an agreement on economics of the military, or the famous guns versus butter debate, we would have found one by now.
Government’s Job
Soldiers, while better equipped to understand the economics of national security due to constant upgradation of their knowledge during mid-career and senior-level courses culminating at the National Defence College (NDC), are not meant to justify their existence. It is the duty of the government with all its integral and outsourced expertise that should decide how much is enough for national security.
If Jawaharlal Nehru was alive today he would have admitted that an NDC course in the late 1950s produced a study that China would attack India if our strategic imperatives are not realigned. Krishna Menon, who did not think that we ought to have a military, pooh-poohed it. It is after 1962 that Nehru urgently sought a copy of this study.
It is not that generals, admirals and air marshals do not understand the economics of governing a country. It is that they are not given the opportunity to be a part of decision/strategy making in India.
A Festering Wound
The apparent lassitude and grief seen on the faces of ex-servicemen is not due to lack of trying all available sources of redress of grievance on a number of issues pertaining to their status, pay, allowances, neglected widows, gallantry award winners, neglected war casualties and handicapped personnel. It has taken decades for the Supreme Court to rule in their favour only to be left unimplemented by successive governments.
OROP is but the last straw that broke the camel’s back. A sensitive and sensible government would never fight its own soldiers, on paper, in courts of law, in Parliament and now on the streets. Even the most under-developed but civilised country would have engaged them in productive discussion and apologised for treating them with contempt. We are of course better known globally for cutting our nose to spite our face.
If governments are not sensitive and caring, who in a democracy lends the veterans a helping hand? It is civil society which elects the government. Were civil society to join the agitation for justice as in the case of India Against Corruption, Jantar Mantar would have been an active volcano.
How does civil society punish the government for disregarding the welfare of the soldier? By voting the errant government out of power.
Civil Society Must Lead
If civil society truly adores the soldier, it has to lead the agitation. It is not the soldier who should be fighting his own cause but civil society that acknowledges his role in defending the frontiers of its country – which ought to be fronting such a struggle.
This is not a political battle with one party fighting the other. There is a need for all parties to join the cause of the soldier without hurting him more. There has to be a national outcry without politicising this worthy cause. That is sorely missing today.
Mere lip service by media or occasional, random statements by leaders of civil society is insufficient for the government to expeditiously address a genuine grievance. The reason for this tepid response is because the soldier has not touched the lives of our citizen as it has in some other countries which have lost millions of lives in long-drawn-out wars.
Does that mean that we will recognise the worth of a soldier only when he fights a war? There are means to bring the soldier closer to every citizen. That can be the subject of another debate. For now let us join hands to help the soldier in distress.
“Many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”
(The writer is a former Commander-in-Chief, Southern Naval Command)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)