Rebuttal by
Lt Gen BPS Mander (Retd)

There is a very peculiar syndrome in India that when you excel in one
field, you tend to believe that you have become in an expert in all.
That is precisely Chetan Bhagat’s problem. Writing fiction, which he
does well, is far removed from delving in facts and reality. While in
fiction, the only limits are your own imagination, the latter requires
attention and analysis of hard boiled facts which is not everyone’s
cup of tea. OROP can never be analysed with the ‘heart’, and it never
was; so let us desist from throwing red herrings into a smouldering
pot.

Let me kill this point first. Whoever has spread this canard that the
Army is asking for OROP because it ‘guards the borders and so it
should get what it wants’, has reached the nadir of thought. Nobody is
asking you to follow the ‘Army good, politician bad’ argument. It is
invention of an empty mind and just goes to show that the concept of
OROP has not been understood at all. Please recall the manner in which
the defence forces have been short changed from independence to now,
not only in finances, but in stature; and then say what you have to.
Then also, sit and compare the NFUs and self fattening doles of the
bureaucracy, not to mention the perfidious insertions in the CPCs
recommendations; before making any such insinuations.

The second point is about the BSF and others who also guard the
borders. We have no issue with them, as they are sister organizations.
But this comparison must cease forever, because apart from the
retirement age, there is a major factor which sets the armed forces
apart. The Armed forces can take over their role, but they can never
take over the role of the armed forces.

Also if there is a desire to give the OROP to paramilitary forces and
police, for some unfathomable reason, please do so. We are not in
competition with them. Or give us the same conditions of service as
the PMF, where the defence soldier also retires at sixty. Let an
ageing Army handle your country and see if it passes muster in the
National Security Council.

Then there are two points that appear innocuously inserted in the
article but have far reaching consequences. The first is this stuff
about ‘whether to pay the veterans more to pay the new hires more’.
This actually presupposes that a person in service will continue to
serve in perpetuity and never retire. A serving soldier of today is a
veteran of tomorrow; so what is applicable to the veteran of today is
applicable to serving as well, albeit with a time delay.
And to ask whether to pay the officer more or the jawan more smacks of
a mischievous intent. Everyone knows that the pay scales are on a
sliding scale of rank, so relationship between these cannot be
divorced from each other. Is there an intent to drive a wedge between
the soldier and the officer class? The results will be disastrous,
even if it remotely comes to someone’s mind. The subject is best left
at that.

The next is that the Army ‘intrinsically believes in the concept of
rank and even allows one to keep it after retirement’. Let me give you
a back ground to the Army ranks. Military ranks like ‘Colonel’ etc are
authorised military titles as mentioned in the Article 18 of our
constitution. These military titles are unique and have been given an
exceptional status in the Constitution which says ‘Abolition of
titles. No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall
be conferred by the State.’

And here is the reason for it. Commissioned officers are given these
titles because in exceptional circumstances they are delegated certain
judicial, executive, and operational powers which in normal course is
vested with the President. These are:-
(

a) Confirmation and execution of death sentences in times of
war without any reference to the president for all accused so
sentenced under military law.
(

b) Establishing government in occupied and captured
territories where the authority of constitution of India does not
exist.
(

c) Govern the areas under martial law where the writ of the
civil government has ceased to run.
(

d) Provide leadership and mange wars in a physical space
falling outside of the jurisdiction of Indian Constitution.

The last point is about the financial effect and affordability by the
government. There is a mention of ‘many sectors don’t even have
pensions’. Yes they don’t. Because they have a eight hour job. They
have overtime. They retire at 60. They sleep at home. They don’t have
field areas. Their service conditions are friendly. It is an endless
list. Pension is a security that, if you give your youth to the
nation, the latter will look after you in your ageing years. Don’t ask
this question from the defence forces; ask this to those who
ironically are having the best of two worlds.

Then let me go back in history. I am sure that all are familiar with
the fact that at the time of independence, the then honourable PM Shri
Nehru appealed to the military to accept reduction in their
compensation including pension, as poor Government of India couldn’t
pay them that high salary with their stressed revenue collections.
Military accepted the reduction showing true commitment to democracy,
freedom and national development. But somehow the campaign of
reduction of comparative compensation packages to military, which
started as one time measure, is still continuing as a practice.
It will be out of place to recount the kind of government expenses
that are taking place and how little this amount of OROP is in terms
of percentage; especially when it amounts to paying dues that should
not have been taken away in the first place.

And I end, in good humour, requesting everyone not to fire these
skewed arrows at us. If there is a problem, we are open to debate,
provided it is one on one, and live on TV.
‘Tirchi nazron se naa maaro aashike dilgeer ko,
Kaise teer andaaz ho, seedha to karlo teer ko’
( Don’t shoot obliquely from a position of advantage. At least have
the confidence to confront head on )