One Rank One Pension

With the recent suicide of a veteran of the Indian Army, protesting the delay in implementation of OROP, I will try to explain the meaning of OROP, the background to the agitation and the way forward from here.

One Rank One Pension(OROP) is a long standing demand of the Indian Armed Forces that two soldiers with the same rank and same length of service should draw the same pension, irrespective of when they retired. This opposes the current system, where the pension of an ex serviceman is a function of the salary he drew during his last month of service.

Unlike a civilian government employee who retires at the age of 60, the average length of service of a soldier is much shorter. An ordinary soldier retires after completing 17 years of service. This means that a person who entered the military at the age of 18, is only 35 years at the time of retirement. He still has at least 20 years of family pressures and the requirement for money. Effectively, a jawan who retired in 2000 and is only 50 years old draws a significantly smaller pension than a jawan who retired in 2010, even if they were of the same rank and served the country for an equal amount of time. This is despite both having nearly similar financial requirements.

Due to this, soldiers are forced to take a second profession after retirement. Since military experience is not directly transferable into the civilian world, he is often forced to work for a lesser salary than he would ordinarily draw. In such a situation, pension provides a very important addition to a veteran's salary. However, with the current system, inflation makes the pension insignificant after 10-15 years.

What should also be noted is successive Pay Commissions adjust the salaries of all Government officials depending on price of commodities, and the economy of the country. While a civilian employee reaps the fruits of these Pay Commissions till the age of 60, a soldier's salary is still fixed at rates set by the Pay Commission immediately preceding his retirement.

Another affected demographic is veterans and war widows who are older than 65 years, and have retired from all forms of occupation. They are forced to live on a pension calculated from a salary they drew 30 years ago. To put things in context, the price of Gold(which can be taken as an indicator of the price of other commodities) has increased 10 times in the last 30 years.

The Government on the other hand, has been reluctant to give in to all the demands by the veterans. Primary among these reasons is financial. OROP would greatly increase the burden on the exchequer and would lead to a significant increase in the Military Budget.

Now, let's look into some background behind the demands for OROP.

The early demands for OROP date back to the 1970s. In 1973, two years after the 1971 war, Indira Gandhi in a move to reduce the influence of the Armed Forces reduced Defence pension by 20-40 percent. This was done by a Pay Commission with ZERO representation of the Armed Forces. Again, and I can't stress this enough - This was only 2 years after the Army gave India its finest military victory ever. In 1986, under Rajiv Gandhi, the Basic Pay of Armed Forces personnel were further reduced relative to the pay scales of Police personnel.

In 2008, the Sixth Pay Commission was enacted, with new pay bands which effectively debased Army ranks by one pay band versus police personnel. There have been a large number of similar decisions in successive Pay Commissions which have reduced the salaries and allowances of the Armed Forces versus civilian government employees. For context, an IAS officer posted in Guwahati draws a larger Tough Area Allowance than an Army officer posted at the Siachen Glacier. Further, OROP was granted to Senior civil servants and police officers.

Following the 6th Pay Commission, the Armed Forces (both serving and veteran) feel cheated and this has led to a fair amount of resentment towards the government. One Rank One Pension has served as a flag under which the Armed Forces have united to stand up against this perceived step motherly treatment being meted out to the Army.

It is important to note, that for the Fauji, this is no longer only a matter of money, but also symbolic of honour and respect. Granting OROP will go a LONG way in re-assuring the soldier that he isn't being taken for granted.

Now let's get to reactions from the Government's side. The UPA Government in 2011 set up the Koshyari Committee to look at the merits and demerits of OROP. The committee came out in favour of OROP and gave recommendations which were acceptable to both the Government and Veterans. However, the Congress government was very slow to reach out to ex-servicemen and by 2014, no real headway had been made.

The 2014 election saw a large number of serving Armed Forces personnel vote for the first time. This led to a lot of noise from both the UPA and the NDA promising OROP(it was there in both manifestos). It is worth noting though, that 10 years of UPA government before this had only seen further degradation of the status of the Armed Forces.

While the NDA Government made many promises and Modi made grand speeches during the campaign to the election, there was no action for a long time. In 2015, ex-servicemen associations started wide spread protests against this delay in implementing OROP. Jantar Mantar became the focal point of these protests with hunger strikes by ex servicemen. Four former Army Chiefs also joined in these protests. These protests have been completely peaceful, and devoid of any rioting, naarebaazi or violence associated with protests.

The government reacted in an EXTREMELY shameful manner. Ex servicemen were manhandled, beaten up and lathi charged. Veterans with more than 20 years of service were assaulted and arrested by policemen.

In April 2015, the Government finally announced OROP, but greatly diluting the demands of the veterans. For example, soldiers who had opted for voluntary retirement were not to reap the benefits for OROP. (A RETARDED decision for reasons I list out here). Coming under intense pressure, the government did announce a classic political u-turn promising benefits to soldiers who retired prematurely. It also announced some sort of timeline for the rollout of the scheme.

This announcement was largely publicised by the media and BJP supporters as giving the Army its due. However, veterans are still highly unhappy since the Government has released OROP in a diluted form, going against the recommendations of the Koshyari Committee(remember the committee in 2011 which I mentioned). While the Armed Forces want revision of pensions to happen every year, the government wants to do this only every 5 years. The provisions for servicemen who retire prematurely also remains a bone of contention.

Another important area of disagreement is the pension which would be given. While veterans say that the most recent salary should be fixed for pensions across the board, the government wants to fix an average of the maximum and minimum for a rank to be the pension for all soldiers.

Apart from this, there have been large delays in the implementation of OROP with a large number of veterans still not getting the updated pensions. This has caused the protests to not just continue, but also intensify because veterans feel the Government has only side stepped the issue without truly addressing it. And has fooled the country into believing it has given the veterans their due.

This brings us to the suicide of Ram Kishan Grewal. An ex-serviceman with 28 years of service to the Indian Army, Grewal committed suicide alleging the delays and dilution of OROP as the reason.

Sadly, this has been converted into a political and media circus. Rahul Gandhi has come out in support of Grewal and OROP. (Rahul Gandhi is the same person whose grandmother removed OROP, and whose father further diluted the status of veterans). Kejriwal has gone for the typical media circus which he's best at. General VK Singh has gone on to question the ex soldier's mental state, showing his links to the Congress.

While this suicide has brought the issue back into public attention, the current debate has digressed from the core issues. While these protests may have OROP as their face, they are symbolic of the Armed Forces standing up for what they perceive to their rights. The soldier feels slighted by the bureaucracy and the politicians, and is finally demanding the respect he feels he deserves.

The government on the other hand, has financial constraints it needs to look into. Along with that, committees such as the Pay Commission are comprised of Civil Servants who see the implementation of OROP as a reduction in their influence and power, in comparison to the Armed Forces.

It is high time the Government works out a solution to this problem where the Soldier get to keep his self respect. The following thoughts need to be kept in mind:

1. For the Armed Forces, retention of OROP for soldiers who retire prematurely is sacrosanct. An announcement of this would go a long way in calming the veteran's anger.
2. This is a highly emotional issue for the soldier, and needs to be dealt with a lot of emotional maturity on the part of the government. Veterans need to be assured that OROP is a matter of importance to the government.
3. While lip service is in its own place, it needs to be followed up by action. A partial and immediate rollout of some of the arrears due to ex servicemen would show the government's intent.
4. While the government has fiscal pressures, merely saying "financial issues" is not enough. Possibly making figures public would allay some of the veteran's fears.
5. Veterans also need to take a more mature approach and leave a little more room for negotiation.

The more the government delays OROP, the more the morale of the Armed Forces fall. The falling status of the Armed Forces has led to a commensurate reduction in quality and number of aspirants for the Armed Forces. Our Army faces shortages in junior ranks, and unless the Armed Forces are promised they will be looked after, both financially and in terms of "respect" and "honour", this is only going to increase.

Jai Hind.

Kashmir!

In the last few days, every Indian news channel has been dominated by one common theme – Uri, the Surgical Strikes and their further ramifications(I've written more on that here). This has also led a lot of people to question the cause of all this – Kashmir! In this post, I will attempt to explain the Kashmir problem, and its possible solutions.

Now, to truly understand the Kashmir problem, we need to delve a little into history. In the early 1800s, Kashmir was a Muslim dominated state under Afghan rule. Centuries of relative isolation had given Kashmir a unique culture – Kashmiriyat. Jammu fell under the rule of Ranjit Singh, a Sikh. In around 1819, the Kashmir Valley was captured by Ranjit Singh. This was followed by the capture of Ladakh and Baltistan. Ranjit Singh gave control of Jammu and Kashmir valley to Gulab Singh, a Dogra.

After the First War of Independence in 1857, the areas ruled by Gulab Singh became the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir. Now, this princely state comprised of the areas of Jammu with a Hindu majority, Kashmir with a majority of Sunni Muslims and Ladakh with a Buddhist majority along with the relatively inaccessible areas of Baltistan and Gilgit.

At the time of independence, India was partitioned into two countries – A Muslim Pakistan and a Secular India. Every princely state was given an option – To join India, to join Pakistan or to remain Independent. The state of Jammu and Kashmir had a Muslim majority with a Hindu ruler. The NationalConference(the primary political party in the state) headed by Sheikh Abdullah voted in favour of acceding to India. However, Maharaja Hari Singh decided to remain independent. At this time, Jawaharlal Nehru first recommended a plebiscite in the state.

In late 1947, tribals from Pakistani areas of Balochistan and NWFP(North West Frontier Province), commanded by Pakistani officers and soldiers, invaded Kashmir in an attempt to capture the state for Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh acceded to India in October 1947. The Indian Army was air lifted to Srinagar and tasked to defend the valley. Pakistani forces were stopped kilometers away from Srinagar and pushed back towards Pakistan. The war went on till late 1948, and when India secured the upper hand militarily, Nehru went to the United Nations who mandated a ceasefire and declared the need for a plebiscite. Both countries were told to maintain a Status Quo at their current location, with Pakistan illegally controlling certain certain areas – Pakistan occupied Kashmir(PoK).

The United Nations set up the UN Commission for India andPakistan(UNCIP) in 1949, and were tasked to oversee a plebiscite. The terms of the plebiscite stated that Pakistan should withdraw from the princely state and India should maintain only the minimum necessary military to secure the border. Both countries refused to withdraw first, fearing the other would take advantage of the situation. Sadly, there was no plebiscite.

Now, the concept of a plebiscite seems simple – the people of the state vote for India, Pakistan or Independence. Sadly, this is much more complicated in Kashmir. This complication is due to the fact that the state consists of 3 artificially joined entities which not only have significant cultural differences from each other but also from India or Pakistan. Jammu, has a Hindu majority and economic and culturally similarities with Punjab. Kashmir and Baltistan, due to their relative inaccessibility have developed individual cultures. A majority of Kashmir follows Sunni Islam while Baltistan is largely Shia. Ladakh is a Buddhist dominated region having more cultural similarities with Tibet. Ladakh is also accessible only through the Zojila pass which goes through Kashmir. Of these Kashmir is the largest area by population.

Sadly, the details of the plebiscite have posed several unanswerable questions – Whether the state should be taken as a whole, as 3 separate entities or on a district to district basis? If the state is taken as a whole and decides to join Pakistan, would the interests of Buddhists in Ladakh and Hindus in Jammu be protected? If separate entities are taken, how would Ladakh be connected to the rest of the world if it votes differently from Kashmir?

While these problems were yet to be worked out, the first elections were held in the state, where the National Conference(which had previously voted to join India) won an overwhelming majority. Kashmir was granted autonomy under article 370, and India was to control only Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications in the state.

In the mid 1950s, Kashmir was declared as an integral part of India both by the State government and the Central Government. From then onwards, India has attempted to reduce the autonomy given to the state of Jammu and Kashmir and integrate it further into the rest of the country. However, this has faced opposition from the people of Kashmir, who have been campaigning for greater autonomy and/or independence from both countries.

The situation is further complicated by China. China claims various parts of India such as Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh as its own saying these areas owe greater cultural similarity to China than to India. Two areas of Kashmir hold particular importance to the Chinese – Aksai Chin and the TransKarakoram Tract. Aksai Chin connects the Xinjiang province to Tibet, and the Trans Karakoram Tract gives China a direct land route to its long time ally Pakistan. Both of these were captured illegally by them during the 1962 war.

Since the 1960s, India and Pakistan have both claimed J&K, terming the area controlled by the other as illegal. Kashmir on the other hand, has alternated between periods of stability and discontent. The discontent has been headed by separatist leaders who feel Kashmiri interests are not well looked after in India. These separatists have been funded and supported by Pakistan, who have used this as a means to weaken Indian presence in the state.  

Following the 1971 war(where Pakistan were comprehensively defeated), India and Pakistan signed the Shimla agreement where the status quo was given more legitimacy and the areas controlled by the individual countries was declared the Line of Control(LoC). Since then, India has used this agreement as a foundation to achieve further peace, insisting on solving the issue bilaterally.

In the 1980s, Afghanistan was controlled by the SovietUnion. This was opposed by the Americans who funded the Taliban and other Afghani militants, through Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, Pakistan and the ISI used these militants as a weapon against India in Kashmir. This started among the darkest periods for Kashmir.

The elections of 1987 were disputed, and Pakistan used this as an opportunity to flood the Kashmir valley with militants whom they claimed were part of an indigenous uprising. They also supported fundamentalist and separatist leaders in the state. Mosques in the valley issued directives that non Muslims would have to convert to Islam or be killed. This led to large scale attacks onKashmiri pundits, forcing their exodus from Kashmir. There were also a large number of attacks against government institutions and mass protests.

The Indian Government reacted by sending in the CRPF and other police forces. When they failed, the Army was brought in and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act(AFSPA) was passed. The AFSPA gives the military powers to destroy terrorist camps, enter any suspected terrorist hideout and arrest people without a warrant. Further, the army enjoys legal immunity for the same. The 1990s were characterized by violence from both sides, with Pakistan providing arms and training to the militants. Many Kashmiri youth crossed into Pakistan, where they trained and then returned to the valley. Logistics for this were handled by the Pakistani army. There were also Human Rights Violations from both sides and this period led to a collapse in industry in the state which in turn led to more unemployment and more militancy. The Army, being inexperienced and untrained in a Counter-Insurgency role, was often guilty of using more force than necessary, escalating tensions in the region.

In 1999, Pakistan used this insurgency to start the Kargil War. They sent soldiers of the Pakistani Army to occupy areas of Kargil and Dras in the winter. These soldiers were dressed as Kashmiri militia, although they carried Pakistani army weapons and Identity cards. The Indian Army defeated these intruders and pushed them back into PoK by July 1999.

Following the war, the Indian Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee issued a change in Indian Policy towards Kashmir promising “insaniyat, jamhooriyat, Kashmiriyat” – Dealing with the militants in a humane manner while guaranteeing Kashmir its individual identity. The last 15 years have seen attempts by India to de-escalate tensions in the valley. Despite the border in Kashmir being highly porous due to terrain, the Indian Army has effectively reduced cross-border militancy to a fraction of what it was in the 1990s. There have also been attempts to win back the trust of the Kashmiri people with the “Sadbhavana” mission, where the Army has engaged in building of schools or providing medical aid in remote villages. Indian efforts in the recent years seem to be successful with large voter turnouts in recent elections, despite separatist calls for boycott.

As can be seen, the Kashmir problem has no easy solution. Both India and Pakistan claim the state as an integral part of their own countries. The areas of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh have different expectations and while Jammu and Ladakh are largely quiet, Kashmir still remains restive. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is largely undeveloped and largely ignored in all discussions on Kashmir. Pakistan cannot give up on its claim to the state because it would lead to a massive loss of morale in the country, which could fragment an already dis-united nation. India cannot give up its claim, because it would lead to a massive loss of face for the government followed by a lifetime in political wilderness for everyone involved. The people of Kashmir continue their demands for autonomy out of fear their Kashmiri identity and culture will be compromised.

PERSONAL OPINION – The Kashmir problem has been a major drain on national resources for the last 60 years. Money which should have been spent on increasing infrastructure in the state has to be spent on repairing roads and buildings destroyed by militants. The number of people who have been killed in the valley, both civilians and soldiers, is appalling. It is high time we come up with a more mature and less egoistic approach to the problem. In my opinion, the following steps need to be taken:

1. Accepting the Line of Control between India and Pakistan as the International Border. There is no possible way PoK can become a part of India without Pakistan collapsing into itself. If 60 years and 3 wars haven’t led to a plebiscite, it is not going to be possible to negotiate terms for one now.
2. An independent Kashmir is unlikely to survive as a country in the long run. With industry and communication largely dependent on India, it is difficult for an independent, land-locked state to survive economically. Also, no Indian government is going to survive such an action politically.
3. Efforts must be made to bring separatist tendencies in the state into the main stream. This has been attempted in recent years and has met with limited success with the Hurriyat participating in the elections. Article 370, granting special status to Kashmir must be maintained for now to show the people of Kashmir our commitment to their individuality and well being. However, in the long term, there should be efforts to better integrate the state with the rest of the country through increasing communication and educational influences.
4. The army must continue the Sadbhavana missions and attempt to win back the trust lost by the security forces in the 1980s and 1990s. Counter insurgency needs to be transferred to the J&K Police. While AFSPA needs to be revoked, this should be done district by district and only after the militant threat in the area has been sufficiently curbed.
5. Industry in the region needs to be developed. Employment is the only effective counter to militancy and the Tourism industry needs to be focused on.

The loss of life in Kashmir is truly depressing and it is imperative we come up with a solution to this at the earliest.

Jai Hind.

Uri, Diplomacy and Surgical Strikes.

With the DGMO's(Director General of Military Operations, a really senior Army officer) announcement of the Indian Army launching surgical strikes against terrorist launching pads across the Line of Control, I think we have seen among the strongest responses by India to Pakistani aggression in the recent past. In this piece, I will try to explain this decision, and its possible outcomes.

On 20th September, 2016, a number of terrorists attacked an Indian Army Brigade Headquarters(HQ) in Uri, in the Baramulla district of Kashmir. These terrorists were well trained and well equipped, and caused 18 Indian casualties before they were killed. The Jaish-e-Mohammad(JEM) took responsibility for the attack, an organization which is supported and funded by the ISI, a part of the Pakistani Army. Now, Pakistan has been using terrorism as a weapon against India for decades in an attempt to de-stabilize the Indian presence in Kashmir as well as to reduce the effectiveness of the Indian Army.

From 2004 to 2014, India faced various terrorist attacks under the Manmohan Singh led government including the 26/11 carnage in Mumbai in 2008. However, the Indian response was always muted and diplomatic. Even following the Mumbai attacks in 2008, the governmental response was purely diplomatic and no real action was taken against the accused. Hafiz Saeed, the mastermind of the attack, still enjoys immunity in Pakistan(and makes anti-India speeches).

Narendra Modi, during the 2014 election, promised stronger action against terrorism. However, he has been accused of doing nothing following the Pathankot attacks of January 2016.
The Uri attacks had been dealt with on a diplomatic front till yesterday(28th September). Sushma Swaraj has spoken out strongly against Pakistan at the UN General Assembly where she not only raised the issue of the cross border terrorism but also atrocities committed by Pakistan in Balochistan. India also withdrew from the SAARC summit to be held in Islamabad. Pakistan has faced a limited amount of diplomatic isolation with the SAARC summit facing cancellation. A bill has been tabled in the US Congress to label Pakistan a terrorist state.

Most notably, the DGMO today announced that the Indian Army has launched surgical strikes against terrorist launch pads in Pakistan. Reports suggest 5-7 sites have been attacked and burnt to the ground, some which are 3-5 Km inside Pakistani territory. This is the first time in more than 2 decades that such a high ranking officer has openly admitted to India crossing the Line of Control. This is also among the very rare times India has opted for a military solution in the recent past.

Pakistan has reacted in confusion to this. The Pakistani military claims no such attack happened. However, their Defense Minister has admitted to the death of 2 soldiers, and 9 others suffering casualties. Pakistan has a tendency to under-represent their losses and we can expect the real figures to be much higher. Nawaz Sharif, the Paki Prime Minister has come out and condemned India, calling the attack "Naked aggression".

Now, what happens after this attack remains to be seen, however there are a few major take backs from the surgical strikes, the DGMO's statement and the reaction following the same.

1. The Indian Army crossing the LoC, and admitting to it sets a precedent. This is a direct challenge to Pakistan saying "You hit us, we hit you back." Although unlikely to cause any major change in Pakistani policy immediately, it does seem to be bringing the fight to the ordinary Pakistani soldier for the first time. Also indicating to Pakistan that it has crossed a line and the Indian Army is ready to apply a military solution.
2. Attacking the terror launching sites in itself is not very significant tactically, considering it will only hamper the militants for a limited time period.
3. India has cleared out villages which are up to 10Km from the border in Punjab. This shows India is expecting some amount of retaliation from Pakistan, and is indicating to Pakistan that this retaliation is expected and we are prepared for it.
4. There seems to be a major shift in the policy towards terrorist attacks, with the Army being given a freer hand at dealing with enemy aggression. This is likely to bolster the morale in the Armed Forces, at least for a short term.
5. Diplomatically, Pakistan has reduced its available options significantly by denying the Indian attack. We can expect the Indian government to continue applying pressure diplomatically. Chinese and American reaction to this will be very interesting.
6. Politically, this seems like a master-stroke. The government has not only silenced critics demanding more action, but also been supported by the CPI and the Congress. With UP going to polls in 2017, this move will definitely win the party some favour.

A major fear at this point however, is escalation of the conflict. Both India and Pakistan cannot really afford a war at this point, and official statements from India suggest that the government does not plan on further escalation. The DGMO stated that we do not plan on more attacks like this in the near future. Even Modi has spoken about going to war against poverty and illiteracy first. Pakistan, having denied the attack will find it difficult to justify a significant escalation. However, one can expect an increase in ceasefire violations as well as diplomatic moves like cancelling the Most Favoured Nation status and/or other trade agreements by both countries.(The Retreat ceremony at Wagah stands cancelled).

On the whole, I congratulate the government and the Indian Army on carrying out a long overdue operation.