Differences on perfect definition of OROP : Defence ministry has remained a labyrinth
- not easy to tame: Major Navdeep Singh
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. Many veteran 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 decision-making 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 politically neutral manner rather than pinpricking him all the
time.
Read at:
Times of India Blog
