My op-ed/analysis for the DNA:
Beyond
the ‘machine’- Hope from the new
Raksha Mantri
Raksha Mantri
Navdeep Singh
The appointment of Nirmala
Sitharaman as the Raksha Mantri was welcomed by all. Though a lot has been said
about the procurement of the machine,
not much thought is spared for the men and women behind that machine.
Beyond issues such as acquisition
that appear glamorous for the world to write upon, it is also the human
capital, personnel policies and mechanisms of redressal of grievances under the
Ministry of Defence and the military which require focus, and these, softly
put, need a refit. The last full time Raksha Mantri, Mr Manohar Parrikar, made
genuine efforts in taming this unruly horse and there is no doubt Ms
Sitharaman, known to be a hardworking, upright and sensitised personality,
would now carry the work forward. Sensing opportunity at the non-availability
of the political executive at the helm after Parrikar’s departure, the system
had reverted back to its much cherished status
quoist attitude. Mr Parrikar had constituted independent Committees of
Experts comprising apolitical specialists rendering pro bono inputs, of one this author too was a part, to look into
long pending issues plaguing the Ministry and the military, but despite the
acceptance of many important and path-breaking recommendations, the Ministry is
yet to issue implementation instructions.
Let us enumerate a few
issues requiring attention.
Litigation
At one time, not so much in
the past, more than ninety percent of appeals pending in the Supreme Court filed
by the Ministry of Defence pertained to challenges to disability benefits
granted by Courts and Tribunals to disabled soldiers. Most of the other litigation
also comprises pensionary issues pertaining to old soldiers and military
widows. Strange are the ways of the Ministry which challenges orders of Courts
at times amounting to a few hundred rupees of benefits to disabled soldiers
till the highest court of the land despite the law being well settled by
Constitutional Courts. In fact, stress and strain of military service is
universally known to aggravate even regular medical conditions such as
hypertension and heart disease thereby adversely affecting the health profile
and longevity of soldiers and the same is also recognized by the applicable
rules. But accountants and financial authorities of the Ministry feel that
soldiers should not be compensated for their health conditions since many such
disabilities occur in civil life too. What they however forget in the bargain
is that living away from the family for most part of the year, inability to
attend to domestic commitments, a highly regimented lifestyle with curbs on
freedoms that other citizens take for granted, are aspects unique to the military,
and which, even by the admission of successive Raksha Mantris, lead to additional
stress and strain. This Ministry must be the only one where consecutive Supreme
Court decisions on the subject, rules, directions of Ministers, opinions of
apex military medical bodies, recommendations of High Level Committees et al have had no effect and the show is
run by a motley crew of accountants, financial wizards and mischief by certain
file-noting initiators.
Personnel
Policies
Along with pensionary
policies, the personnel stratagems of the military also need a revisit. Though
over past few years the rigidity of thought in the military has shown a decline
and it has become less inward looking, a humungous task lies ahead to improve
satisfaction level in this very important department. Affected parties need to be
consulted in policy-making after a holistic and scientific analysis and these
cannot be imposed in a ham-handed manner based on the whims or opinions of a
select few. Such an approach has led to massive litigation, discontentment and
administrative chaos in the past which then reflects upon the working
relationship of the various cogs in the wheel. Similarly, the military needs to
look within and acquire a more open, pragmatic, fair and progressive approach
in grievance redressal. It’s an open secret that most of the serious
representations (statutory and non-statutory complaints) are not decided within
the prescribed period of 6 months unless strings are pulled. In a primitive
system, the decision makers seek comments on such representations from those
very authorities who are complained against. The recommendations of the Committee
of Experts for faster redressal and an opportunity of hearing or personal interaction
of the aggrieved party with the competent authority before taking the decision
and also for making the process objective by decentralizing certain power
centres, were accepted in principle by the Raksha Mantri in August 2016 with
directions to issue implementation instructions in 45 days, but the files have
been put in such an orbit that the execution till date remains elusive.
Decision
Making
With an incisive mind now
occupying the chair, one would also expect a more balanced decision-making
process. Having dealt with it closely, this author would suggest that the
higher bureaucracy and political executive must not blindly rely on any
developing coterie or one-way file notings since the same are drafted in a
manner so as to extract a particular kind of response- the kind of response
that the file initiator in the lower bureaucracy wants. Hence, the decision
making process needs to be collegiate wherein inputs and views of all are taken
in a real-time manner and wherein those who have commented upon a particular
issue on file can be confronted by stakeholders. Also, it is very much necessary
to interact with the affected parties in important administrative, personnel,
welfare and pension related subjects to have a well-rounded view.
The Raksha Mantri has given
hope to many. Interestingly, the situation today is that while the Minister at
the helm of this large Ministry remains accessible and replies to emails and
tweets, just the opposite attitude is at display at the lower but cutting edge
public-dealing level. The biggest positive change that many like us would
perceive and hope for in the near future is that the system would now run as
per the will of the political executive and not the short-sighted personal opinion
of someone wielding a damaging pen, sitting in a non descript corner in the
South Block.
Major
Navdeep Singh is a lawyer at the Punjab & Haryana High Court and was the
founding President of the Armed Forces Tribunal Bar Association. He writes on
issues related to law, military and public policy.
