Burgeoning Military Pension Bill- the need
for practical solutions
There
is a need for ingenious solutions rather than vilification of concepts like
OROP or Disability Pension
Major Navdeep Singh
Defence spending is again in news, and with
it the common censure of the allocation being consumed mostly by pay and
pensions. While we may choose to weigh in with emotional calls of soldierly
pride and sacrifice et al, dispassionately seen the hazard the pay and pension
bill poses is not easy to ignore. But then the solution does not lie in a
maladroit approach of demonising concepts such as ‘One Rank One Pension’ (OROP)
or disability benefits.
The heavy bill and its ascension with every
pay commission is indeed a cause of worry. Though the defence services have
been trying to shed some of their manpower, it is unlikely that this modest
curtailment would result in significant savings.
So what is the solution?
The straight response would be to drastically
expand the concept of Short Service Commission (SSC), making it more attractive
and less exploitative, and also introduce a Short Service Engagement scheme at jawan level with contributory pension,
while concomitantly reducing the permanent staff under the existing defined
pension (OROP) system. This arrangement can result in maintenance of military
strength at the current levels but greatly reduce the pension bill.
Currently, officers are being offered SSC of
10 to 14 years after which they are compulsorily released without any pension,
except those who opt (and are selected) for permanent commission. Previously,
officers were allowed to exit after 5 years. Needless to state, the current
structure leaves them at crossroads without pension or guaranteed employment
almost in middle age with peak family commitments. The way out of the quagmire
is simple. Such SSC officers must be made members of a contributory pension
scheme under the National Pension System (NPS) as is now applicable to civilian
employees. Officers under the Short Service Appointment scheme of Indian Coast
Guard are already members of NPS, denying the same to their military
counterparts is anyway incongruous. There is also a requirement to protect
their status or seniority if they opt for civil government employment after
release. Similarly, there is a need to introduce a Short Service Engagement
scheme for recruitment at lower ranks- individuals who will serve for 10 years
and then released with NPS benefits and “ex-serviceman status”. Obviously,
these Short Service schemes would be voluntary and concurrent to regular
entries which shall continue to be on OROP dispensation. However, gradually the
number of the former may be amplified and the latter reduced.
The establishment would have to find
ingenious, albeit practical and non-exploitative ways, to reduce the bill, and
demonising OROP or disability pensions is not one of them. OROP is mandated by
the Cabinet and was promised by successive governments to cater to the
massively curtailed tenure of defence personnel who start retiring in their
30s. There is no going back on it. The way out is to reduce future OROP
beneficiaries by rationalising permanent staff.
Similarly, the recent furore over disability
pensions was unpleasant. Frequent transfers, regimented lifestyle, curtailment
of freedoms and inability to cater to domestic commitments result in
aggravation of common medical conditions in soldiers, a reality all militaries
face globally. Finding ways to reduce disability benefits is a cloddish
approach which will not curtail the incidence of disability. Rather, the
attempt should be to introduce policies to reduce stress & strain, provide
comfort and succour to soldiers to reduce the prevalence of disability and
consequently disability benefits. It would be imprudent and indeed irrationally
unique for us as a nation to attempt to vilify military disabilities to save
pennies rather than making lives of soldiers better.
Lateral induction of soldiers to other
organisations such as Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) has also been
propagated by successive pay commissions but opposed by the Ministry of Home
Affairs (MHA). Perhaps the reason might be valid to an extent. CAPFs would not
want military veterans parachuting into their ranks and blocking their career
progression. But then there could be a solution by simply raising a separate
organisation of military veterans under the MHA and employ them for duties
configuring with their past expertise or utilize them for national
reconstruction roles or executing government schemes.
The military pension bill is not an unruly
monster, however what is required to tame it is a balanced but determined and
humane political executive, and it seems the current Raksha Mantri might just fit that description.
The
author is a high court lawyer and writes on law, military and public policy.
