The Armed Forces get a bad deal from the Pay Commission. Again. Now What?

Everyone in the armed forces is talking about how they've been cheated again in the pay commission and lowered in parity versus the bureaucracy and police forces. Why does this happen again and again in India?

Here's my take on it. Some may find it irreverent (especially to those who see the armed forces as an organization that is way above everything else in the country - almost perfect!), but then, some others may not.

There are conspiracy theories about how the bureaucrats poison the minds of politicians that the Indian Army can stage a coup anytime and so, must always be kept under check. Others say that the armed forces are an epitome of honesty, courage and sacrifice and so bureaucrats are scared because of their own corrupt ways. 

Politicians and ministers (including the prime minister) mouth platitudes about how the armed forces are a pillar of strength to the nation and how much they care about them. That's during election time only. Yet, their money is not where their mouth is. When it comes to compensation, a lower equation with bureaucrats and policemen is considered justifiable.

What does it really mean? Probably that the country does not value the services rendered by the armed forces more than that rendered by its bureaucrats and police forces. I say 'country' because politicians and bureaucrats are a reflection of people's opinions in a democracy. So anyone blaming politicians for the unfair compensation package is indirectly acknowledging that people of the country do not really value their soldiers - they do not really think that soldiers need to be paid as much as policemen or government officials. I say this without any reference to their loyalty and patriotism, (and how people are 'ungrateful' and 'disloyal' to the country if they treat soldiers 'badly') while talking about this whole issue.

Lets try and see this from the economic point of view of supply demand in the market:

Demand. India has not seen a war since 1971. Kargil was more of a blunder and happened because the army was not  doing its job on the LoC well enough (a fact we're not yet ready to accept), in addition to many other factors. The army is huge (1.3 million+ troops and counting) and our generals want even more troops and headquarters every year. Most of the army is involved in quelling discontent (created due to poor governance by the bureaucrats and politicians) or helping the government do its job - essentially standing in for the police or public works and municipal corporations (and recently, for private companies) . No one in the armed forces hierarchy has the courage of conviction to stand up and say that if you use something for a task that it was not meant for, it depreciates in value (more than it would if it was just allowed to exist and do what its supposed to do). But apparently, if there are no wars, you either create wars (an option that India is not capable of) or you use armed forces for whatever else they can be made to do - after all, they're being paid, and for what? (a few of my friends actually asked me this question, betraying their lack of comprehension about how an insurance policy works). 

So reality is, there's  not much (visible) use for the armed forces (and their raison d'être) in India today, like any other country that wants economic development (through low risk of conflict and high political stability, which will positively influence increased investment). Deterrence cannot be measured and therefore does not count towards improving the image of the armed forces (much). Counter Insurgency does not require the army to be deployed, if the police and government were effective. No brownie points for that in the collective conscience of the people (only negative points because some people will definitely identify the army as a repressive arm of the government).  

So overall, medium to low Demand for the armed forces. No one needs them desperately.

Supply. The armed forces want people with low skill sets. Most soldiers are 10th class graduates, who are selected based on physical fitness, more than anything else, and are available in millions across the country. And they're paid more than their counterparts who have equivalent capabilities. I've worked in a recruitment rally where upwards of 40,000 hopefuls landed up for less than a hundred vacancies. 

What about officers? In 2014, more than 240,000 applied for the NDA exam where there are 300 odd vacancies. These applicants are aware of pay and compensation that an armed forces officer is entitled to. And that its not as good an opportunity as the civil and police services. 

People still want to join the armed forces in large numbers, in-spite of knowing the compensation and prospects involved, and the fact that its no longer even close to the status they enjoyed 20, 30 or 40 years ago. But why is there no shortage of applicants? Because the people who would have otherwise wanted to join the forces have moved on (they'll find something better that meets their aspirations and capabilities), and those who still find the armed forces an attractive choice (in relation to their own economic and social conditions) have moved up the line. They will get recruited,because the selection process will adjust itself to ensure a pipeline that replaces those who leave. Either by lowering standards, or better still by creating a new set of standards that caters to the applicant pool (Can you imagine no recruitment because they couldn't find skilled people with the right attributes?!). In any case, there is no shortage of unemployed youth in the country who can be fed into the armed forces really cheaply, whether as officers or soldiers.

So there still is, and will be excess Supply, in-spite of claims that the armed forces are no longer an attractive profession and they're losing their sheen vis a vis other services in the country.

Who is most agitated by the changes in parity with bureaucrats and police forces? Serving and retired officers. Do we hear of a movement among serving or veteran soldiers (who are not officers)? Not really.  Soldiers are participating in the OROP (One Rank One Pension) movement, but its low, compared with the larger population of soldiers and veterans below officer rank in the country. Why?
I would like to imagine that when they compare change in status relative to peers in their society, they're still better placed (compare a retired Naik with his friend who may be working in a small town at a 15,000 salary with no perks or pension), and they look at how their families benefited because they got access to healthcare, canteen facilities and other small benefits that cannot be measured.

Officers who've served twenty years or more (and those who have retired) are most affected, because its their status that's been eroded, in terms of pay and pensions, as well as parity in functioning with their civilian counterparts. The issues are genuine, but the question is,  are they large enough to shake up the system? Maybe not, because those who're serving cannot influence matters effectively, and those retired do not matter either in numbers (mostly officers) or in their capability to influence decisions. Junior officers do not understand the issues completely, and even if they did, their aspirations are already being mostly met.

So what's likely to happen? Status Quo will likely be maintained.

Unless a disruptive change takes place. Like a war. Or veterans joining politics as a homogeneous group and influencing policy in the parliament. Or the government deciding to cut down the armed forces, making it justifiable to pay them well.

Otherwise...

Those serving will continue to do so, those who've retired will continue to agitate and yet accept what they're getting. Because the supply and demand cycle is not likely to be disrupted. There will be a long line of people wanting to join the armed forces- after all they want employment. And the probability of war? Very low as India becomes deeply tied into the world economy and heads towards being a developed country.

Politicians will continue to give lip service to the armed forces. Bureaucrats will continue to rule the country and the armed forces will continue to be eroded in the pecking order (like that hammer you bought when you moved into a new house to drive in the nails, but have no use for anymore. but don't throw away. It just moves from the toolbox to the closet and then into the basement)

This may sound simplistic, but do we need such a huge standing army? Is it possible to pare it down to a realistic size that's manned by well paid, highly motivated officers and men, well equipped and trained to handle conflicts effectively without moving from one bungled(and covered up) operation to another? Maybe. Fact is, this is part of the process of transforming into a developed country that does not have hegemonic aspirations, and by extension, does not need a huge standing army.

But that would mean politicians would have to look at national interest for once, and not their own. Take hard decisions and implement rule of law and good governance by really bringing in good legislation (do we really have to go through new insurgencies that pop up every 5 years and last 20?). Cut down the size of the armed forces, man and train them with the best people (acquired from the 'open market' by paying them at par with any other service in the country, or better - and its possible, if its a smaller, more effective organization), and decide not to use the armed forces to cover up for poor governance and bad diplomacy.

So its a long road to equality for the soldiers....