Promoting Hidden Agendas

Recently, a group of retired civil servants, under the banner of an organisation called the Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG), released a statement in the public domain, expressing “deep concern at the assault on the Rule of Law in India and on its citizens’ rights to free speech and dissent”. The statement was purportedly signed by 99 of them, or at least their consent was presumably obtained to affix their name to this document. By itself, this was a non-event, as the nation is used to such shenanigans by groups who make a visible pretence of speaking for the poor and the dispossessed, but in actual fact advance an agenda which is far removed from such noble motives. However, as all of the signatories have served in government, and some among them have held positions of great power and authority within the country, the intent and motive of putting out such a statement needs to be deliberated upon.

The signatories to the statement wrote and I quote, “The rights to Freedom of Speech & Expression, Freedom of Assembly and the like, guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution, are a corrective to the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged across the axes of income, gender, religion, caste and community. To uphold the rule of law and enforce the rights to freedoms, the judiciary must be the vigilant sentinel guarding the values of constitutional propriety”. That was simply stating the obvious. But after uttering such pious sentiments, the authors seem to have gone astray and focussed their energy, not in alleviating the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged, but in promoting the cause of those forces which are hell-bent on destroying the very soul—the very fabric and integrity of India.

A curious omission that these authors made while referring to Article 19 (1) and its sub clauses was in ignoring Article 19 (2), which places restrictions on Article 19 (1). The said restrictions came about as a result of an amendment to the Constitution in 1951—The First Amendment—done under the aegis of India’s first prime minister, Mr JL Nehru. Article 19 (2) places limits on the exercise of Article 19 (1) by explicitly stating that nothing in the sub clauses of Article 19 (1), shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, insofar as such law imposes reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clauses, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Why did the group of 99 indulge in such sleight of hand? As we go through the contents of the statement, it becomes increasingly evident that the group was speaking, not on behalf of the poor and marginalised sections of society, but for a specific constituency within India, which, while professing and eulogising the democratic structure of India, uses those very tools of freedom to undermine the nation and seek its disintegration. The authors apparently had little desire to use their statement as “a corrective to the plight of the poor and the disadvantaged across the axes of income, gender, religion, caste and community” as noted in their statement. It was to promote the interests of a small vocal minority at the expense of the nation.

So we see this group coming out in support of all those who caused death, destruction and mayhem during the anti-CAA protests in Delhi. Even the seditious speech given by Sharjeel Imam at AMU, calling for cutting off India’s northeastern region from the rest of the country was considered by them as righteous. They defended the rights of the rioters who held Delhi to ransom in January 2020, but had not a word in support of the hapless citizens who had to undergo great suffering due to this unruly mob. The group was upset that some individuals with Maoist links were arrested for the Bhima-Koregaon violence in 2018, calling people like Sudha Bharadwaj, Shoma Sen, Gautam Navlakha and Anand Teltumbde as India’s finest social and human rights activists! And all this in the name of the poor!

They came out in support of Siddharth Varadarajan, founding Editor of The Wire, who is facing criminal charges. But not a word was written of the attempt to muzzle the press by a certain political party, simply because Arnab Goswami of Republic TV Network dared to call Sonia Gandhi by her maiden name. Evidently, it was not freedom of expression that this group is concerned about, but in promoting a specific agenda. And this comes out more clearly in the stance taken by this group on efforts to restore normalcy in J&K. They bemoan the curtailment of certain liberties of the citizens of the Union Territory but are silent on the fact that three decades of violence and terror caused by radical islamists and their foreign backers is finally being tackled, which necessitated certain strict measures being taken to restore normalcy. And again, while ostensibly speaking on behalf of the common citizens of J&K, their focus is not in return of normalcy to the Union Territory, but on the preservation of the status quo, which had been the causative factor for the growth of violence. More importantly, there was not one word in their statement for the real victims of terror in the Valley—the hapless Hindu minority, who suffered genocide at the hands of a radicalised majority and who are still living as refugees in a free India. Could there be a greater shame.

Part III of India’s Constitution dealing with Fundamental Rights needs to be zealously guarded, but we need to guard against hidden agendas too. As Shakespeare said in The Merchant of Venice, “The devil can cite scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villain with a smiling cheek, a goodly apple rotten at the heart. O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!” These words need serious contemplation. As peter Drucker stated, “The most important thing in communication is hearing what isn’t said”. What has not been said by the group of 99, exposes their agenda. And that is really sad, as these people held important constitutional positions while in service. 

The Constitution of course, grants them that freedom, as it grants me the right to rebut them. My only request to them is to not hide behind the facade of promoting the interests of India’s hapless poor, but to speak upfront about their agenda. They would still be wrong, but at least they would not incur the sin of hypocrisy.

HONOUR CODES AND THE PERCEIVED BELITTLING OF THE FORCES

There has, in the last few years, been an anguished cry among veterans about what is perceived to be a dilution in the status and entitlements of the Armed Forces. This has manifested in direct criticism of the serving leadership of the Armed Forces by some veterans who perceive the decline in terms of the inability of the leadership to take an appropriate stand against the establishment. This sense of unease has spread through the social media, impacting all veterans, and now the impact is also being felt by those still donning the colours, leading to concerns about the state of morale of the Armed Forces and on how the issues are to be addressed.

The issue of One Rank One Pension (OROP) continues to be a sore point. The agitation on this issue by a group of veterans still continues in Jantar Mantar, despite the government having gone quite  a distance in fulfilling this demand. A bit of deft handling could have led to a closure, as the financial outlay for fulfilling the requirement of the veterans was quite meagre. For the veterans, it was not so much about the money but the principle behind the issue at stake. This had been promised to the veterans as far back as 1973, when their pensions were decreased and a commitment given that all retirees will be given the same pension based on rank. A subsequent parliamentary committee had also recommended in favour of OROP. Manohar Parrikar as the Defence Minister pulled up the babus in the defence ministry and in defence finance and finally implemented, to a large extent, what had been asked for. But a recalcitrant bureaucracy, true to its nature, kept the full implementation in abeyance, which forced the veterans to continue with their stir. This miffed the political leadership which did not get the expected appreciation for the efforts it had taken in bringing the OROP issue to closure and now we have a stalemate on the subject! The issue of OROP has been very well highlighted by Maj Gen Satbir Singh in a letter to the Government, which is published on Page 5 of this issue.

But it is not just OROP. There is a perceptible feeling in the forces that with each pay commission, the status of the Armed Forces has taken a beating—a result of the shenanigans of the bureaucracy and the fact that the Services have no representation in the deliberations which take place. The allowances applicable to personnel of the Armed Forces has also taken a hit as compared to what is entitled to civilians and to members of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). Worse, issues like NFFU (Non Functional Financial Upgradation) have caused a lot of heart burn as the IAS, IFS and IPS cadres have conveniently got the privilege allotted to themselves, which has now also been extended to Group ‘B’ Services, but the Armed Forces have been deliberately left out of the loop. Viewed impartially, the very grant of NFFU to any organisation is unethical. But if it is given to the civilian government employees, the rational for withholding it from the officers of the Armed Forces cannot really be explained. As a corrective, the Government must stop the grant of NFFU to all its employees. But if it chooses to continue with the same, it must then also be given to the military.

Another sore point amongst the veteran’s fraternity was the decision by the government to open up some of the cantonment roads to civilian traffic, which was perceived to be a first step towards sale of defence land to enrich the land mafia! Earlier, the veterans had protested vociferously against the governments move, recommended by the Service HQ, to do away with providing scholarships to the wards of serving personnel, especially gallantry medal winners. The vociferous protest ultimately forced the Government to restore the provisions. And then came the news that the Service HQ had recommended withdrawing income tax exemption on disability pension, which further exacerbated matters. But worse was to come. Faced with mounting criticism from the veterans, some of it unpardonably being couched in crude and vulgar language, and most of it being uncharitably directed at the Army Chief, the Army hierarchy decided to introduce a code of conduct for the veterans. That literally set the cat amongst the pigeons!

On the last day of his service, the Adjutant General of the Army, Lt Gen Ashwani Kumar, gave an interview to a media house which was widely publicised and spread like wildfire on the social media. Here, the General supported the Army action in withdrawing the income tax exemption on disability pension and also spoke at length on the need for instituting a code of conduct for the veterans. The proposal being formulated was predicated on seeking an undertaking from all serving officers that on retirement they will adhere to a code of conduct or ethics after their superannuation. The logic was that military personnel were permitted to carry their rank with them post retirement and so must abide by the code. It was also felt that some veterans posted comments on the social media which gave adverse publicity to the Army and as such, there was a need to impose penalties on those violating the code to obviate such behaviour. General Ashwani Kumar also stated that the matter is a tri-service issue and that the recommendations would also go through various tri-service committees.

Post the interview there were a flurry of comments given by veterans. Brig Narender Kumar, Distinguished Fellow, USI viewed the utterances as a failure in higher leadership. Writing on the issue he stated:

“…Off late there have been utterances among serving military leaders to portray own men and junior leaders as gullible, morally fragile and willing to cross moral red lines including avoiding harsh combat duties. It started with off the cuff loose remarks on officers misusing entitled hotel stay during temporary duty, allegations of exchange of brief cases for gratification, exploitation of disability for pension and hard field tenure. This aggressive stance of the military leadership could be attributed to suppressing the growing unease among the officers about withdrawal of service rations (now restored after four years), non-acceptance of NFFU for army officers and non-resolution of anomalies of successive Central Pay Commissions. Probably, there is a perception that military leadership did little precious to resolve the outstanding issues of pay, allowances and more importantly status. The damage that such irresponsible statements by senior military serving officers, wherein they suggest that officers exchange briefcases while staying in hotels, manipulate disabilities etc, and that military veterans are in need for disciplining, are detrimental to build a strong army and will only help the cause of nation’s adversaries. If there are few rotten apples those can be isolated but to portray bulk of the fraternity as malingerers is appalling and goes against the ethos of building a team out of teams. It will give ammunition to the politicians and bureaucracy to arm twist soldiers for grant of pay and perks and status. One must remember that once a military organisation loses trust, morale, camaraderie it is irreversible and demotivated leaders cannot deliver victories in war…

Another veteran, Brig Injo Gakhal from the Sikh Regiment, pithily summed up the feelings of a large number of veterans. “Those whom one taught how to become  better officers will now teach us how to behave as a Veteran,” he said. “I have no objection” he added, “in learning from subordinates or for that matter from anyone.  Learning after all is an unending process. But I must first know as to what is wrong with me that necessitates that the Army at the highest level must consider framing a Veterans Code of Conduct”.

In his inimitable style, Lt Gen PG Kamath, The former commandant of Army War College penned what in essence sums up the angst of the veterans as also of a large number of serving personnel. He wrote:

“A string of events has ensured the marginalisation of the once gallant and proud armed forces. Their pride was undermined, their swagger was mocked, their cantonments were opened up, their disability pensions were taxed, their sacrifices were belittled, FIRs were lodged for doing their legitimate duties, their AFTs (Armed Forces Tribunals) were downgraded and under posted to only 2 of the 17 benches thus  denying them justice, anomalies of the past several pay commissions were not addressed, they were singled out from all other central government services for denial of NFFU and their veterans were given a truncated OROP. Their seniority and equivalence was played around by pitching them with Group B Services; The veterans were lathi-charged from Jantar Mantar and were humiliated. Their difficult area allowances were a pittance when compared to other civil services and the Central Armed Police Forces. They all believe that Siachen is more comfortable than Shillong”!

While sober comments from the veterans are welcome, there was some disquiet shown by a large number of veterans on the actions of those who resorted to abuse and slander against the serving hierarchy. Gp Capt Anant G. Bewoor made very sensible remarks, which were deeply appreciated by the veterans community as well as by the saving fraternity. He said that all of us who passed out from the academy have taken a pledge and thus it would be inappropriate to sign another pledge once we become veterans. An extract of his comments are placed below:

“The limitations placed on me while in service are shed when I retire. But at the same time the traditions, customs, unwritten codes of conduct, integrity, loyalty to country & Service and their leadership remains intact. This does not restrict my ability and freedom to disagree with systems and processes, but that original pledge does without doubt, cautions me how and in which manner I will exercise that ability and freedom. All of us are aware of this reality, and all of us are equally susceptible to feel threatened by someone misusing that ability & freedom to attack us and our views. The methodology we decide to use to elaborate and set forth our freedom to disagree and expound our beliefs is guided by that original pledge. Forget not how many of today’s critics are guilty of not doing proper things in their time, when they had the power to do good, but failed. I saw the interview given by the Adjutant General, and was displeased by both the questions and answers. The whole exercise was unnecessary and should not have happened. Notwithstanding the hurt that has been spread by the interview, our ripostes have not been commensurate with the dignity we attach to us Veterans. I believe most, if not all of us, are aware about what we should say in public, including e-groups, and how we should temper our frustrations and anger. We have learnt it while in service, and certainly with our families and friends; it is within our capacity to do it right, always and every time. We wrongly believe that casting aspersions on serving or retired people is being brave. Far from it. So many of us have become vitriolic and unkind without any semblance of ‘maryada’. This is sad and unacceptable. Veterans have written bitterly about having to keep their mouths shut while in service, and therefore now they wish to let off that pent up angst. If you did not have courage to speak out when you thought and believed your are correct, then now is not the time to let off vituperative adjectives behind the safe screen of retirement and under the guise of freedom of speech”.

To this, Wing Commander Ravi Bali, an Air Force veteran added some more sobering advice. “Why wash dirty linen in public,” he said. “If we are behaving with dignity, why are we scared of any code? We played our innings. Let us allow the serving to do their jobs in peace. Allow the mechanism in place to sort out veteran issues. Don't rush to media and social media at the drop of a hat. It destroys the image of defence forces built over centuries with no one gaining any thing”.

There is no gainsaying the fact that washing dirty linen in public only serves to dent the image of the Armed Forces. The Forces are looked up to by everyone in India and are held in the highest esteem—a status that no other organisation enjoys. That is why it is important that the veteran community must exercise the utmost restraint when communicating in the public space. Abusive language against serving officers reflects poorly on the organisation as also on the originator of abusive posts. Let us all be cognisant of the fact that an officer makes it to flag rank after being assessed by dozens of officers through his career, most of whom have seen him in close quarters. While there may be anomalies in our promotion system, it is the same system which has given us a leadership that has ensured victory on the battlefield and that continues to deliver under all and every type of conceivable challenges.

The issue of the Adjutant General’s interview has now also found its way to court.  A legal notice was sent by PK Associates, Advocate and Legal Consultant, on behalf of their client Lt Col Niraj Bakshi, a resident of Greater Noida to the former Adjutant General (AG), Lt Gen Ashwani Kumar for ‘Defamation of Disabled Soldiers, Disabled Military Veterans and other Military Retirees including their client’. Col Bakshi is a resident of Greater Noida and was granted disability pension which had been fixed at 30 percent for life. 

The complainant alleged that the AG had spoken in an irresponsible manner and expressed views that were against the expressed statements of the Union defence minister, statutory provisions and judgements of the Honourable High Court. Under Rule 21 of the Army Rules, it is an offence for a serving Army Officer to speak to the media on any such subject without the sanction of the Government. In the interview you spoke disparagingly about the disability pensioners of the Army and persons with disabilities conveying as if many such pensioners do not deserve disability benefits. You even spoke disparagingly about hypertension, as if it is not even a medical condition and also emphasised that there should be an incentive for those people who retired in a fit shape from the army and not to those who retire with a medical category, as if any medical condition, disability, disease, disorder or injury is in a persons hands. You spoke disparagingly of persons with hearing loss and said that they could get hearing aids. You also spoke about the tax exemption controversy for disability pensioners which is already  being looked into by the defence minister and and is also sub juice in the Apex court. The complainant also mentioned a tweet by the Army HQ in which it was stated that officers had misused disability pension and the provision of broad banding of disability pension, which has shown disabled veterans in a poor light. In addition, the complainant stated that the AG, in the interview given to a media house had spoken about a code of conduct for veterans which is an illegal supposition since retirees are not covered by service rules and those who run foul of the law and those who are convicted under the IPC for offences involving moral turpitude are already covered under the pension regulations for requisite action. Finally, the complainant stated that they would lodge a defamation suit of Rs 1 crore against the AG unless an apology was issued in 15 days.

Such actions only fuel further controversy. But this was not the only one. Lt Gen Ashwani Kumar, post retirement, has also issued a legal notice to through his lawyers, the legal firm HVP, to Lt Gen Prakash Katoch and to the magazine Fauji India through its Editor, for an article purportedly written by the latter and published by the magazine. While the article by Gen PC Katoch was widely circulated on the social media, Fauji Magazine has denied publishing such an article and has asked the legal firm to apologise or face legal action. It is but to be hoped that the Armed Forces are kept out of such self created controversies, for the good of the Defence Forces and for the security of the nation.

Most importantly, there must be a great deal of introspection on the part of the Service headquarters too, and a platform created for an exchange of views with the veterans, before venturing on turf which would most certainly lead to bitterness. For the veterans, it is incumbent that they choose their words with care. We, as the veteran community have had our day donning the colours and now there is someone else holding the reins. Let them do their job. They are as patriotic and professional as we were in our time and do not need barbed comments from people who cannot be held accountable for speaking and acting out of turn. We also need to look into mechanisms wherein the concerns of the Armed Forces including the veterans are suitably addressed, which would require a great deal of sensitivity on the part of the government. The Armed Forces are the final instrument of the state and nothing should be done to jeopardise their state of morale and their status in society. Blunting the instrument of last resort can only harm the nation, as Indian history since the 8^th century CE has shown. We cannot afford to go down that path again.

Published in SALUTE, Vol 11 Issue 11