Pakistan MI, ISI planning to mix poison in ration of forces, J&K CID issues warning

<p>Pandit Nehru, first unfurled the National Flag from the ramparts of Red Fort, on 16 August 1947, a day after his famous &ldquo;Tryst with destiny&rdquo; speech. Ever since then, the political class has worked hard to make Indians believe that it was entirely their efforts that brought about India&rsquo;s independence from Britain. A corollary to this assumption, deeply ingrained over time, was that it was the British Indian Armed Forces which allowed the British Empire to rule the subcontinent for over two hundred years.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>His loathing for the military was reflected in the manner that Prime Minister Nehru and his colleagues treated the military with utter contempt and neglect.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=His loathing for the military was reflected in the manner that Prime Minister Nehru and his colleagues treated the military with utter contempt and neglect." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Thus, the officers and men of the post-independence Armed Forces, which had evolved from its British roots, came to be seen as mercenaries as well as chief impediments in India&#39;s struggle for independence. His loathing for the military was reflected in the manner that Prime Minister Nehru and his colleagues treated the military with utter contempt and neglect. This was to a large extent tinged by the fear of being overthrown by his Generals, as had been the case with our neighbouring country and in many other newly independent states. This perception of the military was not only wholly incorrect but also ironical as it conveniently overlooked and even buried a simple yet compelling truth.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>What made the British to rethink was the military action of the Azad Hind Fauj (INA) who launched an attack on eastern India with the help of Japan.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=What made the British to rethink was the military action of the Azad Hind Fauj (INA) who launched an attack on eastern India with the help of Japan." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>While Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress may have ignited the fires for freedom, independence and nationalism among the common people, the tactics of non-violence and Satyagraha had hardly hurt the British intent to rule over its Empire. Rather, what made the British to rethink was the military action of the Azad Hind Fauj (INA) who launched an attack on eastern India with the help of Japan. INA was organised by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose when thirty thousand odd officers and men of the British Indian Army had willingly forsaken their earlier loyalties and joined Bose. It matters little today that their opposition was in complete contrast to the servility shown by the members of the Civil Services and the police forces towards their British masters.</p>

<p>The impact of the Red Fort trials of the RIN Mutineers and increasing incidents of indiscipline as well as the refusal to obey British Commanders within the Forces cannot be underestimated. For example, in February 1946 a soldier, Joginder Singh, was brought to Lahore Jail to begin a life sentence because, as the newspaper The Hindu of 22 Feb 1946 reported, &ldquo;Joginder Singh and some other Indians protested against the exhibition by the British military authorities of a film entitled &lsquo;Ganga Din&rsquo; at a cinema hall in Greece. When no notice was taken of their protest, Joginder Singh visited the cinema hall and attempted to disturb the show&rdquo;. &nbsp;As a matter of fact, he did much more; in his attempt to smash the projector he killed a British guard who tried to stop him. &nbsp; &nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>One is unaware as to what motivated Mr Nehru to declare this as India&#39;s Independence Day, since the Indian National Congress, in its Lahore Session in 1929, had actually declared 26 January as Independence Day and celebrated it from 1930 to 1946.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=One is unaware as to what motivated Mr Nehru to declare this as India's Independence Day, since the Indian National Congress, in its Lahore Session in 1929, had actually declared 26 January as Independence Day and celebrated it from 1930 to 1946." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Incidents such as these made it clear that the British Indian Army, the sword arm of the Empire, could no longer be trusted to do the bidding of its masters. It forced them to unceremoniously bail out while they still could. Thus, the British Government announced on 3rd June 1947 that it had accepted the idea of partitioning British India into two states and their Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act of 1947. The new Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, chose the second anniversary of Japan&#39;s surrender in World War II, 15 August, as the date of power transfer. One is unaware as to what motivated Mr Nehru to declare this as India&#39;s Independence Day, since the Indian National Congress, in its Lahore Session in 1929, had actually declared 26 January as Independence Day and celebrated it from 1930 to 1946.&nbsp;</p>

<p>This has, however, not stopped subsequent generations of politicians, with the assistance of a willing bureaucracy, from systematically cutting the military down to size by impinging on its powers, lowering its status and prestige while neglecting its requirements. The upshot, as is to be expected, has been an inability to get suitable volunteers, especially in the officer corps. This has led to a perceptible decline in standards, demoralisation within the rank and file, increasing distrust of the senior hierarchy, which is seen to be compromised and self-serving.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The dysfunctional relationship with the civilian bureaucracy that has interposed itself between the military and the political leadership has not helped either. Due to this, the Services continue to be held hostage by a moribund system with archaic processes that represent a suffocating straitjacket, disallowing it to deal freely with the complexities of modern warfare. This has led to deliberate neglect over the years, resulting in obsolete inventories, colossal shortages of critical equipment and ammunition. &nbsp; &nbsp;</p>

<p>Thus, as we celebrate our 70th Independence Day this month there is much to ponder over. Not only do we have an intractable and hostile neighbour in Pakistan, but more worrying is the sabre-rattling and relentless pinpricks from a risen and hostile China that, with the assistance of its &ldquo;all weather&rdquo; friend, is determined to keep India restricted to its immediate neighbourhood. It has also lost little time in fuelling and funding a host of insurgencies that have afflicted our North-Eastern States as well as Maoist insurgents who whittle away from within our heartland. There can be little doubt that our internal and external security environment today is both fragile and fraught with possibilities of events that can impact our territorial integrity and way of life.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>This has forced the military to take on a responsibility that is rightfully not theirs, and for which they are constantly exposed to uninformed scrutiny and a barrage of allegations.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=This has forced the military to take on a responsibility that is rightfully not theirs, and for which they are constantly exposed to uninformed scrutiny and a barrage of allegations. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>In all of this, the Indian Armed Forces find itself in an extremely precarious situation. As events have repeatedly shown, the paramilitary and Central Armed Police Forces are far from achieving the necessary levels of competence required to handle the insurgencies that have been inflicted upon us. This has forced the military to take on a responsibility that is rightfully not theirs, and for which they are constantly exposed to uninformed scrutiny and a barrage of allegations. The Courts too, in their enthusiasm to uphold a skewed version of human rights, have forced the military to confront terrorists and insurgents from within and without while the soldiers have their hands tied behind their backs.</p>

<p>As Prime Minister Modi stands on the ramparts of Red Fort for the third time, it is unlikely that he will have a change of heart towards the military. But he would do well to remember that it is much easier to unfurl the flag than to defend it. The latter calls for more than just empty promises, it calls for focus, resolves and visible action.</p>


Defending the nation requires more than just empty promises, it calls for focus, resolve and visible action.

Pandit Nehru, first unfurled the National Flag from the ramparts of Red Fort, on 16 August 1947, a day after his famous “Tryst with destiny” speech. Ever since then, the political class has worked hard to make Indians believe that it was entirely their efforts that brought about India’s independence from Britain. A corollary to this assumption, deeply ingrained over time, was that it was the British Indian Armed Forces which allowed the British Empire to rule the subcontinent for over two hundred years. His loathing for the military was reflected in the manner that Prime Minister Nehru and his colleagues treated the military with utter contempt and neglect. × Thus, the officers and men of the post-independence Armed Forces, which had evolved from its British roots, came to be seen as mercenaries as well as chief impediments in India's struggle for independence. His loathing for the military was reflected in the manner that Prime Minister Nehru and his colleagues treated the military with utter contempt and neglect. This was to a large extent tinged by the fear of being overthrown by his Generals, as had been the case with our neighbouring country and in many other newly independent states. This perception of the military was not only wholly incorrect but also ironical as it conveniently overlooked and even buried a simple yet compelling truth. What made the British to rethink was the military action of the Azad Hind Fauj (INA) who launched an attack on eastern India with the help of Japan. × While Mahatma Gandhi and the Congress may have ignited the fires for freedom, independence and nationalism among the common people, the tactics of non-violence and Satyagraha had hardly hurt the British intent to rule over its Empire. Rather, what made the British to rethink was the military action of the Azad Hind Fauj (INA) who launched an attack on eastern India with the help of Japan. INA was organised by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose when thirty thousand odd officers and men of the British Indian Army had willingly forsaken their earlier loyalties and joined Bose. It matters little today that their opposition was in complete contrast to the servility shown by the members of the Civil Services and the police forces towards their British masters. The impact of the Red Fort trials of the RIN Mutineers and increasing incidents of indiscipline as well as the refusal to obey British Commanders within the Forces cannot be underestimated. For example, in February 1946 a soldier, Joginder Singh, was brought to Lahore Jail to begin a life sentence because, as the newspaper The Hindu of 22 Feb 1946 reported, “Joginder Singh and some other Indians protested against the exhibition by the British military authorities of a film entitled ‘Ganga Din’ at a cinema hall in Greece. When no notice was taken of their protest, Joginder Singh visited the cinema hall and attempted to disturb the show”. As a matter of fact, he did much more; in his attempt to smash the projector he killed a British guard who tried to stop him. One is unaware as to what motivated Mr Nehru to declare this as India's Independence Day, since the Indian National Congress, in its Lahore Session in 1929, had actually declared 26 January as Independence Day and celebrated it from 1930 to 1946. × Incidents such as these made it clear that the British Indian Army, the sword arm of the Empire, could no longer be trusted to do the bidding of its masters. It forced them to unceremoniously bail out while they still could. Thus, the British Government announced on 3rd June 1947 that it had accepted the idea of partitioning British India into two states and their Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act of 1947. The new Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, chose the second anniversary of Japan's surrender in World War II, 15 August, as the date of power transfer. One is unaware as to what motivated Mr Nehru to declare this as India's Independence Day, since the Indian National Congress, in its Lahore Session in 1929, had actually declared 26 January as Independence Day and celebrated it from 1930 to 1946. This has, however, not stopped subsequent generations of politicians, with the assistance of a willing bureaucracy, from systematically cutting the military down to size by impinging on its powers, lowering its status and prestige while neglecting its requirements. The upshot, as is to be expected, has been an inability to get suitable volunteers, especially in the officer corps. This has led to a perceptible decline in standards, demoralisation within the rank and file, increasing distrust of the senior hierarchy, which is seen to be compromised and self-serving. The dysfunctional relationship with the civilian bureaucracy that has interposed itself between the military and the political leadership has not helped either. Due to this, the Services continue to be held hostage by a moribund system with archaic processes that represent a suffocating straitjacket, disallowing it to deal freely with the complexities of modern warfare. This has led to deliberate neglect over the years, resulting in obsolete inventories, colossal shortages of critical equipment and ammunition. Thus, as we celebrate our 70th Independence Day this month there is much to ponder over. Not only do we have an intractable and hostile neighbour in Pakistan, but more worrying is the sabre-rattling and relentless pinpricks from a risen and hostile China that, with the assistance of its “all weather” friend, is determined to keep India restricted to its immediate neighbourhood. It has also lost little time in fuelling and funding a host of insurgencies that have afflicted our North-Eastern States as well as Maoist insurgents who whittle away from within our heartland. There can be little doubt that our internal and external security environment today is both fragile and fraught with possibilities of events that can impact our territorial integrity and way of life. This has forced the military to take on a responsibility that is rightfully not theirs, and for which they are constantly exposed to uninformed scrutiny and a barrage of allegations. × In all of this, the Indian Armed Forces find itself in an extremely precarious situation. As events have repeatedly shown, the paramilitary and Central Armed Police Forces are far from achieving the necessary levels of competence required to handle the insurgencies that have been inflicted upon us. This has forced the military to take on a responsibility that is rightfully not theirs, and for which they are constantly exposed to uninformed scrutiny and a barrage of allegations. The Courts too, in their enthusiasm to uphold a skewed version of human rights, have forced the military to confront terrorists and insurgents from within and without while the soldiers have their hands tied behind their backs. As Prime Minister Modi stands on the ramparts of Red Fort for the third time, it is unlikely that he will have a change of heart towards the military. But he would do well to remember that it is much easier to unfurl the flag than to defend it. The latter calls for more than just empty promises, it calls for focus, resolves and visible action.

Indian Armed Forces and 70 years of independence

<p>The killing of a militant commander by the Indian Army in Jammu and Kashmir four months ago led to a curfew in the Valley and a spurt of hatred towards the Indian armed forces in the region. The violence that ensued once again put to fore the &ldquo;Kashmir issue&rdquo;, India&rsquo;s bone of contention with Pakistan.</p>

<p>The attack by militants on an army base in the region&rsquo;s Uri sector resulted in a scaled-up cross-border shelling, leading to Indian Army&#39;s &ldquo;surgical strikes&rdquo; in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.</p>

<p>The sentiment against the Indian defence and armed forces was cast aside by a sudden &ldquo;patriotic&rdquo; fervour in their support. But while the nation was busy judging&nbsp;patriotism based on whether one backed the move by the Indian Army or was against it, and hailed the personnel killed in Uri as &ldquo;martyrs&rdquo; and &ldquo;bravehearts&rdquo;, the recent suicide of an ex-army soldier over the demand for One Rank One Pension (OROP) has yet again fuelled the love-hate relationship India has with its forces.</p>

<p><strong>What is One Rank One Pension?</strong></p>

<p>Last year, army veterans took to the streets, organised massive protests and hunger strikes in the national capital. They were calling for One Rank One Pension. Simply put, they demanded the same pension for the same rank and the same length of service.</p>

<p>Major General (retd) Satbir Singh, who was among those spearheading the protests, explains: &ldquo;Look at it this way. A colonel retiring in 1980s draws lesser pension than one retiring in 2014. Both have retired on the same rank and have served for the same number of years. The only difference is the latter has seen several pay reviews.&rdquo;</p>

<p>Following the protests, the government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the One Rank One Pension scheme on September 6, 2015 but the ex-serviceman said that it did not address their concerns and called it a &ldquo;diluted&rdquo; version.</p>

<p>Close to 2,000 medals were collected in a &ldquo;Medal Wapsi&rdquo; drive and given to the collector&rsquo;s office in the national capital on the 149th day of protest.</p>

<p>The OROP was implemented after 40 years, yet protests continue.</p>

<p>In a statement given last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the first installment of Rs 5,500 ($82) was paid towards OROP. So why are the ex-servicemen still unhappy?</p>

<p>&ldquo;What has been implemented is not the actual OROP. It is at best an enhancement of the pension system. It is one rank five pensions and not one pension. The anomalies still hold;&nbsp;senior personnel will get lesser pension than their juniors. This kind of a system is legally wrong, unfair and constitutionally unacceptable. It&rsquo;s authoritarian,&rdquo; says Singh.</p>

<p>The government said that the scheme is effective July 1, 2014, with 2013 as the base year, but ex-servicemen demand OROP from April 1, 2014 and 2015 as the base year. The government called for a review every five years, but the veterans demand an annual review.</p>

<p>However, what has angered veterans the most is&nbsp;the proposal by the government to keep those who took &ldquo;voluntary retirement&rdquo; out of the scheme.</p>

<p>&ldquo;A good 40 per cent of our serviceman retire early because the army demands a young force. Other countries like the&nbsp;US, Ukraine have acts for the defence services where the post-retirement needs of soldiers are taken care of. In India, most of those who join the army are from the villages. They get deployed for about 23 to 25 years and then are sent back to fend for themselves. They start farming or become security guards. If this is not arrogance and apathy towards the Indian soldier, what is it? We don&rsquo;t protest for money but for justice and respect,&rdquo;&nbsp;says&nbsp;Singh.</p>

<p>A serving Indian Air Force officer, not wanting to be named, says that the &quot;political mileage parties try to gain&rdquo; and &ldquo;the government&rsquo;s favouritism to bureaucracy&rdquo; is the reason behind the skewed pension system.</p>

<p>&ldquo;Much politics has been done around OROP. Sonia Gandhi favoured the demand but it was not implemented in the 12 years her party was in power. Same is with Narendra Modi, who promised OROP when he was campaigning to be prime minister. But under his government veterans were on the streets, demanding their rights. Everyone wants to keep bureaucrats thriving and defence under their thumb,&rdquo; he says referring to the 1973 decision to increase the pension of civilian government employees from 33 per cent to 50 per cent and decrease that of the armed forces from 70 per cent to 50 per cent of the last pay drawn.</p>

<p><strong>There are other armed forces too</strong></p>

<p>The demand for OROP has also been raised by the paramilitary forces. But unlike India&#39;s army, navy and air force, these forces that include the Central Reserve Police force (CRPF), the Border Security Force (BSF) the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Central Industrial Security Force(CISF) and the Seema Suraksha Bal (SSB) were denied pension from &nbsp;2004 and get a contributory pension instead.</p>

<p>There are over 1,300,000&nbsp;paramiltary personnel&nbsp;embroiled in a larger debate.&nbsp;The government fails to recognise them as &ldquo;armed force&rdquo; and calls them &ldquo;armed police forces&rdquo;, and thus they do not receive several post-retirement benefits that the defence forces receive. There is also refusal to list these forces under the group of &ldquo;organised forces&rdquo;, a case set to be heard in India&#39;s Supreme Court in January 2017.</p>

<p>&ldquo;We were always referred to as the paramilitary forces. The change in nomenclature done by the previous home minister P Chidambaram by passing an overnight rule is unconstitutional. As per article 246 of the Indian Constitution, our genesis is the same as that of the defence forces. The individual acts of paramilitary forces also prove our armed forces status. These are all acts in the constitution and a rule cannot surpass an act. The police is state subject and we are listed under the union,&rdquo; says inspector-general (retd) of CRPF and chairman of National Coordination Committee of Ex-Central Paramilitary Forces Personnel Welfare Association, VPS Panwar.</p>

<p>The paramilitary forces do not receive special pensions like the Military Service Pay&nbsp;given to the army for conditions serving in adverse conditions.</p>

<p>&ldquo;The BSF and ITBP are deployed in border areas with army cut-off from family and a social life in difficult terrain but while the army has perks of a military service pay, BSF and ITBP don&rsquo;t,&rdquo; says Panwar.</p>

<p>According to data provided by the National Coordination Committee of Ex-Central Paramilitary Forces Personnel Welfare Association, from the year 2009 to 2014, a total of 6,342 personnel have died in deaths attributable to working conditions, which includes 447 cases of suicide and 57 killed in cases of fratricide.</p>

<p>Though they have their own cadre, these forces are headed by Indian Police Services (IPS) officers. Many ex-paramilitary personnel say that the IPS officers fail to project the grievances of the forces they command and cite bureaucratic intervention as a problem.</p>

<p>According to data, in the last decade, 940 paramilitary personnel have been killed in action while 7,475 have received severe injuries.</p>

<p>&ldquo;The central paramilitary forces should be granted the status and benefits of ex-servicemen, martyrs and war widows, which is currently denied. We fight the enemy from within and on borders, our call of duty should not be overlooked.&rdquo;&nbsp;says Panwar.</p>

<p>(WION)</p>


The government recently announced what ex-servicemen call a 'diluted version' of the One Rank One Pension scheme, WION's Dharvi Vaid reports

The killing of a militant commander by the Indian Army in Jammu and Kashmir four months ago led to a curfew in the Valley and a spurt of hatred towards the Indian armed forces in the region. The violence that ensued once again put to fore the “Kashmir issue”, India’s bone of contention with Pakistan. The attack by militants on an army base in the region’s Uri sector resulted in a scaled-up cross-border shelling, leading to Indian Army's “surgical strikes” in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The sentiment against the Indian defence and armed forces was cast aside by a sudden “patriotic” fervour in their support. But while the nation was busy judging patriotism based on whether one backed the move by the Indian Army or was against it, and hailed the personnel killed in Uri as “martyrs” and “bravehearts”, the recent suicide of an ex-army soldier over the demand for One Rank One Pension (OROP) has yet again fuelled the love-hate relationship India has with its forces. What is One Rank One Pension? Last year, army veterans took to the streets, organised massive protests and hunger strikes in the national capital. They were calling for One Rank One Pension. Simply put, they demanded the same pension for the same rank and the same length of service. Major General (retd) Satbir Singh, who was among those spearheading the protests, explains: “Look at it this way. A colonel retiring in 1980s draws lesser pension than one retiring in 2014. Both have retired on the same rank and have served for the same number of years. The only difference is the latter has seen several pay reviews.” Following the protests, the government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the One Rank One Pension scheme on September 6, 2015 but the ex-serviceman said that it did not address their concerns and called it a “diluted” version. Close to 2,000 medals were collected in a “Medal Wapsi” drive and given to the collector’s office in the national capital on the 149th day of protest. The OROP was implemented after 40 years, yet protests continue. In a statement given last week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the first installment of Rs 5,500 ($82) was paid towards OROP. So why are the ex-servicemen still unhappy? “What has been implemented is not the actual OROP. It is at best an enhancement of the pension system. It is one rank five pensions and not one pension. The anomalies still hold; senior personnel will get lesser pension than their juniors. This kind of a system is legally wrong, unfair and constitutionally unacceptable. It’s authoritarian,” says Singh. The government said that the scheme is effective July 1, 2014, with 2013 as the base year, but ex-servicemen demand OROP from April 1, 2014 and 2015 as the base year. The government called for a review every five years, but the veterans demand an annual review. However, what has angered veterans the most is the proposal by the government to keep those who took “voluntary retirement” out of the scheme. “A good 40 per cent of our serviceman retire early because the army demands a young force. Other countries like the US, Ukraine have acts for the defence services where the post-retirement needs of soldiers are taken care of. In India, most of those who join the army are from the villages. They get deployed for about 23 to 25 years and then are sent back to fend for themselves. They start farming or become security guards. If this is not arrogance and apathy towards the Indian soldier, what is it? We don’t protest for money but for justice and respect,” says Singh. A serving Indian Air Force officer, not wanting to be named, says that the "political mileage parties try to gain” and “the government’s favouritism to bureaucracy” is the reason behind the skewed pension system. “Much politics has been done around OROP. Sonia Gandhi favoured the demand but it was not implemented in the 12 years her party was in power. Same is with Narendra Modi, who promised OROP when he was campaigning to be prime minister. But under his government veterans were on the streets, demanding their rights. Everyone wants to keep bureaucrats thriving and defence under their thumb,” he says referring to the 1973 decision to increase the pension of civilian government employees from 33 per cent to 50 per cent and decrease that of the armed forces from 70 per cent to 50 per cent of the last pay drawn. There are other armed forces too The demand for OROP has also been raised by the paramilitary forces. But unlike India's army, navy and air force, these forces that include the Central Reserve Police force (CRPF), the Border Security Force (BSF) the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Central Industrial Security Force(CISF) and the Seema Suraksha Bal (SSB) were denied pension from 2004 and get a contributory pension instead. There are over 1,300,000 paramiltary personnel embroiled in a larger debate. The government fails to recognise them as “armed force” and calls them “armed police forces”, and thus they do not receive several post-retirement benefits that the defence forces receive. There is also refusal to list these forces under the group of “organised forces”, a case set to be heard in India's Supreme Court in January 2017. “We were always referred to as the paramilitary forces. The change in nomenclature done by the previous home minister P Chidambaram by passing an overnight rule is unconstitutional. As per article 246 of the Indian Constitution, our genesis is the same as that of the defence forces. The individual acts of paramilitary forces also prove our armed forces status. These are all acts in the constitution and a rule cannot surpass an act. The police is state subject and we are listed under the union,” says inspector-general (retd) of CRPF and chairman of National Coordination Committee of Ex-Central Paramilitary Forces Personnel Welfare Association, VPS Panwar. The paramilitary forces do not receive special pensions like the Military Service Pay given to the army for conditions serving in adverse conditions. “The BSF and ITBP are deployed in border areas with army cut-off from family and a social life in difficult terrain but while the army has perks of a military service pay, BSF and ITBP don’t,” says Panwar. According to data provided by the National Coordination Committee of Ex-Central Paramilitary Forces Personnel Welfare Association, from the year 2009 to 2014, a total of 6,342 personnel have died in deaths attributable to working conditions, which includes 447 cases of suicide and 57 killed in cases of fratricide. Though they have their own cadre, these forces are headed by Indian Police Services (IPS) officers. Many ex-paramilitary personnel say that the IPS officers fail to project the grievances of the forces they command and cite bureaucratic intervention as a problem. According to data, in the last decade, 940 paramilitary personnel have been killed in action while 7,475 have received severe injuries. “The central paramilitary forces should be granted the status and benefits of ex-servicemen, martyrs and war widows, which is currently denied. We fight the enemy from within and on borders, our call of duty should not be overlooked.” says Panwar. (WION)

Pension for Indian armed forces: The politics and bureaucracy