Notes:
From the seminar held at CDM on 5 Mar 14
Words in
parenthesis ( ) are inserted by Aerial View to make for easier reading.
Certain parts, such as salutations have been edited
out but the gist has been re-typed
The Logic and Reasoning behind Status and Functional
Equivalence
Mr Amit
Cowshish IDAS (retd)
(Former FA
(Acquisition) and also Additional Secretary
* * * * *
1. A very strong opening knock in cricket
reduces the pressure off the later batsmen. But, unfortunately, I am expected
to play the role of Gundappa Vishwanath which can be dicey since, if you
remember he got out for a duck in a famous first innings. Fortunately, this is
not my first innings in CDM and tehn if I cannot score a century I know that I
will run up at least a good score. It is again a great privilege to come to CDM
and it is no different this time. This time I an speaking on a subject which
thrives by casting people into stereotypes which I am not comfortable with.
Major (retd) Navdeep also stereotyped many types during his (video)
speech.
2. There are more nuances to it. You have
professional, unprofessional, uncompromising, snooty and so on, so forth. That
is not the end of it. In fact there are more nuances to it. Even within the
category of civil servants, you have the executive types and the finance types.
The second category is different. Just imagine someone from that category to
speak about status and functional equivalence. It can be quite difficult. From
memory and experience, I can draw upon one of the discussions in one of the
think tanks where a retired service officer, getting very emotional said,
rightly so, “it is unfortunate that nobody from the Ministry who have retired
ever comes for these seminars,” and when somebody pointed out at me, he said, “oh,
no but he is from finance.” Therefore, a subject like this you start with an
issue you are seen as a protagonist of the category to which you belong. I may
disappoint you on that score because that is not what I am going to do, though
I may still end up reinforcing the view of the stereotypical civilian way of
thinking.
3. I am
also not here to point any logic or explanation or rationale for the existing
status and the functional equivalence, because the history of this issue is too
muddled for me to be able to make any case for or against the existing
equation, if at all it is possible to make out a case. However, as somebody who
has been watching this debate for the last three and half decades, there are
certain perspectives that one is bound to develop and I basically will be
sharing these perspectives with you with reference to a concept paper
circulated by the CDM to us.
4. The perspective that I want to share with
you is based on far too many bugbears that are there in this discourse of the larger
issue of civil-military relations in which status and functional equivalence
are important aspects. I also believe that these bugbears have distorted the
discourse to such an extent that now self-righteous indignation has become the
most defining feature of the discourse over-shadowing cold logic and reasoning.
There are, of course, various reasons for this but, let me say at the outset
and this is where I agree with Major (retd) Navdeep Singh in that you know the
discourse must be purged of these bugbears without emotional issues, so that
the real issues come up, because it is easier to deal with real issues than
issues laced with emotion.
5. Broadly speaking, there are two reasons
in my mind which account for these bugbears. The first reason is the
methodology of historiography of looking at the present through the prism of
the past historical development. You know there are various problems with such
(a) methodology. One is that it assume that what was the ideal model and what
is, is inappropriate to the extent that it deviates from the ideal model of the
past. Two, it allows the freedom to invoke the past selectively by picking up
factors that buttress one’s argument and ignoring those that do not.
6. Three, this approach is based on the complete
negation of the possibility that what might have been iniquitous might have
been faced with an attempt to set right that inequity. Four, it also views
history as static. The fact is that society and governance have changed over
the years bringing in some inevitable changes in the whole notion of status and
equivalence. Five, while it is easy to conjure up historical wrongs, not enough
can ever be done to set them right because of the permanent change that comes
along since the time those historical wrongs were committed and the timing when
their redressal is sought. Six, this approach, to my mind, is flawed since it
considers conspiracy if it stays effective which determines the present,
conjuring up an immortal demon slaying the goat and last but not the least,
these historical dimensions of the issue are not robust enough to lend itself
to objective analysis.
7. Let me illustrate this from the concept
paper. It is mentioned that after the unification of the provincial armies of
Bengal, Bombay and Madras Provincial armies into a single Indian Army in 1895,
the supreme authority of the Indian Army vested in the Governor-general in
council subject to the concept on ground which was exercised by the Secretary
of State for India. It goes on to say that two members of the council were
responsible for the military affairs, one of whom was the military member who
supervised all administration and financial matters, while the other was the
Commander-in-chief responsible for all operational matters. There is a subtle
twist of facts here. I am not saying that it was intentional. Actually, it was
(the) Indian Council Act of 1861 which converted the Viceroy’s executive
council into a cabinet run on portfolio system.
8. The cabinet had, at that time, five
ordinary members in charge of various departments which were home, revenue,
military, law and finance, and in 1874, the PWD was added. The C-in-C was not a
permanent member. The military member sat as the extra-ordinary member and the
1861 Act actually allowed the C-in-C to be appointed as needed by an ex-officio
post to the Viceroy’s Council while the military member alone was the permanent
member. In fact this led to the differences between Lord Curzon and Lord
Kitchener who fell out with each other and both, in fact, resigned. This kind
of twist can result in wrong inferences. Also, if the C-in-C was not a
permanent member at the Council and yet was in protocol second only to the
Viceroy, then how did he figure at 9A in the Warrant of Precedence of 1937 is a
question mark? If he was a de-facto defence minister then there would have been
no row between him and the Viceroy on the role of the permanent military
member.
9. Therefore, it comes from the Warrant of
Precedence that there were senior civilian dignitaries above military
personnel. The paper recognises the distinction between de-facto authority and
de-jure authority of the C-in-C. But the later analysis in the paper and the
present discourse does not recognise the fact that there could be some such
distinctions. Service Chief was, at serial (number) 12A in the Warrant of
Precedence mentioned by Dr Mishra. Then we can have a thought …could that be
because of the entry of new appointments like Vice President etc that have come
up?
10. Only Cabinet Secretary is figuring one
notch above the Service Chiefs but is drawing the same pay. Warrant of
Precedence is only for ceremonial occasions and little else of any importance
you would agree. This does not affect the de-facto status of Service Chiefs to
my mind. We can see that the Secretaries to the GoI figure at number 23 and
which is some 10 notches further below. Joint Secretaries figure ate 26 along
with Maj Gen, while Addl Secretaries figure at 25 below Lt Gen, all of which,
to my mind, looks OK. Hence there may be flaws in basing the genesis of the
present grievances on historical inferences alone!
11. I have many other examples in mind. Using
historiography at all times may not be the answer. It can be surmised that
history is not always the benchmark. In the Armed Forces also some new posts
have come up as have on the civilian side. There are new realities of the
Republic which necessitates changes in old equations. What we see today is more
a result of these changes, rather than some grand old conspiracy. The second
reason which has distorted the discourse on the subject of functional
equivalence is in fact not factoring in the ground realities, or the de-facto
scenario as referred to in the paper.
12. Again going back to the concept paper, it
is brought out that the dilution in the status of the service officers has
started affecting the rank and file and has become highly pronounced in those
organisations where the Armed Forces officers rub shoulders with All India
Services and G ‘A’ service officers and this issue has been pending for quite
some time now and has been adversely affecting the harmonious working relations
between the two categories. I feel that it is not such an open and shut issue
and even if it is, I am unable to agree with the contention that it is
affecting the harmonious working condition between Civilian officers as a class
and Military officers as a class.
13. And to explain the same, let me ask the
question as to where do this rubbing of shoulders actually take place with such
regularity that any dissonance between those rubbing the shoulders would
adversely affect the harmonious relations of these two classes. To my mind the
only place rubbing of shoulders takes place is the MoD. At the lower levels, be
it Command or the Area or the Sub-Area, Corps, Bde, Battalion etc, there aren’t
any All India Services officers posted there. The only Gp ‘A’ officer who can
be found there are from the IDAS, IDES and Indian Information Service etc.
14. They do not enjoy any de-jure or de-facto
status which can adversely affect harmonious relations between them and the
service officers posted there because the ultimate authority, both de-jure and
de-facto lies with a Service officer. When I say this I exclude the disharmonies
arising due to personal traits of individual officers. I suspect that this
feeling of harmonious relations coming under strain stems from the difference
in ethos of the two set-ups, because of which the same incident is perceived
differently by the civilian officer and the services officer.
15. In 2001, I was holding additional charge of
the officer of PWA Northern Command. One day a young officer came to me and
after exchanging pleasantries and coffee, politely pointed that there was some
case in which I had probably over-looked the fact that the issue had already
been approved by the Army Cdr before objecting to the same. I told him that I
have not over-looked anything but had some views which I have expressed on
file, he was aghast. He repeated himself. I said then there was no need to send
it to me, and if it was sent to me, then I am required to say what I have to. I
am sure he would have left my office with a feeling that I am spoiling the
harmonious relation, which obviously was not the case.
16. I do not know if the perception we have now
is also based on some such incidents, that I have just mentioned. All that I
can say is that it is impossible to avoid such situations or incidents in
organisations. It is not as if the service officer is always at the “receiving”
end. Take for example the Border Roads Organisation where I was sent as CDA for
2 years. I have some understanding of the ethos of the organisation. The senior
most GREF officer there can only aspire to become Additional DG at the best in
his career. The number one there is always the Service officer who is the DG,
though both of them are in the same pay grade, or at least they used to be till
I was there. The GREF officers are at places in a higher pay grade also. There
was a time when the Service officers posted in the North East were drawing
counter-insurgency allowance while GREF officers were not and there were
differences in the scale of rations, between the two categories of officers
serving in the same place. Of course some of these anomalies have been set
right now.
17. Such differences are not purely unheard of
in most organisations. Even in purely military organisations like MES or the
Military Engineering Services, the Special List officers and other officers had
an issue. Their pay and pension used to be depressed by some amount such that
officers of the same rank were not getting the same pay or pension. So, one can
argue that there have been issues across the spectrum. Hence, just taking up
such historical packages can actually be debilitating.
18. Returning to my earlier postulate since I
am running out of time, the only place I feel that civilian officers really rub
shoulders only in the MoD level. Accordingly, as I look at this, I asked a
question – has this relationship become sour to such an extent that now there
is a threat to harmony? Honestly speaking, I don’t think it is a fact. My
experience of about 7 recent years in MoD till as late as 2012 does not really
support this view.
19. Difference of opinion is not always a sign
of lack of harmony. I feel it will be very erroneous to generalise things in
such a manner. In fact, my experience has been to the contrary. The most
abiding memories of the years that I spent in Defence Accounts Department are
of extremely nice relations that I had with countless Service officers. It does
not mean that there were no unwelcome incidents or problems.
20. I look at them only as aberrations and not
as a lack of systemic harmony. From a finance perspective let us look at it.
Roughly one third of the defence budget is spent on pay and allowances where
there is no need of any regular interaction between the two sides. Another one
third is spent on objectives of expenditure which are according to scales
authorised, entitlements and standing authorisations which are not changed
often and hence again do not entail much interactions between Civilian and
Service officers. Even in the large scale financial delegation of powers, the
parameters are clearly spelt out and even in cases where for powers are in
concurrence with the IFA, the CFAs are at liberty to over-rule the IFAs where
necessary and the remaining one third is spent on capital acquisitions, where
in my opinion, the kind of harmony that prevails today is the best example of
how things should be or ought to be in future.
21. It is often argued that the Services have
been kept out of policy making. At a time when everyone is talking about policy
paralysis in the Govt, it is odd to talk about the Services being kept out. I
do not know as to what kind of policy making is taking place. On a more serious
note, this juxtaposition can well be questioned. There is no umbrella defence
policy today. There is no well-defined National Security Strategy or National
Security Objective. So the question of Services being kept out of policy making
is moot at this stage.
22. At the MoD level some kind of inherent
policy making does take place. The entire policy as of now is Services driven.
I am referring to the RM’s op directive etc. At the level of planning also
issues like LTIPP are formulated by the Services. In the National level also
like in the case of AFSPA where the Home Minister says that though the Govt
would like to lift it, they are not doing so in deference to the wishes of the
Services. Similarly, such case has been developed with respect to the
operations against Naxals in Maoist infested areas where the Services have
expressed reservations against being drawn in.
23. Hence, my point is that the system is
running smoothly by and large. Functional equivalence issues are due to a host
of reasons like the process of decision making, quality of decision making,
inefficiency in decision making, and even budgetary constraints. Even within
the MoD. Where no Service officers were present, the thinking was that we want
to do so many things but there is a budgetary constraint. In the Ministry of
Finance, the feeling used to be, “we want to give you so much money but we have
not been able to do it.”
24. So there are these huge constraints in
doing a lot of things which are genuine and justified but have not been done so
far. Gentlemen, the real world is often smaller than the imaginary world and it
is true of the organisations to which we belong as well. Going by the theory
proposed by one Chester Barnard, there is an informal organisation within every
formal organisation which keeps the wheels of the formal organisation going.
These issues like status and functional equivalence are irrelevant in those
informal organisations and this as I see in surroundings is true even in the
reality of semiformal organisations as well. To sift real issues from imaginary
issues, to sift logic from rhetoric, sift workable and pragmatic solutions from
aspirations this, in my personal view, is the way ahead.
25. I cannot end the story abruptly here. So
let me add a brief epilogue. Gentlemen, you have to permit me a moment of
emotion. I think, going by my own experience, when I was a small boy the 1960s
war happened and in ’71 war we were students and performed home guard duties
and one has seen some of the worst encounters in the post-independence ear and
I can tell you that the citizens of this country hold the Armed Forces in the
highest esteem. Although every section of the government, be it Services or
PSUs or Banking services etc an so on work hard one common thing is that every
one has grievances. They are all related to pay, allowances, promotion aspects,
working conditions etc.
26. ………………But I also concede that the nation
owes it to the Services to accord highest priority to address their grievances.
It will make it easier for the Govt. The opportunity has arisen now with the 7th
CPC set up. It will be easier for the Govt and the CPC to look into their
grievances if they are de-linked from prejudices and articulated based on cold
logic.
27. My entire narrative was actually aimed at
driving home this point and to sign off with a post-script, “Please remember.
All those who say something that you do not like are not your enemies, just as
all those who always agree with you are not necessarily always your
friends!
* * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment