FIGHT FOR OROP IS ONLY THE SYMPTOM OF A DISEASE
Nitin Pai,
in a recent article carried by Business Standard, suggested that the armed
forces should use economic reasoning while pursuing their quest for OROP.
Earlier he had suggested that land available with cantonments should be
surrendered for better facilities that are likely to be available 20kms away from 20 cities of India which are
likely to become smart cities. This according to him will be a win-win
situation for all concerned.
If good economics were the only solution to solve
complex social, national security and environmental problems of a country we
would not be faced with paradoxes and dilemmas that need more than economy led
solutions. To put it succinctly, imagine the surrender of green spaces of
Bengaluru cantonment to grey monsters
and the resulting chaos caused by pressure on water, power, clean air, a host
of other environmental issues including exploding traffic and most of all, the
mafia-politician nexus to make a killing. Nitin may argue that he says so at
the end of the article. That begs the question.
The
suggestion that economic reasoning is preferred to emotional appeal for OROP
has some merit, but if there is indeed
an agreement on economics of the military, or the famous guns versus butter
debate, we would have found one by now. Soldiers, while better equipped to
understand the economics of national security due to constant up gradation of
their knowledge during mid career and senior level courses culminating at the
National Defence College(NDC), are not meant to justify their existence. It is
the duty of the Government with all its integral and out sourced expertise
that should decide how much is enough for national security.
If Jawaharlal Nehru was alive today he would
have admitted that a NDC course in late 1950's, produced a study that China
would attack India if our strategic imperatives are not realigned. Krishna
Menon who did not think that we ought to have a Military, pooh-poohed it. It is
after 1962 that Nehru urgently sought a copy of this study.
It is not that Generals, Admirals and Air
Marshals do not understand the economics of governing a country, it is that
they are not given the opportunity to be a part of decision/strategy making in
India.
The present apparent lassitude and grief seen on the faces
of ex servicemen is not due to lack of trying all available sources of redress
of grievance on a number of issues pertaining to their status, pay, allowances ,neglected
widows, gallantry award winners, neglected war casualties and handicapped
personnel. It has taken decades for the Supreme Court to rule in their favour
only to be left un implemented by successive Governments.
OROP is but the last straw that broke the camel's
back. A sensitive and sensible government would never fight its own soldiers,
on paper, in courts of law ,in
Parliament and now on the streets. Even the most under developed but civilized country would have engaged them
in productive discussion and apologized for treating them with contempt. We are
of course better known globally for cutting our nose to spite our face.
If
Governments are not sensitive and caring, who in a democracy lends the veterans
a helping hand. It is the civil society which elects the Government. Were the
civil society to join the agitation for
justice as in the case of India Against Corruption, Jantar Mantar would have
been an active volcano.
How does the civil society punish the
Government for disregarding the welfare of the soldier? By voting the errant
Government out of power.
If the civil
society truly adores the soldier, it has
to lead the agitation. It is not the soldier who should be fighting his own
cause but the civil society that acknowledges his role in defending the
frontiers of its country- which ought to be fronting such a struggle.
This is not
a political battle with one party fighting the other. There is a need for
all parties to join the cause of the soldier without hurting him more. There
has to be a national outcry without politicising this worthy cause. That is
sorely missing today.
Mere lip
service by media or occasional, random statements by leaders of civil society
is insufficient for the government to expeditiously address a genuine
grievance. The reason for this tepid response is because the soldier has not
touched the lives of our citizen as it has in some other countries which have
lost millions of lives in long drawn out wars.
Does that mean that we will
recognise the worth of a soldier only when he fights a war? There are means to bring the soldier closer
to every citizen. That can be the subject of another debate. For now let us
join hands to help the soldier in distress.
"Many
people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their
prejudices."
courtesy the quint http://www.thequint.com/india/2015/08/18/in-fight-for-orop-civil-society-must-take-up-soldiers-cause#.VdMR38KhVMU.facebook
If you miss
this opportunity it will take a generation or more to raise a professional
force which remains apolitical and effective. What good is an economically or
commercially strong nation if it cannot have a first rate Military which by
definition includes the veteran?
