Scams & the Army: Silence is not golden

Major General Mrinal Suman, AVSM, VSM, PhD
The Army Chief has been repeatedly stating, both in print media and in front of TV cameras, that the recent scams have brought disrepute to the services. Apparently he has been referring to the Adarsh Housing Society and Sukna land cases. Unfortunately, it is the Army Headquarters (AHQ) that is responsible for most of the misconceptions.
Instead of coming on multiple TV channels and apportioning blame, the military brass should have clarified the true position to the environment. To that an extent AHQ has failed the army.
This writer holds no brief for the individuals involved. It is for them to prove their innocence before the law. In case they are found guilty of any lapses, they ought to be proceeded against. The aim of the article is only to safeguard the reputation of the army as an institution. A closer look is warranted on the above mentioned two cases before passing any judgment.
Adarsh Housing Society

Handling of the Adarsh Housing Society case by the services has left much to be desired. Associated publicity has caused immense pain to all serving and retired soldiers. Media's projection has certainly been unfair to the military as an institution.
It was alleged that ignoring security concerns, senior service officers had colluded to swindle Kargil-widows out of their entitlement by grabbing a piece of army land by devious means. A major TV channel calls it 'Kargil for Profit' scam and keeps insisting that the land was originally meant for Kargil war widows.
As per the details appearing in the press, a few officers formed a society and sought allotment of land from the state government for serving soldiers, ex-servicemen, Kargil heroes and widows. Acceding to their request, Maharashtra Government sold a piece of land to the society for a sum of Rs 18 Crores. To start with, it was supposed to be a six-storey building as allowed under the local laws. Subsequently, politicians and bureaucrats extracted their share of the pie as quid-pro-quo for according necessary sanctions and raised its height to 31storeys.
A few issues need to be clarified here:-

• There is nothing known as army or military land. Ministry of Defence (MoD) is the sole owner of all defence land. Department of Defence Estates (DDE), a civilian agency directly under the control of MoD, is the holder and custodian of records of all defence land. Therefore, it is DDE that knows the true status of the land allotted to Adarsh Society. The services can neither claim nor deny ownership. DDE, being the official repository of records, is the sole authority in the matter.

• Hundreds of similar housing societies, formed by other services (IFS, IAS, IPS, judicial, customs, railways, income-tax and so on) have obtained land from Delhi Development Authority and state governments at concessional rates.

• Flats in Adarsh Society were allotted to members against full payment. War widows were certainly eligible to be members but there was no entitlement as such. One is not aware if any war widows application was ever rejected. Adarsh was a private initiative of a few individuals and there was nothing official about it.

• As regards security concerns, it overlooks family quarters. On the other hand, numerous high rise buildings (including the iconic Hotel Taj patronised by foreigners) provide a much closer view of the naval establishments.

Therefore, it is clear that neither the army is to blame for the disputed status of the land nor any war widow has been swindled out of her entitlement. The case boils down to whether the land belonged to MoD or not, and whether mandatory clearances were granted by the state government.
Answers should be sought from DDE and the state government respectively. How can a state government sell a piece of land which does not belong to it? Once these aspects are understood, complexion of the case changes radically.
Had the above points been clarified by AHQ to the media, the controversy would not have got blown up and tarnished the image of the services as a whole and the officer-cadre in particular. This failure has resulted in immense damage to the reputation of the services and the previous Chiefs.
Sukna Land Case
Similarly, the media coverage of the Sukhna land case made every soldier sad. The case has been unfairly termed as a scam. Medias penchant for sensationalism and failure of the military leadership to clarify the issue converted an innocuous matter into a major campaign to tarnish the image of the army. Facts of the case were totally and intentionally ignored by the media to justify allegation of gross misappropriation. Herein again, AHQ failed to correct misconceptions. The case needs to be recalled here.
The Corps Headquarters (Corps HQ) at Sukna is surrounded by private tea gardens. An entrepreneur purchased some land to start tea-tourism. The state government asked him to obtain security clearance from the army due to close vicinity. The Corps HQ declined on the ground that the proposed tea-tourism would attract foreigners.
The entrepreneur revised his proposal and sought permission to establish a residential school for girls instead. The Corps HQ issued a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from security angle. It was alleged that the Corps Commander was pressurised by the then Military Secretary, who was an acquaintance of the said entrepreneur. However, the Command Headquarters at Calcutta overruled the Corps HQ and revoked the NOC.
The following facts stand out:-

• The land in question was privately owned and the services had nothing to do with it. No defence land was ever involved.
• NOC has not been alleged to have been given against any undue favours or money.
• Establishment of a school can never be considered a security risk by any stretch of imagination. Every cantonment in India has numerous academic institutions within its limits. Even Delhi cantonment has over 10 schools. In the sensitive city of Jammu, a leading private school is located just opposite the Divisional Headquarters.

Thus, the whole case entails two issues. One, whether the issuance of NOC was in order or not? As long as it was not granted for pecuniary considerations on quid- pro-quo basis, the Corps Commander cannot be faulted for exercising his discretion. Two, whether the Military Secretary exerted undue pressure on the Corps Commander? The Military Secretary may have recommended the case of the entrepreneur but he cannot coerce a Corps Commander to do his bidding. Recommending an acquaintances case, at the most, can be termed as an act of indiscretion and nothing more. In any case, Indian governance works purely on recommendations every political leader and bureaucrat issues numerous letters of recommendations every day.
Although the case received huge unwarranted adverse publicity, AHQ made no attempt to set the record straight. It failed to tell the public that there was no scam at all the land involved was privately owned, no transfer took place and no money ever exchanged hands.
Finally
Armys unique character is due to the fact that it is a highly structured and internally regulated organisation that follows well laid down norms for the continued sustenance of its distinctive ethos. Norms can be descriptive (what to do or Dos) and proscriptive (what not to do or Donts). Norms get evolved due to precedents and conventions set over a period of time. Army draws its strength from well-established organisational norms that drive all facets of its functioning, including the conduct of its officers.
It is a descriptive norm to safeguard the character and military reputation of retired officers. There are understandable reasons for these norms. One, decisions are always taken as per the prevailing circumstances and with inputs available at that time. It is very easy to find fault with them in retrospect with the benefit of hindsight. Two, a retired officer is never present to defend his actions. Thus, vilifying him amounts to his trial in absentia. Three, military as an institution, is highly sensitive to the reputation of its leadership. When leaders are shown in poor light, troops wonder whether such officers are worthy of their confidence, thereby threatening the vital trust-loyalty equation existing between the leadership and the rank and file. Lest it be misunderstood, it is nobodys case that wrongs committed by senior officers should be defended or brushed under the carpet.
Failure to correct a wrong impression amongst the countrymen has caused immense damage to the standing of the army and its leaders. Forces inimical to the army will only be too happy to see the spectacle of senior service officers being subjected to skewed trials by sensation-hungry media. AHQ is duty bound to safeguard the character and military reputation of the officers by truthful presentation of facts. Silence in such cases is certainly not golden as it tantamount to admission of guilt for crimes not committed.

The 20% disability misconception

Defence personnel and Record offices are still under the misconception that a minimum 20% disability is required for earning a disability element of disability pension. This misconception stems from the fact that the said 20% figure is mentioned in Regulations 48 and 173 of the Pension Regulations dealing with grant of disability pension.
However, the said criterion of 20% minimum requirement has already been abrogated with effect from 01-01-1996 but only for invalided personnel. Hence, there is no requirement of minimum 20% disability for earning a disability element for those post-1996 retirees who were invalided from service and such invalided personnel are entitled to a disability element by rounding off the disability to 50% even in case they are medically boarded out with 01% disability. The minimum 20% disability requirement however remains intact for those disabled retirees who have been discharged on completion of terms or have superannuated.
The Govt, after the 5th CPC, had brought disabled defence personnel at par with civilian disabled personnel and had abrogated the minimum 20% requirement for earning a disability element for those personnel who were invalided. The reason for this was that normally it is not expected from the authorities to invalid out personnel with disabilities less than 20%, hence the govt had taken a considered decision that if such a situation arose then such invalided personnel shall be given the benefit of disability element with rounding off to 50% even if the disability was 01%.
This becomes clear from the heading of Para 7 and Para 7.2 of Govt of India, MoD Letter dated 31-01-2001 which provides that disabilities ‘less than 50%’, (that is, without any minimum criterion of 20%) would be reckoned as 50% for disability element purposes. Further the heading of Para 8 read with Para 8.1 and more particularly Para 8.2 clearly stipulate that in cases of individuals retained in service (and not invalided), no disability element shall be paid for disabilities below 20%. This condition of minimum 20% has only been imposed in Para 8 (retirement / discharge cases) and not in Para 7 (invalidation cases).
Though the office of the PCDA(P) and the MOD are both aware of the abrogation of the 20% criterion and are granting the benefit whenever papers are processed to them, many Record offices remain unaware of the same and are not sending the documents for continuation of disability pension in invalidation cases where the disability has fallen below 20% or when the disability was initially assessed at below 20% but still the person was invalided out.