Custom Search Engine - Scans Selected News Sites

Loading

Thursday, 8 May 2008

Who Needs Enemies???

Here is a mail posted on 'Band of Brothers', and my response to it.

I think that the Army Chief dramatise this subject and become a good samaritan of sorts and for the sake of the welfare of soldiers officially ban the practice of sahayaks provided a few steps be taken before that, viz: -

(a) Take an actual honest to god count of the number of soldiers performing sahayak duties.
(b) Calculate their pay and allowances
(c) Reduce the strength of the armed forces by that many soldiers
(d) Distrbute the savings accrued by this reduction in strength amongst all officers of army, navy and air force as an increase in their salaries maybe in the form of a special allowance, since a raise in basic pay will not go down well with bureaucrats. Every corporate gives a gives something called a 'special allowance' for no apparent reason, so why not the armed forces?
(e) Once the official strength per unit is reduced, take up a case for new raisings based on the principle of 'matching savings'.
(f) Take up cases for modernisation such as one GPS per head (or atleast for each section/stick). If not for all units, atleast for airborne units that may get widely dispersed when they touch ground. Or bullet proof jackets for one and all since with the reduced strength, each life will be valuable. Or have an exclusive mobile telephony network exclusively for the army for operational communication.
(g) With each pay commission equate the special allowance with the pay of a Sepoy.

Regards to all,

Cdr Shantanu Sukul, Retd

Sir,

Compliments on the ‘out of the box’ thinking. But there is one fatal flaw.

No soldier is a sahayak by trade. He is a rifleman / tank crew / gunner / sapper etc. During peacetime, while not employed for his primary task, he is employed as a sahayak. On mobilisation, he reverts to his op role. Incidentally, even during war an officer has an orderly, but he doubles up as his radio operator, driver, or performs a similar role which entails working in close proximity.

The quid pro quo suggested by you therefore is not implementable practically, even if accepted by the government and the babus.

Really, I am getting more and more convinced that we are so wonderfully ‘inward looking’ that we keep shooting ourselves on our / each other’s feet. On one hand the Babus are working hard to give more and more benefits to their own ilk, while we are racking our brains on ways for doing away with whatever meagre perks that we / our brethren enjoy.


Cheers


Rohit



2 comments:

  1. The guys from the other two sister services perhaps have no understanding of the functioning of the Army. That is why such misinformed and unfounded conclusions are drawn. So much for tri services synergy?

    ReplyDelete
  2. If we had the synergy, CDS would have been a reality long ago.

    ReplyDelete

 

Mail your comments, suggestions and ideas to me

Template created by Rohit Agarwal