Somnath
I mentioned before, the SSC solution is not in isolation - it has to accompany a reorganisation of the org structure itself. The template I gave will have more Lt/Capt, but lesser Lt Cols, Cols, Brigadier, and "gen staff" officers when stretched its logical conclusion.
And please do tell me, why do you need lesser number of Lt.Cols/Brigadier/Generals etc.? What aspect of the present organization structure is not correct and needs to be rectified? Those in know of the IA structure, please point out where a higher rank officer is commanding a formation which should be have been job of an officer rank junior? And before you mention the need to have Lt.Cols as preferably the COs of their battalions, there is a case of some inter service problem with the issue where the IA wanted to do away with the rank or something but was shot down by other Services.
The assumption is simple - you need more officers at the Lt/Capt level, one because of the increasing technical nature of the equipment, and second because the JCO/NCO cadre has been consistently found wanting when asked to step up for more technical or command level functions. (There are lots of references for this - I am sure you know most of them, including a failed attempt to graduate more NCOs to commissioned officers).
And what are these technical natures of equipment that you are referring to? Do you propose to have an officer in charge for each ATGM launcher? And instead of ensuring IA has more qualified NCOs, should we have officers just to ensure we can reach your 65% SSC equilibrium state? And as for JCO/NCO found wanting, which technical and command level functions are you referring to? This is in fact one area that IA should be concentrating on to reduce the dependence on the Officers for everything and you want this to be throttled? The solution is not to have more officers but a better trained and groomed Senior NCO and JCO cadre. If you can, read up on the German NCOs and how they were/are the backbone of the German Army. And mind you, the need for a superior NCO cadre will be even more important in a structure where you have the bulk of officer cadre (SSC) leaving every 5 years. Who do you think will keep the unit together? The only permanence will be the NCO/JCOs of the unit.
And as for the ACC scheme (NCOs-Officers), it has been there for donkey years. At least as long as the IA. It is tedious and time consuming process where, if everything goes all right, it will take minimum 4 years before a NCO can graduate to an Officer.
And at Lt/Cap level, you do not need everyone to be at what I put simplistically as "staff quality" level - hence a greater % of SSC cadre. But as you go up the ranks, the role complexity increases, you would want more jobs to be manned by the PC cadre, who would be a smaller, more "elite" selection process
Basically, what you mean is, IA should approach the following process:
PC Selection Criteria – X
SSC Selection Criteria – Y
Where X>Y with the assumption that, SSC selection criteria will somehow ensure that SSC officer can take care of the responsibilities at the Lt/Captain level. Right? Now please tell me, how does a jawan in a platoon X led by a SSC cadre officer supposed to feel on knowing that the officer leading him is somehow inferior to PC officer commanding platoon Y?
The rejections are happening at SSB because of the candidates not qualifying in the OLQ matrix. Should a SSC officer possess any less Officer like Qualities than a PC officer? You are confusing the intellectual abilities/IQ with if I may take the liberty of calling the Emotional Quotient (EQ) of a person. There never has been dearth of people taking and clearing the CDS examination. To be an Officer requires much more than one’s ability to crack complex equations.
This is where there is fundamental departure between your IIM and back office example and the nature of job an Officer undertakes. While former is predominantly a function of your intellectual prowess, the latter is combination of one’s intellectual and Emotional Quotient.
And as for the Parity issue, it is present everywhere in one form or the other. The
GRADE on your payslip determines your pecking order and salary in the Corporate world. Why do you think the company/HR frowns and dissuades one from discussing one's salary and grade? And as for why fuss about it, why not fuss about it? Had it been that trivial a matter, would the IAS lobby gone to such subterfuge levels?
MohanG: The reason SSC is called a 5 year service because there are two terms of 5 years each. One year prior to the completion of 1st term, one has to confirm wether he wants to opt for the 2nd term. While the SSC contract provides for 10year of service, the IA may/may not grant the 2nd term. Also, at the end of 10year period, one can opt out or for PC. A final extensio of 4 years is available at the end of 10 year period if one does not go for PC. Most of the dropouts happen at the end of 1st 5 year term itself.