Questioning the Army's Methodologies

Mohan G · Post by **Mohan G** » 04 Feb 2009 17:34

SSC is a 5 years scheme. It is NOT my scheme.

How do I argue with a man who thinks SSC is still a 5 year scheme? Living in the past...

http://indianarmy.nic.in/career.html

Short Service Commission

You also have the option of joining the Army and serving as a Commissioned Officer for 10 years. At the end of this period you have two options. Either elect for a Permanent Commission or opt out.

Those not selected for Permanent Commission have the option of a 4 years extension. They can resign at any time during this period.

...

http://careerairforce.nic.in/career_opp/short_serv.html

Short Service Commission

If the Indian Air Force grants you the Short Service Commission, it means that you have been accepted in service for a period of ten years. Depending upon your performance, Air Force requirements and your inclination to continue, you can extend your tenure by five years.

Thereafter, you can extend your tenure by another five years or retire at forty whichever comes first. The Short Service Commission is granted to both men and women.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 04 Feb 2009 20:12

Ray is not wrong either

http://joinindianarmy.nic.in/otatgc.htm

(f) SSC (Tech). (I) Engineering Graduate trainees will be confirmed in Short Service Commission with an antedate seniority of two years from date of confirmation. They will however be junior to the Technical Graduates granted Permanent Commission on the same date. (Ii) Tenure of Engagement : Officers will be required to serve for five years and may be considered for grant of permanent commission thereafter as per existing rules.

(iii) Reserve Liability : Short Service Commission Officers on release before or expiry of contractual length of service will carry a reserve liability to service the Army initially for five years-two years on voluntary basis or upto the age of 40 years whichever is earlier.

http://joinindianarmy.nic.in/otancc.htm

( (b) Posting : Personnel granted Short Service Commission are liable to serve anywhere in India and abroad.
(c) Tenure of Appointment and Promotion : Short Service Commission in the regular Army will be granted for a period of five years. Such officers who are willing to continue to serve in the Army after the period of five years Short Service Commission may, if eligible and suitable in all respects, be considered for the grant of permanent Commission in the last year of their for the grant of permanent commission during the tenure of five years be released on completion of the tenure of five years.

even this notifcation puts it as five years extendable to 14
http://www.indianarmy.gov.in/army_denta ... adc-08.pdf

The tenure is of 5 years extendable by another 9 years in two spells first of 5
years and second of 4 years (total SSC tenure 14 years) for those who are willing
to continue subject to laid down eligibility criteria

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 04 Feb 2009 20:19

somnath wrote:RayC,

Unless you start with the fundamental assumption that there are differential skills that can be matched with differential "merit", once cannot start looking at the issue.

I set up a list of questions in one my earlier posts - restating them:

In equilibrium state, (say) 65% of the officer corps is from the SSC. Plus, a much "narrower" pyramid - so much less nos of Lt cols, Cols, Brigadiers and Gen staff officers.

How much do we save in salaries?
How much do we save in pensions?
How much do we save in benefits?
How much do we save in "infrastructure" - permanent housing, medical, canteens etc?
How much do we save in training?
How much do we spend in golden handshake and associated benefits?

I do not have the figures.

Do you?

Would you be able to throw some light on the numbers required? Or some source?[/quote]

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 04 Feb 2009 23:27

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.

Mohan G · Post by **Mohan G** » 05 Feb 2009 00:09

^ Jagan, rohitvats

I think there has been a change in the rules recently. While I have not seen the exact legal language of the actual contract, consider this:

http://www.upscexam.com/upsc_examinatio ... tions.html

...

c) Tenure of Appointment Short Service Commission (Male and Female) in the regular Army will be granted for 14 years i.e. for an initial period of 10 years extendable by a further period of 04 years. However, male officers who are willing to continue to serve in the Army after the period of five years Short Service Commission may, if eligible and suitable in all respects, be considered for the grant of permanent Commission in the last year of their Short Service Commission in accordance with the relevant rules.

"Those SSC officers who are not selected for grant of PC but are otherwise considered fit and suitable, will be given options to continue as SSCOs for a total period of 14 years (including the initial tenure of 5 years) on expiry of which they will be released from the Army".

Women officers are not eligible for permanent commission. However, they can opt for extention of upto 14 years of service.

d) Special Provision for Release for SSC on Completion of 5th Year of Service: SSC(Non-Tech) Male & Female Officers, other than those who undergone or are undergoing Degree Engineering Course or any other specialized course of such nature, who are desirous of leaving the service after completion of five years service may, during the fifth year of service, apply to the Army HQs for release.

Army HQ will consider the applications of such officers on merits and the decision of the Army HQ will be final and irrevocable. On approval of such officers will be released from service on completion of 5th year of service.

Those SSC (Non-Tech) Male & Female Officers who have undergone or are undergoing Degree Engineering Course or any other specialised course of such nature, will not be released before expiry of full tenure of 14 years unless the cost of training of such specialized course as prescribed is recovered from them.

They will be required to execute a bond to this effect on nominated for undertaking Degree Engineering Course/Specialised Course of such nature.

e) Special Provisions during Extended Tenure: During extended tenure, they will be permitted to seek release from the Army on the following grounds:-

1. Taking up civil job.
2. Pursuing higher education
3. Starting own business/joining family business.

...

So it seems:

1. The initial contract is for 10 years.

2. After 5 years the SSC officer may get selected to PC, else if otherwise fit he will have an option to extend his SSC by 4 years. (10+4=14).

3. If the officer declines the extended period contract offer, he continues on the original contract of 10 years.

4. The officer can ask for release after 5 years (this is a special provision). But the army may not approve it. The officer has no right to insist on release after 5 years.

skher · Post by **skher** » 05 Feb 2009 03:05

e) Special Provisions during Extended Tenure: During extended tenure, they will be permitted to seek release from the Army on the following grounds:-

1. Taking up civil job.
2. Pursuing higher education
3. Starting own business/joining family business.

...

Wouldn't it be better that if :-

1.All SSC members are assigned only to do CI ops,SF and carry out IA's deputation duties in paramil,NDMA,etc.

2.All PC members only have the itinerant structure of war exercises, UN deployment and indigenising equipment/defence research. Israel has many small arms designed by serving soldiers. Direct supervision of production units by PC officers (combat arms-technical) like HAL,mazgaon docks etc. might also help.

3.Paramil and SF are upgraded in training,manpower and equipment - all under armed forces' supervision and training facilities.The demand loop of DRDO is met by this new paramil and supplemented by export orders...ISRO has been successful in the same way.

Other than strong political will; if technical reasons make implementation of any of the above difficult,
then IMVVHO SSC should be scrapped. It would serve little purpose and probably promotes a mercenary like and escape oriented mindset.

JMT.

PS: Universalisation of NCC & expansion of ACC is another solution.
But the org must set up in naxal-infested areas in a big way and take over erstwile SSB's responsibilities as well.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 05 Feb 2009 07:08

Rohitvats

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.

I dont know what intra services rivalries you are referring to, but I do know that more battlaions now are being commanded by Colonels, almost all squadrons by Wing cos (and all wings by Gr Captains). Besides, each battalion now will have at least 2 Lt Cols besides a Col, each brigade at least 5 cols etc etc - after the Av Singh recos..And the number of general staff officers now will be greater than the US military - with more than 350 gen staff officers! (I posted the link in one of the earlier pages on the count)..

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.

Of course the IA should have more qualified NCOs. But I am sure you know about a programme about 15 years back where the IA tried to see how more NCOs could be graduated to officers quickly, and it didnt take off at all..

the NCO of not just the German, but also the US Army (and the UK Army) shoulders a lot of responsibilities. Again, wasnt it tried out in IA quite a few years back, getting the NCOs to shoulder some of the "officer responsibilities" (to tackle officer shortage)? Wasnt the result a conclusion that there is no solution to having more officers at Lt/Cap level?

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.

the problem is that you are defining this as "inferior", while the right point of view would be "skills matching".. the example of a back office to "core business" functions is not just about IQ - its a fallacy to say that in corporate organisations one gets ahead only by IQ. In fact the standing dictum (in banks for example) is a good specialist (high IQ) is not necessarily a good manager (IQ+EQ)..So organisations design different comp systems to cater to and attract both categories...

Finally, I dont know which organisation prevents its employees from disclosing their "grade" - in fact its quite public in orgs that I know of (and I know of some of the largest in the world!)...Pay is sometimes treated a bit cagily, but thats because organisations have had to (partly because of what I desribed above) delink pay from grade...

The IAS lobby is a decrepit setup, ravaged by a bunch of quota characters whose only qualification is caste - to emulate them would be the biggest fallacy one can indulge in.

In any case, I guess the discussion can go forward only if we have some numbers on the costs - I will try (over the weeknd() to dig out something on that and presetn some numbners...

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 05 Feb 2009 19:01

A quick question since some people highlighted that we cannot groom the NCO/JCO ranks and so many responsibilities still have to be handled by the officer. A couple of questions (especially to ex-soldiers).

1. What were the options tried out to see if JCOs can do the tasks which say a junior officer (Lt., Capt.) does? What was found lacking in them? Is it that they lacked the required education or communication skills?

2. My understanding is that JCO is still a rank attained by promotions (except may be "JCO religious teacher" who may be directly inducted). Can atleast part of the JCO cadre be recruited directly to this rank? So that young men (with better educational qualification, but who could not make it in SSC exams etc.) recruited as JCOs? There would be lots of technically qualified young men (Diploma Holders etc.) who may be willing to join up as JCOs.

Many state police services, recruit Police Sub-Inspectors directly (and a share is reserved for promotees). The reason is that they are more educated, and at a younger age group and in a position to handle lots of responsibilities and work-pressure. And when it comes to modernization schemes etc., it is better to train this lot than promotee SIs who may have put in long years of service but may not have the mind-set to grasp certain new things.

Sanju · Post by **Sanju** » 05 Feb 2009 19:08

Sachin,

IIRC back in the late 80's or it may have been 90-91, I met a very young JCO who was supposed to be a direct entry. I think he was in Technical area, Signals or EME. That person had a diploma from an ITI institute. I still remember the guy riding his own scooter (Bajaj

) and thinking that it is good to see that it is affordable for the young guys.

Cheers,
Sanju

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Feb 2009 22:16

I dont know Sachin. Indian armed froces try to get their NCOS a chance to be officers. I recall an IAF WO was one of the candidates for NDA.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 05 Feb 2009 22:59

The Subedar Majors role is essentially to play the role of a father figure to the troops, and serve as a man manager and enlisted-officer liaison. Same for other JCO ranks. It is difficult for a direct recruit to achieve the same rapport with the troops.

In some technical arms, a Havildar Cartographer can be recruited, in corps of engg. Due to variance in badges of rank used, police services use a rank badge higher than their equivalent grade (pay wise) army counterparts, oddly enough. So, the Havildar can be counted as (roughly) an ASI of police (both being in PB2, GP2800). So that is a direct recruitment to an executive position.

The ASC hires food technologists, and catering experts as direct JCOs. I assume these would be in the rank of Nb. Sub., which is equivalent to SI's of police.

The Religious Teacher is hired in the rank of Subedar (equivalent to inspector of police), directly.

Perhaps other trades in EME, SIGS etc also direct recruit. Also in IAF and IN.

HariC · Post by **HariC** » 05 Feb 2009 23:19

In most cases the JCOs do the tasks that junior Lts and Captains do. eg.. command a platoon, or a tank troop. I dont think its an automatic promotion to JCO over time. they do have to write some exams and 'qualify'.

in the ladder they are supposedly junior to Lts and Captains but woe befall any young upstart Lt who tries to lord it over the JCOs

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 06 Feb 2009 00:29

It is quite late in the night here, so would jot down just some random thoughts before I sign off.

Sanju wrote:IIRC back in the late 80's or it may have been 90-91, I met a very young JCO who was supposed to be a direct entry.

Hmm.. can't verify this since it was very long time ago. But as far as I have seen most of the JCOs have put atleast 15-20 years of service. Since you don't have any more information on this case, we do not know more on this case

.

ramana wrote:I dont know Sachin. Indian armed froces try to get their NCOS a chance to be officers. I recall an IAF WO was one of the candidates for NDA.

I am aware of this ACC scheme. Infact one of my relatives is preparing for the same. They do a 6 months to one year course and then get commissioned into the "General Service" branch. But I heard it is very much a tough exam to get through considering that the soldier still has to do his normal duties. There are no special exceptions or leaves for preparing for the exam etc. Infact during my days in NCC our Adam (Adm.) Officer was a Lt.Col of the Grenadiers who began his service as a Sepoy driver in EME.

ASPaur wrote:The Subedar Majors role is essentially to play the role of a father figure to the troops, and serve as a man manager and enlisted-officer liaison. Same for other JCO ranks. It is difficult for a direct recruit to achieve the same rapport with the troops.

Yes in the British tradition (essentially followed in IA) this was the case. A Sub.Major in IA was equivalent to the RSMs in British units. And I also understand their traditional roles etc. But was just wondering whether we can modify them a little bit, so that we can some how cope up with the Officer shortage we are facing now.

In US they introduced a concept of "Warrant Officers". This is a rank which is given to specialists (in certain areas), but they will never be allowed to "command" a body of troops. These jobs are done by the umpteen number of Sergeants they have. Can we have a similar setup within the JCO ranks as well?

HariC wrote:In most cases the JCOs do the tasks that junior Lts and Captains do. eg.. command a platoon, or a tank troop.

I understand that part

. But then why not elevate them to the rank of Lieutenant or Captains? They only get honorany commissions, that too at the last stages of their service.

in the ladder they are supposedly junior to Lts and Captains but woe befall any young upstart Lt who tries to lord it over the JCOs

That again is part of the legacy we got from the British. VCOs (and in the British regiments, the RSMs) were given due respect due to their long service and experience.

What made me think in these lines are:-
1. Indian Army has this problem of officer shortage for quite some time.
2. Indian Army also has very strict SSC recuriting procedures, which they will never water down. You only become an officer, if you meet the Army's criteria for an officer.
3. With #1 and #2 being the case, I was thinking of how we can make use of the other two sets of Army men (NCOs/JCOs) to circumvent the shortage of Officers.

But for that we may have to find out what makes an Army officer a unique person, which say an NCO or JCO can never achieve

. And in what aspects does this "uniqueness" of officer helps the Indian Army function

.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 06 Feb 2009 01:26

I think India took a lot of wrong legacies of the British. Lord Roberts of Kandahar was a sepoy/private who rose to be Field Marshal in the British Indian Army.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 06 Feb 2009 04:44

ramana wrote:I think India took a lot of wrong legacies of the British. Lord Roberts of Kandahar was a sepoy/private who rose to be Field Marshal in the British Indian Army.

Care to elaborate Ramama

On another note

RayC Sir,
Perhaps you could educate some of the worthies on some of the lesser known roles that the JCO / NCO plays. There are other aspects that I know that can only be observed from a close knit batallion (or equivalent) environment. Arm-chair hypothesising........

Cheers

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 06 Feb 2009 08:06

The expanded SSC-leaner PC model has the following sources of "cost saves" that can be used to increase the benefits for the PC corps:

1. Lower overall pension bill
2. Lower benefits and other infrastructure costs, as many of this is for the benefit of the PC corps only
3. Lower "numbers" of PC offiicers @ Col rank and above

We have only minimal data available, so a very exhaustive analysis is a bit tricky, but an attempt to gauge the potential through an estimation of the first point only (pension bills).

total pension bill of the services: 15244 crores (Source: Union Budget 2008-09)
Officer Corps as a % of total personnel: (about 3.1% estimated) (Source: about 40k officers out of 1.3 Million personnel)
% of pension accruing to the officer corps: estimated @ 7.5% (slightly more than doubel their contribution of nos)
Total officer pension bill: 1143 crores

Current serving officer-to-pensioner ration: 1.68 - taken at the same level as the serving personnel to pensioner ratio (source: http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/20 ... -pensions/)

Equilibrium state serving officer-to-pensioner ratio: 1 (estimating a steady state ration of 60% SSC corps officers)
total no of PC officers: 16000 (40% of total officer corps)
% decline in officer pension commitment: 40%
Pension savings: 463 crores
Incremental available/PC officer: 2.9 lacs (approx)

this is a very crude approximation, based on available numbers on one count. There will be other savings (and expenses) of carrying out this exercise. But an incremental pool available of 3 lacs per officer, based on CURRENT COSTS (extending this into the future, which is when the steady state will come about, will yield much bigger numbers), is not a bad start!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 06 Feb 2009 10:10

ks_sachin wrote: On another note

RayC Sir,
Perhaps you could educate some of the worthies on some of the lesser known roles that the JCO / NCO plays. There are other aspects that I know that can only be observed from a close knit batallion (or equivalent) environment. Arm-chair hypothesising........

Cheers

Actually, these days the JCOs and NCOs take on very many responsibilities.

Their training is more structured and hence there is a greater self confidence.

If one goes to see these Army shows, then one would see NCOs and JCOs explaining issues, while in the olden days, officers would have to take on the task.

The LOs are NCOs and JCOs instead of officers.

Coy 2ICs and in many other posts, because of the dearth of officers are JCOs.

NCOs are the instructors in training classes where officers are trained and so on.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 06 Feb 2009 10:42

Sachin wrote:A quick question since some people highlighted that we cannot groom the NCO/JCO ranks and so many responsibilities still have to be handled by the officer. A couple of questions (especially to ex-soldiers).

2. My understanding is that JCO is still a rank attained by promotions (except may be "JCO religious teacher" who may be directly inducted). Can atleast part of the JCO cadre be recruited directly to this rank? So that young men (with better educational qualification, but who could not make it in SSC exams etc.) recruited as JCOs? There would be lots of technically qualified young men (Diploma Holders etc.) who may be willing to join up as JCOs.

Many state police services, recruit Police Sub-Inspectors directly (and a share is reserved for promotees). The reason is that they are more educated, and at a younger age group and in a position to handle lots of responsibilities and work-pressure. And when it comes to modernization schemes etc., it is better to train this lot than promotee SIs who may have put in long years of service but may not have the mind-set to grasp certain new things.

To be a JCO, one has to have the skills required to be able to understand and use the weapons of the unit, understand administration of all positions in the unit, leadership of a section, platoon and even the company and so on. It requires time and experience of each level. If one is a direct JCO and he has to command a platoon and he knows little about getting about that business, he will not have the confidence of his platoon and hence the efficiency of the platoon will be less.

One of the reasons, I think, as to why there can be a direct police SI and why it is not possible to apply it to the Army is that in the latter, it is 'life and death' issue and the nation's prestige is involved since if a direct JCO is not honed in command of his platoon and there is a war, his platoon will suffer unnecessary casualties and the battle maybe lost.

But for that we may have to find out what makes an Army officer a unique person, which say an NCO or JCO can never achieve . And in what aspects does this "uniqueness" of officer helps the Indian Army function .

There are many reasons.

Some of them are:

1. An officer is groomed to command a battalion and that requires one to know law, science and technology, military history, special to corps and things like that. A JCO or NCO not being educated enough (graduate) would find that difficult and would not be able to pass the promotion exams as an officer has to do. Hypothetically, if a JCO or NCO were to become an officer and they failed to pass exams, then there would be a whole lot of dissatisfaction affecting the Army and that would be dangerous.

2. A person's mentality is groomed by his contemporary environment. A NCOs or a JCOs mentality is of a 'rough and ready' manner. Therefore, they could not care less of the niceties of life that an officer is expected to have (Ramana will be upset by this statement as a part of British legacy). Hence, they would showcase themselves to the general public, wherein the nation would have confidence in them. For instance, such a person would not think twice about sorting out a train reservation hassle by using 'muscle power' and if he were to be a Lt Col, imagine the media coverage and the degradation in public stature of the army.

I will amplify the environment being a grooming issue. Take the Congress Party and the BJP. Those in them are Indians and are from the same stock. Why do they have totally opposing philosophies and practices? It is the environment that has groomed them. I am sure both parties would not like to have drunken blokes roaming the street and yet their approach is different!

Quote:
in the ladder they are supposedly junior to Lts and Captains but woe befall any young upstart Lt who tries to lord it over the JCOs

Indeed.

On commissioning I was understudy to my Senior JCO and I gratefully look back to the excellent training and guidance he gave me.

In fact, my father, who was also in the Army, told him to sort me out if I went out of line.

This another of the British legacies which those who have not experienced will find odd.

All British legacies are not bad and which should be discarded.

Even the US Army got British officers to organise their Regimental system, which initially was and even now is, to some extent, is not there.

The US Army these days, or so I learn, is trying to ensure that men enlisted in one unit, remains in the same, so that better cohesion is ensured.

Ramana,

The British legacies have stood the Armed Forces in good stead and they are still delivering. Take a look at Pakistan. We are peas of the same pod and yet.......

There are many rankers in the IA who have reached General's rank.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 06 Feb 2009 11:02

RayC wrote:
ks_sachin wrote: On another note

RayC Sir,
Perhaps you could educate some of the worthies on some of the lesser known roles that the JCO / NCO plays. There are other aspects that I know that can only be observed from a close knit batallion (or equivalent) environment. Arm-chair hypothesising........

Cheers
Actually, these days the JCOs and NCOs take on very many responsibilities.

Their training is more structured and hence there is a greater self confidence.

If one goes to see these Army shows, then one would see NCOs and JCOs explaining issues, while in the olden days, officers would have to take on the task.

The LOs are NCOs and JCOs instead of officers.

Coy 2ICs and in many other posts, because of the dearth of officers are JCOs.

NCOs are the instructors in training classes where officers are trained and so on.

Thanks Sir,

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 06 Feb 2009 12:28

The concept of having SSC officers to fill the lower ranks for 5 years is a laudable thought.

However, what must be understood is the Indian’s psychology. We are conservative and we are less prone to taking risk. There is still the mentality of parents advising children to seek permanency in jobs over money! I agree this is changing, but not in the rapid rate that one sees in other western countries.

If someone joins the SSC stream and that too, when he has no idea of the ‘world outside’, he will baulk at ‘stepping out into the unknown and hostile world’. Therefore, he will, in al probability opt for PC, as is the case so far and those who don’t make it, do so for another 5 years!

Therefore, inspite of noble ideas, the system is not panning out.

In short, a equally ‘respectable’ and equivalent option has to be guaranteed.

In the Army, there is no ‘class’ division. It would be most reprehensible to divide them into “General Staff” and ‘others’!

Just not done!

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 06 Feb 2009 12:31

JCOs are an institution.

In response to Ramana, I can cite Major General Syed Mehdi Hasnain, PVSM, and Major General AA Rudra as general officers I personally know of, who rose from the ranks.

The infamous Lt. Col. Kirori Singh Bainsala of gujjar agitation fame, late of the Brigade of the Guards, is also, by the way, a product of the ACC!

There are many officers serving in the army today who are from the ACC, and several are in very senior ranks.

@Sachin: The One year preparatory training thing you speak of does not sound like the ACC to me. The ACC is a three year, degree granting institution. I think, the thing youre talking about is either the Special List commission, or the Regimental Commission, or Army Medical Corps non-technical commission. All are available to men from the ranks, but these are so to say, 'restricted' cadres, specially open only to in service enlisted men, and not to aspirants from civilian life.

The ACC commission is special, in that it places the cadet on a par with any other army officer as far as promotion prospects etc (depending on the branch they go on to join), and if age and ability is there, then the officer can go on to become a Brigade Commander, GoC of a Div, Corps Commander, GoC-inC Army Commander, a PSO, or even the chief of army staff.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 06 Feb 2009 12:45

Puar,

Thanks.

Your explanation is better than mine!

My GOC during 1971 War was Kundan Singh and he was a ranker.

My CO was also a ranker!

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 06 Feb 2009 14:19

My pleasure, sir.

In fact, I should mention, that General Rudra was Major General AA Rudra, OBE.

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 06 Feb 2009 17:12

RayC wrote:Actually, these days the JCOs and NCOs take on very many responsibilities.

Considering this, can we assume that the oft-repeated "Officer shortage" can be mitigated to some extent? Or is it that the officer shortage is still felt because some aspect in the Army still requires a large number of officers?

Coy 2ICs and in many other posts, because of the dearth of officers are JCOs.

And if they are functioning effectively, won't it be a better idea to reduce that much number of Officers in the battalion, and make JCOs as the Coy 2 i/cs. If a JCO is effective as a Coy 2nd in command, why then ask an officer to do the same job?

If one is a direct JCO and he has to command a platoon and he knows little about getting about that business, he will not have the confidence of his platoon and hence the efficiency of the platoon will be less.

I was thinking about the technical positions now manned by officers, which ideally can be done by JCOs. Just to site an example, a complex wireless communication equipment may need an officer to maintain it well. This is because of the high level knowledge required. But unfortunately we are facing a shortage of officers. So what if the same job can be done by a person holding a JCO rank? The tough SSB interviews etc. can be skipped, the person joins in as a JCO and does the job. Of course they cannot command platoons etc., and this why I mentioned about "Warrant Officers" in US Army. Basically specialists/technicians who are required to do the job, and they expect a better scale. But they are not allowed to command troops at all, as they are not qualified to do that.

A JCO or NCO not being educated enough (graduate) would find that difficult and would not be able to pass the promotion exams as an officer has to do.

I understand this. There is no point in making a person an Officer if he is not able to meet the required criteria. But I am sure that there would be some tasks which an officer is doing now, which a slightly better educated JCO could also handle. So if that can be done, the officers (hand picked men after SSB) can be put to better use else where.

For instance, such a person would not think twice about sorting out a train reservation hassle by using 'muscle power' and if he were to be a Lt Col, imagine the media coverage and the degradation in public stature of the army.

I was not saying that a JCO should be made a Lt.Col, or exposed to situations like the ones you explained above. It was more for the internal tasks which would be within the Army, and these JCOs need not get any public exposure for that. My point was more of identifying some internal tasks in the Indian Army which are currently done by Officers. How many of such tasks can be delegated to well trained NCOs and JCOs, so that the allready less in number officers can be better utilised.

ASPaur wrote: think, the thing youre talking about is either the Special List commission, or the Regimental Commission

Thanks for correcting me. Yes, my relative did use the word SL Commission for what he was trying to qualify. I mistook it to be the same as ACC. My relative is now a Nk. Clerk in one of the infantry units.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 06 Feb 2009 17:34

Hi Sachin, I am not surprised that your relative is in the clerical department. The special list commission is largely opted for by the combatised clerk cadres in the armed forces, because the job description is such that they are naturally more experienced and suitable for it, and qualify more easily for the commission. Also, many army clerks already have undergraduate degrees, and are fluent in English.

The Special List cadre is a cadre of permanent commissioned officers, and forms the army's records department, which is responsible for administration of troops records, pensions, salary disbursals, and much more.

You will find them at all regimental centers, HQ, etc. The head of the Special List cadre, is a Brigadier (or at least it was, last I knew). At the commands, there exists an appointment of Colonel from the special list, to administer all matters pertaining to the department.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 06 Feb 2009 19:15

Sachin,

What you are saying is OK.

But it is the question of quality.

In wars, there is no place for a runners up!

That is the issue.

Sanju · Post by **Sanju** » 06 Feb 2009 19:39

Sachin wrote
Hmm.. can't verify this since it was very long time ago. But as far as I have seen most of the JCOs have put atleast 15-20 years of service. Since you don't have any more information on this case, we do not know more on this case .

Actually, I have been thinking of that meeting in Katari Bagh CSD Canteen. I remember asking my Father about the JCO being so young (between 25-30) and my Father mentioning that there was direct entry in some of the technical areas for qualified folks who are more qualified (educational) than a typical OR and not a graduate. Again I am relying on my memory - like you referred it is not really concrete. Unfortunately, I can't be asking my Father for more information anymore.

This much I remember, that JCO was mallu with the typical attitude to a fellow mallu (till they have the standard "shap" items together)!

Ray Sir, Do you recall any such entry or instances?

Cheers,
S

Sachin · Post by **Sachin** » 06 Feb 2009 19:44

RayC wrote: What you are saying is OK.
But it is the question of quality.

I understand

. Was just trying to see if Officer shortage can be addressed by some in-house changes in the Army

. My personal take is that if we are finding it so tough to get people join the Army as officers, the Army should think ways of mitigating that problem. Of course higher pays, and higher precedence/prestige may be one way to get good talent. The other option would be to make the Army less "officer centric"

.

Sanju wrote:I remember asking my Father about the JCO being so young (between 25-30) and my Father mentioning that there was direct entry in some of the technical areas for qualified folks who are more qualified (educational) than a typical OR and not a graduate.

Nice to know that. Infact this was what I was mentioning in my previous posts. Some sort of a "direct entry scheme" as a JCO. But from Ray saheb's postings I also note that such JCOs may not be the best people to be put in command of troops (troops may not respect them etc. etc.). Perhaps this JCO may have been in a trade which does not have a situation where he will have to lead a platoon into battle. He could have been part of some support arms etc.

All in all I feel education etc. also matters, because I have noticed that in Indian Navy and Air Force these rank structure is not as stiff in the army. In Navy if I what I have heard is true Chief Petty Officers pretty much run the show

. Of course with due military courtesies given and taken.

.

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 06 Feb 2009 20:00

In fact, if I understand correctly, the very reason that a Subedar can function effectively as a 2IC of a coy in a pinch, is because he has such a vast, varied and long military experience. He has been there and seen company operations from a sepoy/rifleman up. Take that away, and I do not see how we are in a satisfactory situation.

While the institution of Subedar as mentor to a young officer is an excellent one, it is a mistake to assume that the officer is not in charge, by the way. The commission is his, the responsibility is his, and the command is his. Subedars do not "run the show". They help their officer to run the show. That is their job, and most of them do it very well!

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 08 Feb 2009 11:01

Sanju wrote:
Sachin wrote
Hmm.. can't verify this since it was very long time ago. But as far as I have seen most of the JCOs have put atleast 15-20 years of service. Since you don't have any more information on this case, we do not know more on this case .
Actually, I have been thinking of that meeting in Katari Bagh CSD Canteen. I remember asking my Father about the JCO being so young (between 25-30) and my Father mentioning that there was direct entry in some of the technical areas for qualified folks who are more qualified (educational) than a typical OR and not a graduate. Again I am relying on my memory - like you referred it is not really concrete. Unfortunately, I can't be asking my Father for more information anymore.

This much I remember, that JCO was mallu with the typical attitude to a fellow mallu (till they have the standard "shap" items together)!

Ray Sir, Do you recall any such entry or instances?

Cheers,
S

Sachin,

To be very frank, one does not really go into such details while one is in service since one's hands are full and so long the organisation is functioning, each one goes his way.

Yes, I think there are posts which have direct JCOs in the technical side. I think I did meet a young looking JCO at the transit camp and did ask him how come. I think he was a Food technician or something like that or maybe from the Signals. Not too sure.

At that time, my mind was just going back to the battalion and to my post.

ASP,

True, no matter what rank an officer is, he is the one who is responsible, but then a JCO's advice is an important input in decision making, more so if he has more service than you and he spending more time with the men and from the same community, has a better pulse of the troops. That is unless, the officer has been in the Company/ Battalion for a long time. I commanded B Company of my unit from my 4th year of service till I was appointed a CO in a different Battalion. I knew my Company better than any JCO of that Company. And yet, my Subedar Major of my new Battalion, where I was the CO, knew more of the battalion than me and so for the first year, I gave way to his advice.

Under normal circumstances, officers change Companies due to exigencies of service, but less frequently than a JCO.

Just an example and not a rule!

Raj Malhotra · Post by **Raj Malhotra** » 09 Feb 2009 09:34

In the olden days there was no media glare or public scrutiny and even now, the MPs have no clue of the defence and so the defence budget and defence issues are passed without any cognisable discussions.

The point is that there was not much to be faulted in the decisions, one way or another.

Of course, corruption is everywhere. Is the Armed Forces selected from outside the Indian society?

Armed forces is still way more honest but it IS becoming increasing corrupt. But tainted brass wrap themselves up in a flag which option is not available to the politicians.

Checked how Roy became the DGP in Maharastra?

Check how an Army Chief died in service inspite of all clear Medical Report and what about world famous Nandas?

What about the grass that was not cut in ammo storage depots. DID the babus or politicans come to tell the Army chief not to cut grass or the babus were budgeting for grass cutting expenses also? Am sure now somebody will point to general low budgeting and not management, for some interesting episodes of fires in lot of depots.

Have you any information that DRDO has been given no GSQR?[/quote]

PAC report says so!

Note:- Corruption actually decreases delay not increases it. People who want to make money need to push files. The problem is in red tape and a lot of it is in army. Look at the trials of Ultra light Howz, compare them to C-130, P-8, Harpoon, SPIW, Crystal, Greenpine etc which were much bigger deals. These cannons are in service all over the world. Why not reach a commonsense decision to procure a batch quickly. Lot of Service (brass) personel have confirmed that the Babus (make their money but) take quick decisions once the file reaches them, but lot of time is wasted within service bureacracy.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 09 Feb 2009 17:00

the Serving COAS talks of making an attractive SSC package, and even that is not enough proof of (at least) intent for BRF-ites. Motives have therefore to be imputed!

How does championing a better SSC help Gen Kapoor get a governership? Though I must say that the idea of staff college for SSC officers was a bit strange. Maybe he meant officers from SSC sent for "other" military courses, not staff college..But who knows..But according to BRF-ites (and some officers), pay parity would restore the full officer strength completely!!

There was even the thought that all military personnel's pay and pension be with an Armed Forces Bank and that would generate funds for the Armed Forces private schemes as housing, educational institutions, hospitals etc and would also give employment to ex servicemen. Obviously, the govt was not too pleased since money means power and it was shot down!

wont comment on the other proposals of Gen Joshi, but this sure was pretty harebrained..So the Army would maintain its own banks, then its own manufacturing units, its own real estate company (to start with, for the Army housing!)!!! Suspiciously close to what Fauji foundation and thousands of other commercial enterprises spawned by the Pak Army - captured so lucidly by Ayesha Siddiqa in her book..Or the many commercial organisations run by the PLA..Or the Thai Military Bank run by the Thai Army..Most democracies (and "normal" countries) dont have their Armies run commercial enterprises. (Even Turkey privatised/ privatising its Army-owned enterprises as it prepares to qualify for EU)..

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 09 Feb 2009 17:11

Somnath, no, it is not enough.

I say that SSC package without correcting anomalies, and reinstating parity is an eyewash. It means nothing, and improves nothing. Without improving service conditions, and restoring status, which are the reasons people are leaving, there is no point tilting at windmills.

If we come to questioning motives, what is yours, since you claim to want to improve the lot of armed forces officers, but anytime the question of parity is brought up, an increasingly infantile post can always be relied upon to be deposited by you on the board, casting more and more ridiculous aspersions.

Now, the Armys housing welfare orgs are like the Pak Army eh? Better posters than you have been banned for spewing bilge like this.

You seem very adamant on the rejecting the idea of parity vis a vis other government services? Surely parity can be achieved and an SSC package can be announced? Both can be done? What is wrong with that?

In response to your childish tirade about "harebrained suggestions", the US Army and Navy and Federal Defence employees have their own credit union.

The AWHO is financed through contributions from officers and soldiers, and is no different from Police Housing Corporations across the country.

What is your motive, boss, when you disguise a series of aspersions against the armed forces, and an insistance on ditching parity, behind a thinly veiled and completely unsupported by fact so called "scheme" for improving their lot?

It is, at best, sophistry. Youre talking nonsense and trying to run down the forces, and think you can do so because you have the fig leaf of claiming to be presenting an idea. Your ideas make no sense, and have been debunked by people on this board who are in the know about how government and the armed forces work, and the issues which face them.

So I must conclude that whatever you are saying is just an excuse not to get ejected from the board by the moderators, while you can continue with your agenda against the forces, with references to "hair brained schemes", your repeated arguments against parity for the defence forces, and your undisguised and amusing hatred for some reason against people who own property in Defence Colony.

Any particular motives for this demented comparison between the Indian Army Welfare Housing and Pakistan Army's land grab tactics? Or are you going to respond with another outburst of whining, name calling, and generally gathering a fog of war to cover your actions?

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 09 Feb 2009 22:22

ASPuar wrote:What is your motive, boss,... ...a fog of war to cover your actions?

Many moons ago i had mentioned that he was a troll as clear as one can be.
I stand by my earlier assumption

jimmbswu · Post by **jimmbswu** » 09 Feb 2009 22:38

Just as a note of reference, in the US Army system:
All LTs get commissioned with an "Army Reserve" commission (USAR), which is similar to the SSC system. The promotion to active duty Major is also a selection to the "Regular Army" commission (RA), which is similar to PC. Perhaps every officer can start in the SSC, and then has to compete for a PC appointment?

In the US Army, officers quit (before vesting in retirement/pension) all the time for all kinds of reasons. Many Captains get out at the 5 year mark, when they've completed their initial service obligation/contract terms. Others get out when they've done too many deployments or want a more stable family life. Perhaps a true regimental system would have provided that stability. There is an active recruiting scene transitioning former officers and NCOs into the private sector.

Back in the days of the draft (pre-1976), only West Point graduates get Regular Army commissions as second lieutenants. All of the ROTC and Officer Candidate School graduates get "Army Reserve" commissions, and if they want to stay on to make retirement (20 years), they had to pass a special board to become "Regular Army". It was a pretty intense competition back then. Nowadays, every Major gets RA, so it's not much of a competition anymore.

Regarding that ASC, et al vs Combat arms stuff, a US cultural perspective: Combat arms are generally more prestigious than the combat support and combat service support arms. Most generals come from the combat arms because there is more command opportunities in the combat arms and more chances to get the right experiences necessary for promotion. On the other hand, CS & CSS arms are seen as places where you can get a skill useful in the private sector. So combat arms officers are more likely to be "lifers", who stay until retirement, than the CS/CSS officers.

At the same time, there are a lot of positions in the various military headquarters and agencies for field grade officers and captains, for business such as supervising civilian employees, writing/rewriting doctrines/operation plans, HQ business, etc. So they move officers back and forth between the rear and the frontline formations (divisions and below).

The US Army also has a very big professional reserve component, the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard. It is basically a part time job for those in it, who gets called up/mobilized periodically for operations. For officers who left active duty before retirement, they can transition to the reserve component and make retirement.

The US military retirement system works like this:
If you retire from active duty (20 years or more of service), you start getting your pension check the day you retire.
If you retire from the reserve component (20 years or more of service, for a combination of active and reserve service), your pension check starts to arrive at age 55. The more active service you had (mobilizations, Iraq/Afghan, etc), the more money you will get on your check.

There has been many discussions about reforming the military retirement system. One focus area is on that 20 year retirement gateway. Some have proposed that the military give some retirement benefits for those who leave the service before the 20 year checkpoint (similar to the golden handshake). However, the military services have studiously refused to budge on this point, saying that it is a crucial tool for retention, being afraid that many more people will leave the service if they didn't have to wait 20 years for retirement. They also argue that the pension is a vital recruiting tool, even though in survey results most recruits do not think about pensions, and that most soldiers leave before the 20 yr mark.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 10 Feb 2009 06:52

ASPuar,

Its possible to debate without getting personal - it enriches the discussion. If you are so wedded to you own POV, you tend to misread what the other person is saying...Ignoring your personal comments, picking out the "allegations" you have against me..

Now, the Armys housing welfare orgs are like the Pak Army eh? Better posters than you have been banned for spewing bilge like this.

Where exactly did I equate the Army housing board with the Pak Army? Pls read what I sadi...
So the Army would maintain its own banks, then its own manufacturing units, its own real estate company (to start with, for the Army housing!)!!! Suspiciously close to what Fauji foundation and thousands of other commercial enterprises spawned by the Pak Army - captured so lucidly by Ayesha Siddiqa in her book

I am not comparing them as THEY ARE TODAY, simply pointing out the dangers of going down the path, wherein IA starts operating a bank, and so on..

In response to your childish tirade about "harebrained suggestions", the US Army and Navy and Federal Defence employees have their own credit union.

The AWHO is financed through contributions from officers and soldiers, and is no different from Police Housing Corporations across the country.

In case you dont really know the difference between a Bank and a credit union, I must say you are insluting your own intelligence by commenting..

Generally, I have no reason to "run down" the services..None of my posts (barring a couple written entirely tongue incheek about ASC) allude to that...But criticising the current way of operation is not "running down" the organisation..You seem to have this notion of "knowing everything" about how the Army and the govt operates, there are others who might have an equal "proximity experience"...Even if they dont flaunt their connections about the same..And I dont need to use BRF for some kind of "agenda" if I had one - its an extremely inefficient medium for that kind of stuff..

about the who SSC and pay parity business, its Keynes who said (when someone asked him why he changed his veiws) - "when facts change, I change my views, what do you do sir?"...Despite overwhelming, persistent data on officer shortage, dating right up to the 60s and 70s, in case the only way to mitigate that is by shouting about pay parity, well, seems even the IA does nto believe in that completely anymore!

AdityaM, pity!

Mohan G · Post by **Mohan G** » 10 Feb 2009 07:27

Maybe this should go on the other thread (Criticism of Army Methodology). However, I just saw an interesting comment on the Army Chief's views (cited above by Nitesh) by someone named depps (expressed on another blog). He seems to be a serving officer.

I hope some one can do anRTI and get a copy of this report and put it in public domain. I for one strongly disagree that there is any lack of people to join or that there is less patriotism or that there are less emoluments.

(a) First point - less ppl to join - I think he does not know the statistics of ppl appearing for SSB. In my own SSB there were lot of ppl who were appearing for 4, 5 and 6th time for SSB. Is it because they have better option or that they have nothing better to do.
But if u wash out the whole batch of 100 ppl or select less than 10 % looking for that elusive OLQs (which no one can define), then who is responsible.

(b) second point SSC - It is time some one got quantitative data as to how many SSC ppl actually left the army. In my entire service of 18 years - I can just recall 3 such guys. All of them were techies - bachelor and they left after 5 years. I doubt any one leaves after 14 years.

(c) Third point - degree of nationalism- This argument is as stupid, hollow as they can come. Ppl are busy making human chains in a busy city like Mumbai, go out on candle march - why because they are not nationalist.
Or take the inverse reasoning. Perhaps Army chief meant that ppl in civil services are not nationalistic or patriotic.
(d) Comparison with other services. - See if anyone starts to compare and want that
(i) Pay - should be more than senior most business people.
(ii) Stability of job - has to be rock solid.
(iii) Status - has to be more than civil service.
(iv) Comfort has to be more than IT guys.
(v) Promotion has to be at par with IAS.
And then u spend all the time comparing with the joneses, then who would join.

(d) Image projection - 7-8 years ago, army ran advt -”Do u have it in you”.
Are u guys aware that the poster boys of that advt have already taken PMR.
So much so for having it.

I just hope some one gets hold of this report and the data used to analyse and come to this conclusion, so that we atleast come to know what is the fact.

Perhaps army chief is not aware that in last year alone, millions of ppl have been laid off - just like that, with a month’s salary.
India stares at frustration of the so called demographic dividend (can u believe that we have more than 700 million i.e. 70 crore human beings under the age of 30). This same sitation used to be termed as population explosion problem.
Where is the shortfall in ppl willing to join any service.
For a recent local recruitment of staff in MES, there were more than 50000 ppl (yes sir, 50 thousand) for less than 300 vacancies - that ratio of 1 : 150 or worse.
That too for peons, drivers and LDCs. And there were ppl with bachelors and masters degree.
Where is the short fall.
On the Chief interacts forum on army website, more than 60 % queries are on how to join army. U can see for urself.

Baljeet · Post by **Baljeet** » 10 Feb 2009 07:41

I have read enough about current COAS. I am not trying to diss this guy, but so far he is all hot air, bravado, no leadership, too much towing the line of con-grease. I don't know how he became COAS, seriously doubt if he has the cajones for the job. He seems like the kind of person who is always looking for dirt and not the facts. He is the one doubting the efficiency, accuracy of Brahmos-- needs more test. How many test does it need to prove its worth? He was quick to accept Trash 90, but heavens will fall, if Arjun is put to use, we will be defeated by pakis--khali dibba, zar--arar's. India's Armored Corps will not cross International border with Arjun, they will fight the defensive war with Trash 90.
I guess enough said....

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 10 Feb 2009 07:53

I don't know how he became COAS, seriously doubt if he has the cajones for the job

Typically the seniormost Lt Gen is appointed as the COAS...about the rest, well, he isnt much different from a range of COAS before him on Arjun/T90 etc etc...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Feb 2009 08:40

Baljeet, Its not proper to diss a serving chief of Indian Armed forces on BRF. Consider this a warning.