Increasing colour service of soldiers (English Version) Amar Ujala 13 Jul 18
The army has begun a study for reviewing the colour service of a soldier. ‘Colour Service’ implies the minimum service which a soldier must complete to be eligible for pension. Presently a soldier must serve a minimum of 17 years, extendable by 2 if he so desires. Pensions commence from 17 years. Converting this into age, a soldier who joins around the age of 19/20 retires between the age of 36-38, which is too early for him to manage his increasing family obligations.
As his rank increases, so does his service and age. A Naik serves upto 24 years and a Havaldar upto 26. Early retirement has been done to maintain a younger profile of the armed forces and is an international trend. The concept is that a younger armed force is always a fitter armed force.
However, the stark reality is that since a soldier has served for a shorter duration, his post retirement entitlements, including his pension, are lower as compared to any other government service, where the individual joining at the same age, serves longer. In all other services individuals retire between the ages of 58-60, almost 20 years more than the soldier. Lower pension to military personnel is because pension is dependent on years of service.
Thus, the soldier remains at a disadvantage all through life. Over the years, there have been discussions of sidestepping fit soldiers on retirement into central and state police organizations. Central government reservations exist for the same, though rarely implemented. Despite promises and assurances at every level by these organizations nothing has moved. Hence the reality is that a soldier would have to fend for himself after retirement.
A soldier who proceeds on pension between the ages of 36-45 does so at the peak of his family responsibilities. His children are still studying and his parents ageing. Thus, most veteran soldiers seek second careers and in the present environment, are appointed only as security guards, which is degrading. Early retirement in the long term would make military service, a second choice when compared to others because of variation in service tenures.
The sudden change from uniform to civil at an early age also impacts the health of the soldier. Financial pressures and lack of suitable employment avenues near home add to tensions of growing family obligations. A study conducted in 2006 on impact of early retirement based on limited data available from the Army Group Insurance Fund discovered that a substantial number of veteran soldiers died between the ages of 41 to 55, within ten years of retirement, indicating a life expectancy of 47.889, much lower than the national average. Its findings however remain inconclusive, warranting a deeper analysis.
The demand for OROP is based on the early retirement of military personnel. It is with this background that the army headquarters is now seeking to enhance service conditions by five years. The intention is to make colour service compulsory upto 24 years. Thus, if the age of joining is the same, then the retirement age increases by a minimum of 5 years to the age of 41 to 43.
This in some form would offset growing responsibilities which face a soldier as soon as he hangs his uniform. It would also increase his pension as he has served for a longer duration. For the government, it would be a benefit as it would reduce their pension bills.
Those opposing this consideration are of the belief that as the soldier grows older, it impacts his physical fitness. This may have limited bearing as soldiers of all ages, including Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs), who are much older, have acquitted themselves well in operations. Many senior Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) and JCOs have been decorated for valour at their ranks and age.
There are other aspects which need to be considered. Firstly, due to family pressures all soldiers may not be willing to serve upto 24 years. There are few even at present who do not volunteer even for the two years extension. Hence this policy should not be unilaterally applied. It should remain the choice of the soldier. Many who do not possess alternate sources of income like farmland but have obligations would continue. Full pension should be at the basic service, which could increase to 20 and higher pension based on additional service rendered.
Secondly, the offer must remain for those even with lower medical categories, even if the illness is not attributed to military service. A large organization like the army can always care for those who have worked despite being medically unfit. Thirdly, the service must include the training period. In case this is done, then it could even be extended by a year as the training period covers a minimum of one year.
The major disadvantage to the proposed system is that post release at an older age, resettlement becomes more difficult. This could be offset by increasing vacancies in the Defence Security Corps, pushing various bodies responsible for settlement of ESMs and compelling the state and other central agencies to strictly implement laid down quotas for veterans.
Ideally akin to officers, soldiers could be asked to serve a minimum of 20 years to obtain full pension and an additional 3-4 years for an increased pension of 125% to 150%. In the overall context, this approach would benefit maximum soldiers as by the time they finally hang their uniform, their domestic responsibilities are reduced, while their pensions increase. However, forcing soldiers to serve an additional period against their will may not be the right approach and could lead to disgruntlement.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army