Popular Posts

Wednesday, November 5, 2008


The shout of the Defence HQs was probably too high and too annoying for the Tower of Power.Moreover the efforts of senior officers to put other services in bad light,had killed the issue,and taken as negative approach of Defence Forces and probably the young officers have to pay for that. The equation drawn by the forces was never agreed even by the MOD since last 61 years and the various letters were issued in this regards.The Defence Forces were given higher start to compensate for the hardship of life,which was mistaken as senior status by Defence and this resulted in creating a hype among them and thus placing of LTCols in PB-3 was not considered correct by them.The Defence forces will be always equated with CPOs for functional duties before giving any status or pay as they are the nearest in nature of duties and any other equation will never be acceptable to any body in the govt, the early the forces understand this the early it is better.


LTCol(Retd) Mitra said...

I wish you to join Army and understand the hard ship of service officer. In first 15 years he works like a labour and it only after LTCol promotion the due is given. You may be correct but some in between solution is urgently required

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir,
In one of the blog written by Maj Navdeep it is stated that coast guard Commandants are working under Naval Commanders ,I from Coast Guard ,He can come and see at least 10 commanders are working under Commandants and full Army Cols are working under DIGs

Jantar Mantar said...

The great Lord of CPMF/CPOs why you are speaking the language of babus.We are having enough of them and wish others to support Defence officers.Above all PMF should not forget that they were established by Army/Navy(For Coast Guard).

Anonymous said...

I agree with you there was a chance to get PB-4, but now ,only God knows

Anonymous said...

Dear sir,
Thats right that young offrs would pay for whatever is happening. we are already losing interest in the org for its apathy to juniors but CPOs have played a large part of it.Firstly it CPOs failure that army operates in CI and IS duties.Army way of operation as mentioned by you is nearer to CPOs is farce..it is just that army is doing their work here and succeeding well and CPOs have started taking themselves as equal .Plz do visit a CRP post in j&k and hear their farts. Army men apart from well trained in small arms has mastery over explosives, latest signal comn, tank tech, air def eqpt, aartillery guns incl their amn, amphibious veh, heptrs, bridge laying aspect and a trained soldier on conventional and non- conventional warfare. CPOs says that they lose more men then forces, that might be true but the training aspect and the comd element is responsible for that. Perhaps , commandant you all need to re-introspect among yourselves and carry out reforms within your organisation and understand professinalism.Armed forces competetion is not with CPOs( long live all) but with competitors outside country...other countries. IT would be false to compare the fire power of an corp cdr to an IG and the total number of multi skilled soldiers under him. As far as the pay is concerned..we don't mind any sum of money to CPOs but status parity should br prime. sir, Overlook my harsh words if any but this is all from a little experience i have in this wonderful org and of course with CRPF in valley. Your comments will be taken in high spirits only if they are well researched and not verbose else the blog loses its motive.

LTCol ABCD said...

I do agree that we are not having any fight with PMF , they are doing there job and Army is doing our own job.But the question remains if a babu gets PB-4 after 13 years then Army officer or even for that matter PMF should get this.Money is also important and so is other thinghs.

GURU said...

Status is the state of mind .One one side Defence forces are shouting from the roof top that all services should be same and LTCol should be in PB-4 as given to Director in IAS on other hand they claim to be superior than CPMF.
Please wakeup and come to mother earth.Just because Army men hold heavy weapon does not make him a super officer by that calculation PM security should be in PB-4 FROM THE DAY ONE.
All govt officers have role to play Army or BSF/CRPF both are important.

Anonymous said...

In all this fight we all forgot , that there is something called PBOR in our organisation.Understand PM had stated that forces should look after them and remaning what so ever is due will come. May be due to kudiki/fatkar that senior are keeping mum.

govt babu said...

Please show me any govt order which state that LTCol is equivalent to Director, the issue wll get over on the same day.Please show any govt order and not Army HQs letter.

Anonymous said...

Why is Army HQs letter not valid

Anonymous said...

what a guy this bp is. he has to go to popular blogs and make his publicity???? have some shame and stop this motivated propognada.

Sidhu (DIG Retd) said...

Dear BP,
Congrats for starting blog for PMF/CPOs.We all are aware of equation between Army and BSF,if the forces so feel then why they are still sending Brigs on the post of DIG.
Moreover how we can forget that till the time BSF was under Army ,the regular officer were not given even first promotion to Dy Comdts even in 15 years.
Now when the tide is changed these officers didnt know which side to look.It is after great deal of time that the equation is placed correctly.

Anonymous said...

Dear bp,
If you need some more blogs to put ad of your ideas, I can help you out.Tell what you get out of it.You are a Commandant and in PB-4, let Ltcol also get some more money and status

loverboy said...

Dear Mr BP Singh, since you want attention, thought might as well give you some. pl. read an editorial of times of india and it is not written by some retd military officer.


The hero of the Bangladesh war, Lt Gen J F R Jacob, once commented, only partly in jest, that today's generals do not even enjoy half the authority
that he had once enjoyed as a major. The general should know, having served as an army commander and much later as a governor of Punjab and Goa. At one level, his comment was a compliment to the world's largest democracy, one of the few post-colonial countries not to have suffered from the ignominy of a military coup. At another level it pointed to the deep well of discontent brewing within the defence forces over perceived slights by what the forces see as an uncaring and overbearing civilian bureaucracy. That wellspring of discontent is now simmering and the heavens seem to have fallen because of the service chiefs' initial reluctance to accept the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission.

We are being told that never before has a cabinet decision been so defied by sitting chiefs, that this is the incipient beginning of a "revolt" and that the civilian bureaucracy will ultimately hit back and grind the military chiefs further into the dust. Much of the ongoing debate hinges around one single factor: the supposed breakdown of civil-military relations. There is an argument that the manner in which the service chiefs
orchestrated their protest was not befitting their status; that they could have registered their protests more unobtrusively and avoided a public stand-off.

The major issue here is about the form, not the substance of the service chiefs' objections. There is virtually no public voice against the demands raised by the defence forces, all of which are essentially rooted in a basic desire for greater status and yes, greater money.

This is why defence minister A K Antony has supported the chiefs: not because he is weak, but because he senses that at the core of these demands is the bursting out of decades of frustration at being treated as dispensable by the babus.

The key issue here is whether the chiefs have upset the balance of civil-military relations. Let us be clear. At a time when India is taking its due seat at the global high table, it remains one of the few leading powers in the world where civilian authority has come to mean a continuing divorce of the defence services from higher policy-making. Far from being a challenge to civilian authority, the chiefs' representation to the defence minister is, in fact, a reiteration of the principle of civilian control. Disagreement does not automatically translate into an open revolt.

Do we expect our chiefs to quietly sign on every dotted line, irrespective of the wisdom of doing so? By that logic, Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw who wisely opposed Indira Gandhi's plans for an immediate invasion of East Pakistan in early 1971 to give his army enough time to prepare was equally wrong. But do we not hail the late field marshal for staying firm in his resolve?

The fact is that the defence forces remain the only true Indian institution that has been relatively immune from
politicisation and institutionalised corruption of the kind that has come to be associated with the other
pillars of the state. This is why at times of dire crisis, from the televised rescue of Prince to the worst communal riots in Gujarat, it is always to the men in olive green that we turn. Given this scenario, it is unfortunate that successive pay commissions have regularly downgraded the men and women in uniform. The fight is about status, not about money.

It is also about operational efficiency. It is officers up to the rank of colonel who provide the army with its fighting teeth and it is here that the Pay Commission has hit hardest.

At times of crises, how do we expect lieutenant colonels to lead smooth joint operations with once subordinate civilian authorities who have suddenly been elevated in the order of precedence? This is a disaster in the making and the foreboding in the rank and file of the forces must not be underestimated. This is particularly important because of the immense dissatisfaction caused by the previous two pay commissions as well, the most public manifestation being the ugly protests by sections of the air force last time around.

The wiser route for the government after that would have been to take corrective action or to put a services representative on the pay panel.

Neither was done and the chiefs are now only responding to the aspirations of the rank and file. They are as much responsible to them as they are to the supreme commander and their articulation of the pay commission grievances should be seen in this light.

In 1986, Lt Gen M L Chibber had written a perceptive account of problems with the civil-military equation in
India. Twenty years later, it is even clearer that India is far too large and complex a country for any kind of coordinated or sustained military challenge to the civilian authority. This is why the service chiefs' response to the pay commission should be read not as an act of defiance, but one of despair. The changes demanded in the pay commission are not about strengthening civilian control - that is not even in question - but about bureaucratic churlishness and about giving the armed forces their due.

The writer is a Delhi-based political commentator.

loverboy said...

anon @10:50 PM dear coast guard friend, can u pl. name one org. where commanders are working under commandant? just one. and captain(IN) or full cols under DIG !!!!! i think you are well aware about the rank equation between coast guard and navy coz there is a letter to that effect. we in the navy have always treated you with respect being a sister service and also train you with us, now dont take that too far. once as a young lt i didnt salute a DIG, so my boss asked me the reason for it and i told him that we salute the stripes of a commissioned officer and not anyone and everyone, guess what was his response. he told me ' you are very right legally, but we must all pay our marks of respect to our superiors whether from navy or coast guard'. this was to tell you how did we view coast guard always inspite of great things that happen in your service which is totally against military ethos. best not to discuss it in public domain. dont spk lies, coz at the end of the day it is your credibility and integrity not mine.

Anonymous said...

Lover boy,
As you asked name of one unit where commanders are serving under commandants then take this with a pinch of salt
(1) Cdr Saini working under Comdt Murli in Air sq at Chennai
(2)Col Saxena working under DIG Murthy
Please feel free to ask for name of more officers
Come out of your shelf of commissioned officer, you need little more parade training.
Now reply to your second question of not saluting a DIG ,I feel you and your then commanding officer needs littile more education .Please read letter issued by NHQ regarding this issue,that DIG may be more matured otherwise by that time you would hadbeen in thick trouble.
Now tell me have you seen your senior officers saluting Def Min,JS(N),all MPs,
how many stripes these officers wear and well non of them are commissioned officer and so is president

Anonymous said...

Understand some pay band called 3a is likely to be given to 12k and LTCols. Any conformation in any blog.

Anonymous said...

IS the above news correct than nothing gained. Let us leave uniform

Anonymous said...

Mr loverboy,
Call yourself buoy, as your knowledge is nothing deep,you can only float, no depth.
Are you aware how many Brigs(Equal to your COMMODORE) are working on DIG posts in many CPOs/CPMF like BSF

Anonymous said...


loverboy said...

my dear anon@ 11:33 PM the nhq letter you are talking about came 5-6 yrs back, im talking about 1994. since you have read the nhq letter it also speaks about rank equivalence, why dont tell everyone about the same. incidentally the DIG was definitely mature as well as aware coz he told my boss that "though he is not duty bound to do so, but dont you think i deserve that respect by virtue of my service", and i think he was right.that example was given to convey something else so dont get stuck to the example itself and understand the point that i want to convey.the ex of air sqn chennai that you have given would be clear if you see the respective dates of promotion of the officers in their respective ranks. i can tell you for sure that the comdt will be of 2000/1999 seniority and the cdr would be much junior to him, which would then be perfectly all right in light of the nhq letter of equivalence. it is a case of a cdr serving under a cdr former being senior and there is nothing wrong in it. perhaps same is the case with DIG and Col also. you have skirted the basic point i brought out about the equivalence. comdt(SG) is equivalent to a commander and between them seniority in promotion to the rank counts. however im sure you would also agree that in case of operations a ship commanded by a comdt would come under the tactical command of a cdr if he is the seniormost naval officer. am i wrong? is it not true that some time back(even post 5cpc) when cdr used to be commanding CG ships, comdt used to be XO. the basic point of contention is only that shouldnt cdr be in pb4 since comdt(SG) is in pb4? hope you get it.

loverboy said...

dear anon@1:30, no neither am i aware nor do i want to be. i am commenting on something which i am aware of and you are not, so pl. keep out of it. the equation between CG and Navy and Army and CPOs cannot be compared. any CG officer will vouch for that. and once again pl. dont call BSF CRPF and its likes as CPMF, it is CPOs. doesnt your exam also say so.

Anonymous said...

There is no reason starting a blog and not guiding the debate.Thats where BP failed. He isn't replying?? i guess he is busy visiting other sites and mustering audiences to read useless, unthoughtful,unresearched thoughts.Another way to muster ads on site and earn money.These policewallah you know...copycats, running mad for money. Hell they don't earn respect among us as civilians. I Work hard to earn my bate in my office. What a shame?

Anonymous said...

One Army col in jail,ATS asks for detail of 3 more serving officer.
These OG are showing there true colours.
And how we can forget case of spy of naval captain about three years back,my dear loverboy
Do you feel forces like BSF are any day less,come on to our borders we will show you what we are.
Just because DG of CoastGuard is from Navy you people had forced CG Officers to wear one rank lower stripes,same what Army did with BSF in early years.

B P SINGH said...

upehDear Anon @4:07
Well at the cost of repetition I must again clear some doubts
(1)Special allowance was sanctioned to Military services after 1971 war, However Third CPC converted and added the same to basic pay of Defence Services.
(2)4th &5 CPC also continued with same edge in basic pay to Defence Services as a compensation to hardship of life
(3)In 6cpc Services requested for equation between Defence ranks and civil posts and the pay commission again seperated the edge given to Defence and introduced MSP as a compensation to hardship of Military life.
(4)Service officers over last 33 years forgot that this edge in basic pay was not for status
(5)Now when 6CPC again reverted to correct basic pay, most of service officer are taking it as reduction in status
Thus we can see that there is no reduction of status and various officer ranks are put in correct pay scales. The post of Director needs to be equated to Brigs rank with some edge of Director over Brig.
Let us not forget that Civil must have control over Armed Forces and there is nothing bad to feel about that.

loverboy said...

anon@4:11 am go and take a class in english. the standards are quite bad i must say. pl. read my post again, firstly i told you to keep out of it coz u dont know what we are talking about. secondly, i never commented on bsf, i only said that the equation between CG and Navy cannot be compared to the equation between army and bsf. as far as rank badges are concerned pl. read the post by maj navdeep on www.indianmilitarybenefits.blogspot.com all your doubts will get cleared. and lastly, if rank badges is what you are harping upon, the other day i saw a bank guard in khakis with three stars, he wants equivalence with your asst comdt. will you give it. i asked the same question to mr bp singhji and he didnt have an answer. bcoz CG is headed by a naval officer, they are better off than you guys in CPOs, in fact they dont want to be compared to you guys, they consider it an insult.

loverboy said...

@bp singhji, for all your doubts pl. refer to the warrant of precedence. whenever you are told to do so, you are always evasive, coz it does not suit you.

loverboy said...

On second thoughts, i am posting extracts of the article by Maj navdeep.

That being the backdrop, let’s now talk of the CPOs : Till the 5th CPC, there was no separate grade of Second-in-Command, instead there used to be two grades of the rank of Commandant in Central Police Organizations : Commandant (Ordinary Grade) and Commandant (Selection Grade). The so called rank of Second-in-Command was in the same grade as Comdt (OG). The point to be noted here is that both were in the Non-Functional Selection Grade pay scales and NOT in Junior Administrative Grade. Comdt (OG) (as also 2IC where it existed) was an officer in the NFSG scale of Rs 4100-5300 while Comdt (SG) was in Rs 4500-5700. Comdt (OG) with NFSG scale who used to wear the State Emblem with one Star was usually equated with a Lt Col for functional reasons in organizations such as Assam Rifles though the Army still maintained that the parity of Lt Col was with Comdt (SG) and not Comdt (OG). Both NFSG scales and ranks of Comdt (OG) and Comdt (SG) were merged by the 5th CPC and granted the scale of Rs 14300-18300 and another junior rank called Second-in-Command was created by the same Pay Commission in the Junior Administrative Grade of Rs 12000-16500 (erstwhile Rs 3700-5000). Now this junior rank was ordained to wear the former rank badges of Comdt (OG). Hence, the erstwhile NFSG Comdt (OG) – functionally considered equivalent to a Lt Col was granted the scale of Rs 14300-18300 and the Second-in-Command was a new junior rank created by the 5th CPC for internal Cadre Management of CPOs. The appointment of 2IC also existed in certain CPOs prior to 5th CPC but it was the same grade as Comdt (OG) and all such existing 2ICs were also upgraded to the new NFSG of Rs 14300-18300 while new 2IC appointees after the 5th CPC were granted a lower rank of JAG in the scale Rs 12000-16500. The above mentioned can be explicitly seen from Paras 70.19 & 70.21 of the 5th CPC dealing with CPOs. How can one then say that by creation of a new junior rank for CPOs (2IC) below the erstwhile rank of Comdt (OG) for their own management, the rank of Lt Col also stands degraded by a one level ?. The military is not to follow the system of CPOs and has nothing to do with their organizational tinkering. It is the CPOs which introduced a junior rank in the JAG – would it automatically have an adverse impact on the military, absolutely NOT. If Commandants start wearing the ranks of a full Colonel, would it mean that they have now become equivalent to Colonels ? No I would say. One also keeps hearing that there has to be a parity between Commandants and full Colonels since both command Battalions and that an officer is promoted to the rank of full Colonel in about 15 years which is similar to Commandants of CPOs. This is incorrect too since most Infantry Battalion Commanders are actually Substantive Lt Colonels holding the acting rank of Colonel but in the pay of Lt Col. Army officers are promoted to the rank and pay of substantive Colonel after 20 years service, that is, if at all promoted. Though preferably, the system of rank badges should have been made parallel to actual status in the 1950s itself, it did not happen but it should also not lead to false perceptions of grandeur. Can a non-gazetted Inspector of Central Excise (who wears three stars without a cloth band) be equated with a gazetted Group-A Assistant Commandant of the CPOs only because of similarity of rank badges ?. Can an Inspector of Bihar Police who now wears One Star without cloth band compare himself with an IPS Probationer because they share the brass on their respective shoulders ? Or can a Shatabadi Train Ticket Checker claim equivalence with a Wing Commander of the Air Force because they both wear three full stripes on their shoulders ?. What is worn on the shoulders by officers of the CPOs by virtue of their in-house/MHA orders has no relevance or effect on MoD or on what is worn by military officers.

pl. counter this point by point and logically if you can.

Anonymous said...

The Army should be asked why the BSF was not withdrawn during OP Brasstacks and when the Army was in eyeball contact after the Parliament attack?
What was its role during the 1971 Ops. What is the concept of Reorg BOPS.?
Who determines the less threatened areas?
Why were there no incursions in Kargil where BSF was deployed?
If the Army felt that the area they had abandoned in Kargil was less threatened, why did the incursions occur in the areas the Army had vacated? Why did the army vacate the area if was more theatened and invite the incursions??
If the area they vacated was less threatened, why was the BSF not deployed there?
they can not give this lop sided logic and get away with it by hoodwinking the politicians.
How come the less threatened areas become more threatened the moment BSF digs the trenches and makes the bunkers so that teh Army can occupy them?
Agreed BSF will not be used in an offensive role, Does the army only has an offensive role?
I wonder which place they will launch the offensive in today's scenario. Most of the time it performs a defensive role which is also done by BSF.
Should it be paid more only because it can perform an offensive role ?
In that case they should have separate pay for peace and war time.
The last time they were forced to launch offensives in Kargil because they had let the enemy come right inside their house?

How is izzat linked to money? Is that the reaon that we had the Army officers succumbing to the Tehalka sting operation?
If it is a question of Izzat why is the army denying it to BSF? Is BSF not entitled to Izzat..?

It is surprising that a 1.1 Million strong Army is comparing its role and tasks and pay packet with BSF which is less tha 3 lacs in numbers.
Why is the Army so vehemently against the BSF getting any perks while they want allownaces for evrything.!!

No one grudges them their Military pay... Why should they want the BSF not to get the Para Military allowance.
Do we grudge them the free rations in kind, their medical facilities, the Form Ds, the separated family accomodation, the Army schools and colleges, the reservaion in jobs , free plots of land, the petrol pumps and canteens etc-etc???

This is a typical Dog in the Manger policy which shows the army is very poor light...

Agreed the BSF plays a complementary role to the Army, but the hardships faced by BSF are no less than the Army. How can they justify that the Army jawan in the same bunker facing the same difficulties fighting the same enemy and braving the same odds is entitled to better rations, better equipment and better pay just because he wears a green uniform and the BSF chap a khakhi uniform??
What happened to the principle of equal pay for simlar jobs .

Dost Of Fauj said...

Dear Anon @ Nov 07,05:41,
U R absolutely right about the guilty/supposedly accused Defence Officers.At least they R caught and brought to book.THE CASE OF OFFICER U MENTIONED IS STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION AND HE MAY NOT BE GUILTY AT ALL.And as per general knowledge,ATS has very categorically denied involvement of any other officers.Probably you have selective amnesia.Do U remember "Tehalka Kaand".Can U name any one other than Faujis being punished.

Rinchen Bhutia said...

Comdt BP singh's blogs make interesting reading vi-sa-vi comments of others. Better sense prevails if equation is not drawn with each other as each organisation has different role to perfom and at the same time keep making efforts to improve its service conditions as per the changing requirements.