No Ad

What to read next


  1. 1


    no comments……

  2. 2


    Good for a laugh and put across so subtly – just like he did in service.

    Self-effacing but makes one think.

    Keep ’em flowing.

    P.S: The PS was to take away the sting??

  3. 3


    Dear Sir,

    Thanks for a good thought provoking article.

    You have very well narrated the story and problems of your time for some lessons to be taken.

    I am sure the situation would have changed. I would presume there are enough appointements in the Navy and And Army now to absorb these vacancies over five years. Actually, I am not in the know of things but feel that certain expansion of HQs, Triservices Institution and regeneration of offsets will have enough vacancies in the three services. Perhaps many organizations were functioning on borrowed suppressed appointment officers. Since it is to be implemented over five years as per press reports, there would not be sudden glut. Ten years of rIAF I think as came out in press.

    Besides, the aim of an organization can neither be one tracked functional necessity nor the functional efficiency is the outcome of tight but dissatisfied setup. An organization must cater for some satisfaction level for its officers cadre to meet their for personal and professional needs and aspirations. This requirement becomes acute particularly at retirement levels and stage. The need to grow though fierce in Services, is considered and visualized to be less acute. That is because all are single cadre Service organizations. Had it been like CPOs, there would be more heart burns and frictions requiring more opportunities. The services must ensure that the officers must take home at least a brigadiers pension if not a Major General at the minimum.

    Organization such as Armed Forces must not be happy and contend at “functional efficiency” during “My Command” but should also look for a good pension and status post retirement of that Command. Retention of good people is but a functional and operational necessity for which a threshold level of satisfacion is a must.

    The IAS philosophy of IASization of Military Cadre where NDA cadre is meant to be Generals and other to be wasted out after 7 years service has a big lacuna. Though this kins of arrangements would be very fine for Administrative or office jobs, they must realize war is a different business altogether. War entails very high risk upto highest degree of death. Why should an officer risk himself when he knows he is a Confirmed Future General or already a declared wastage of subsidiary Cadre. Who will ram his Fughter on enemy instalation? Same situation will exist at the level of PBOR.

    War is not running a Ministry, a District HQ or CPO Organization. Look what happens when there are two cadres like in CPOs. During war they simply will dish out CPO Battalions and and IPS held HQs will land up in Delhi. Hence, that kind of organisation could be a very dangerous arrangement. The story of two to three years Military assignment as in The West is a different story. There it is not discriminatory and a compulsory military service.

    Since Armed forces, per forces will continue to have a mix of the cadres more on the side of permanency, and hence holding larger permanent officers, increased promotional vacancies for them would be always welcome.

    I think Armed Forces must ask for NFSG at every rank and grade in the interest of Cadre management.

    What ever I stated above is purely my visualization, thinking and I have no idea what the actual thinking is. Since All three services are “Organized Class A Services”, NFSG Cadre progression can not be denied to them.

    Alternatively, pay progression batch wise can be ensured as has been done for the Class A Central services. When ever any one officer of the Batch is promoted, to say as Major General, all officers of that batch who have not been promoted be given the same pay two to three years after his promotion. If IAS and other can function like that why not Armed Forces. All the SAG are not JS. Some of them function as Directors. I must say, in this sphare, contary to their Characterstics, Armed Forces have not been innovative at all.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © . Livefist Defence | Managed by Host My Blog