Suicides in the armed forces
U.C. JHA
|
What ails them today is their faulty grievance redress machinery
|
THE INSTANCES of suicides and fratricidal killings in the armed forces are on the rise. While the Army Chief has admitted of around 100 suicides cases every year since 2001, he has refused to attribute them to operational stress (The Hindu, November 5).
The Army's view that suicides take place because of marital, financial, medical problems and issues relating to children's education is not supported by any empirical study. It is an attempt to cover up the main issue: mismanagement of grievances in the armed forces.
The government's plan to increase the number of psychiatrists (The Times of India, November 2) to curb suicides is yet another knee jerk reaction and may not offer any permanent solution. In the armed forces referral to psychiatrist treatment is considered a `stigma.' For psychiatric evaluation, the commanding officer fills up a document called Form 10. The fact that Form 10 has been raised against an individual makes him `untouchable' and also affects his future service.
Undue stress
What ails the armed forces today is their faulty grievance redress machinery. In India more than 100,000 grievance cases of armed forces personnel are pending in the courts and services headquarters. Delay in finalisation of such cases causes undue stress, hardship and misery to the aggrieved soldier. It is this which has resulted in cases where armed forces personnel have taken the extreme step of committing suicide or killing their superiors.
In a civilised democratic society, the state guarantees that every citizen can approach a prescribed grievance redress forum against an individual or the state. In relation to the armed forces, this right has been expressly provided in the Army Act, the Navy Act and the Air Force Act, whereby an individual may complain up to the Chief of the Staff (the Central government in the case of officers) for redress of grievances.
Despite this guarantee, processing of grievance petitions is faulty. The officials who may be the root cause of the grievance process the complaint. The complainant is not informed about the comments of his superiors on his petition and there is no independent judicial forum to review the executive decision.
In order to remove the anomaly, the Law Commission in its 169th Report recommended the setting up of an Armed Forces Tribunal for adjudicating service matters. The Armed Forces Tribunal Bill 2005 has made provision for jurisdiction in `service matters.' However, the service personnel may not get any relief in matters relating to leave, postings, transfers, summary disposals and trials. These are the core issues relating to the grievances and stress in the armed forces.
The Ministry of Defence has apprehensions that preview of matters relating to transfer, posting, leave and summary disposal/trial, by the Tribunal, would affect operational effectiveness and discipline in the forces. The denial of the right to approach to the Tribunal in these matters, when viewed from a different perspective, would lead the military chain of command to have the perception that their decisions, even if arbitrary, cannot be questioned.
In the armed forces morale and discipline are enhanced when the troops understand that they are being treated with dignity, fairness and equality under the law. Thus there is a need for a grievance redress system, administered fairly, effectively and promptly to improve transparency. It is necessary that a parliamentary committee be constituted to examine the causes of unnatural deaths in the armed forces and to improve accountability in their functioning.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
