Image Credit: The Economic Times
When Justice A.K. Mathur submitted the 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) report in 2015, his observation was rather blunt: “The main cause of the resentment among the services is that over a period of time the Indian Administrative Service has arrogated itself to all power of governance.”
His bluntness could be attributed to both the level of dissatisfaction within the Indian military, as well as the long-standing nature of the problem. As far back as 2008, scholars were warning that the exclusion of the armed forces from pay commission deliberations, combined with the dominance of bureaucrats, had left soldiers feeling they “once again ended up getting a raw deal.”
That resentment has deepened in the decade since. As the Eighth CPC's work comes into focus, the same grievances remain, and the government faces a choice: continue with business as usual, or course-correct by appointing a subject matter expert from the defence domain to ensure the concerns of 1.4 million personnel in uniform are fairly heard.
The core argument for appointing a defence expert is actually quite straightforward. The armed forces are fundamentally different from civilian cadres. Their service conditions involve risks no deskbound official will ever face: Siachen patrols, high-altitude deployments, counter-insurgency tours, and a general threat to life throughout several postings. Soldiers retire years earlier than civil servants. Promotion prospects are limited by a steep pyramid in which only 30 per cent reach Colonel and fewer than one per cent become Major General. Injury and disability risks are inherent to the profession.
These realities require tailored policy responses. A generic financial lens, while adequate for other Group A services, inevitably undervalues hardship and mis-sets allowances for the Armed Forces personnel. A defence SME would bring the operational knowledge needed to balance fiscal prudence with fairness.
The armed forces have never had a representative on any pay commission since 1973, when they were first brought under its ambit. This absence has eroded trust. Each cycle has seen anomalies pile up: non-functional upgrade (NFU) denied, disability allowances diluted, Junior Commissioned Officers downgraded, and risk and hardship allowances capped below those of bureaucrats in far safer posts.
For soldiers, the issue is no longer just about money. It is about institutional recognition. Without subject matter expertise on the commission, every recommendation is seen as a bureaucratic diktat rather than a considered policy. Including a defence advisor would signal that the government values their service enough to hear their perspective.
The same anomalies recur across commissions. NFU has been debated since the Sixth CPC but never extended to the military. There is no good reason for the denial.
Disability allowances were shifted from percentage-based to a flat-slab system, disadvantaging battle casualties compared to civilian employees. The pay matrix continues to diverge between soldiers and civil services.
A defence expert could anticipate how such changes ripple through pensions, equivalence tables, and morale. He or she could flag that raising Special Duty Allowances for IAS officers in the North-East while capping Siachen hardship pay for soldiers creates untenable distortions.
The pay commission is not just about salaries. With recommendations either falling short or being ignored, there is a direct adverse impact on morale. While there is a rise in perceptions of injustice, the relative loss of status directly affects retention. Talented youth weigh the civil services as a better career gamble, while serving officers choose retire earlier rather than stagnate.
These are not abstract concerns. They shape the size, quality, and commitment of India’s officer corps. Without expert input, the 8th CPC risks producing another report that exacerbates attrition at a time when the armed forces need to be bolstered.
India’s bureaucracy and its armed forces inhabit different cultures. One prizes continuity and procedure; the other prizes command responsibility and honour. Without a representative from the military domain, commissions undervalue intangibles, and their draft recommendations appear tone-deaf and indifferent. An SME can bridge this gap, translating operational realities into policy proposals the finance ministry can implement.
The absence of expertise has predictable consequences such as distrust in the system over anomalies persisting decade after decade.
The 8th CPC offers an opportunity. By including a defence subject matter expert in its deliberations, the government can ensure policy fairness, institutional legitimacy, and operational readiness. This is not about privileging one service over another. It is about recognising the distinct character of military service and ensuring that those who defend the nation are not left behind in the machinery of governance.
If India aspires to global power status, it cannot afford to let its soldiers believe they are treated as second-class public servants. A defence advisor in the pay commission is imperative.
(Ashish Singh is an award-winning senior journalist with over 18 years of experience in defence and strategic affairs.)
