Musings of a Veteran on a Military Career in the Army Navy and Air Force
HUMOR IN UNIFORM
A few years ago – I read the following news reports
ARMY PLANS TO EXTEND SSC TENURE
ARMY PLANS TO EXTEND SHORT SERVICE COMMISSION “TO MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE”
After reading the two reports, I thought to myself.
“Short Service Commission”...!!!
“Attractive”...?
How can “Short Service Commission” be “Attractive”...?
At first I thought it was “Humour in Uniform”.
Then I read that Army was planning to extend the tenure of Short Service Commission (SSC) Officers to 18 years.
Why 18 years...?
Why not 20 years...?
If they make the SSC tenure 20 years, then SSC Officers will be eligible for pension and other post-retirement benefits for ex-servicemen which can be availed only after completing 20 years service.
So, if Army really wants to make “Short Service Commission” “Attractive” then it is best to extend the SSC tenure to 20 years so that SSC Officers get pension and better post-retirement benefits similar to their Permanent Commission (PC) counterparts who retire after 20 years service.
Or, better still, why not scrap the concept of “Short Service Commission” and grant “Permanent Commission” to all Army Officers...?
First they had Short Service Commission (SSC) tenure for 5 years, then 7 years, then 10 years, then 14 years, now they want it for 18 years – wonder why this piecemeal approach – why have two types of officers – why not just have Permanent Commission (PC) for all officers...?
A few years ago, while chatting with ex-fauji buddies, a discussion came up whether Short Service Commission (SSC) Officers were ex-servicemen or not...?
Well, I do not know whether this is true or not, but someone said that a minimum 20 years service (pensionable service) is required for getting the status of a Veteran Ex-Serviceman and ESM facilities, and so, Short Service Commission (SSC) Officers who served for 5, 7, 10 or 14 years were not considered ex-servicemen.
Another ex-fauji opined that the worst thing to do was to join as an SSC Officer - you were neither here nor there - and you were treated as a “second class citizen” in the army.
When I was in the Navy, both PC and SSC Officers had the same training at the same academy (Naval Academy).
So, PC and SSC Officers were professionally on par with each other.
My ex-fauji friend said that in the Army, the PC Officers were trained at the prestigious Indian Military Academy (IMA) whereas the SSC Officers were trained at the Officers Training Academy (OTA), and, in his opinion, there was a difference in standards of training, and so, in the Army, SSC Officers were not considered on par with PC Officers (this was his view).
It is my view that if you are really interested in a military career it is best to join as a Permanent Commission (PC) Officer.
I have very fond memories of serving with Short Service Commission Officers, men and women, in the Navy, many of whom, in my opinion, were professionally more competent and certainly more sincere than their fellow Permanent Commission (PC) Officers.
All this made me hark back to a blog post I had written long ago on this topic of how SSC Officers get a raw deal as compared to PC Officers.
So here is the article, once more, for your perusal and comments.
SHORT SERVICE COMMISSION (SSC) – A Raw Deal...?
SUGARCANE JUICE STYLE CRUSH-AND-SQUEEZE HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OF SHORT SERVICE COMMISSION (SSC) OFFICERS
DOES SSC PREPARE YOU FOR A SECOND CAREER...?
Short Service Commission (SSC) versus Permanent Commission (PC)
WILL NEW NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME (NPS) WILL MAKE PC AND SSC IRRELEVANT?
DO SSC OFFICERS GET A RAW DEAL...?
If you are a Permanent Commission (PC) Officer, I urge you to reflect whether it is fair to apply the “crush and squeeze” style of Human Resource (HR) Management to SSC Officers.
And instead of tinkering with tenures, why have Short Service Commission (SSC) at all?
Why have two classes of officers?
Why not scrap the concept of Short Service Commission and have only the Permanent Commission for all officers?
Any Comments – specially from SSC Officers...
HUMOR IN UNIFORM
A few years ago – I read the following news reports
ARMY PLANS TO EXTEND SSC TENURE
ARMY PLANS TO EXTEND SHORT SERVICE COMMISSION “TO MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE”
After reading the two reports, I thought to myself.
“Short Service Commission”...!!!
“Attractive”...?
How can “Short Service Commission” be “Attractive”...?
At first I thought it was “Humour in Uniform”.
Then I read that Army was planning to extend the tenure of Short Service Commission (SSC) Officers to 18 years.
Why 18 years...?
Why not 20 years...?
If they make the SSC tenure 20 years, then SSC Officers will be eligible for pension and other post-retirement benefits for ex-servicemen which can be availed only after completing 20 years service.
So, if Army really wants to make “Short Service Commission” “Attractive” then it is best to extend the SSC tenure to 20 years so that SSC Officers get pension and better post-retirement benefits similar to their Permanent Commission (PC) counterparts who retire after 20 years service.
Or, better still, why not scrap the concept of “Short Service Commission” and grant “Permanent Commission” to all Army Officers...?
First they had Short Service Commission (SSC) tenure for 5 years, then 7 years, then 10 years, then 14 years, now they want it for 18 years – wonder why this piecemeal approach – why have two types of officers – why not just have Permanent Commission (PC) for all officers...?
A few years ago, while chatting with ex-fauji buddies, a discussion came up whether Short Service Commission (SSC) Officers were ex-servicemen or not...?
Well, I do not know whether this is true or not, but someone said that a minimum 20 years service (pensionable service) is required for getting the status of a Veteran Ex-Serviceman and ESM facilities, and so, Short Service Commission (SSC) Officers who served for 5, 7, 10 or 14 years were not considered ex-servicemen.
Another ex-fauji opined that the worst thing to do was to join as an SSC Officer - you were neither here nor there - and you were treated as a “second class citizen” in the army.
When I was in the Navy, both PC and SSC Officers had the same training at the same academy (Naval Academy).
So, PC and SSC Officers were professionally on par with each other.
My ex-fauji friend said that in the Army, the PC Officers were trained at the prestigious Indian Military Academy (IMA) whereas the SSC Officers were trained at the Officers Training Academy (OTA), and, in his opinion, there was a difference in standards of training, and so, in the Army, SSC Officers were not considered on par with PC Officers (this was his view).
It is my view that if you are really interested in a military career it is best to join as a Permanent Commission (PC) Officer.
I have very fond memories of serving with Short Service Commission Officers, men and women, in the Navy, many of whom, in my opinion, were professionally more competent and certainly more sincere than their fellow Permanent Commission (PC) Officers.
All this made me hark back to a blog post I had written long ago on this topic of how SSC Officers get a raw deal as compared to PC Officers.
So here is the article, once more, for your perusal and comments.
SHORT SERVICE COMMISSION (SSC) – A Raw Deal...?
Musings of a Veteran on a Military Career in the Army Navy and Air Force
By
VIKRAM KARVE
VIKRAM KARVE
Disclaimer:
1. Please read this article only if you have a sense of humor. It is a fictional spoof, no offence is meant to anyone, so take it with a pinch of salt and have a laugh.
2. These are my personal views.
3. All stories in this blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the story are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
Copyright Notice:
No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.
Copyright © Vikram Karve (all rights reserved)
“CRUSH-AND-SQUEEZE” HUMAN RESOURCE (HR) MANAGEMENT
Do you like sugarcane juice...?
They say sugarcane juice is healthy.
Sugarcane juice strengthens your organs like your brain, heart, stomach, kidneys, eyes and sex organs.
Sugarcane juice has plenty of protein and iron, prevents sore throat, cold and flu, and is a panacea for many ills.
Besides, sugarcane juice is a most refreshing drink.
I just love a tall cool restorative glass of sugarcane juice on a hot dry afternoon to quench my thirst and beat the heat.
Have you seen the way in which they extract sugarcane juice?
The sugarcane juice stall owner squeezes stalks of sugarcane through the roller crusher.
First he pushes through the entire sugarcane stalk, at least twice, to squeeze the juice out.
Then he folds the sugarcane stalk into halves and crushes it again and squeezes the juice out.
Then he repeats this crush and squeeze technique again and again till there is no juice left till and the crushed remains, the fibrous waste bagasse, is absolutely dry.
Now the man knows that there is not a drop of juice left in the crushed sugarcane bagasse.
But still he will push the totally crushed sugarcane through the roller crusher once more just to make sure that he has extracted the juice till the very last drop.
I narrated this metaphorical example of “crush and squeeze” style of Human Resource (HR) Management at the farewell party of a Navy Short Service Commission (SSC) Officer.
His permanent commission “hard taskmaster” boss wanted to extract the “last drop” from the hapless SSC Officer by “crushing and squeezing” him and making him slog even on the last day of his service till there was no “juice” left in the poor young man.
As I talked to the SSC Officer, I felt sad for him.
He was being released after 7 years service (those days SSC was for 7 years - and the SSC tenure keeps varying from 5, 7, 10 or 14 years from time to time as per requirements of the service)
The SSC Officer was still in his late 20’s, married with a small child.
He was feeling quite insecure about his future.
The 7 years he had slogged in the navy had passed in a jiffy and suddenly he was thrown out on the “civvy” street and left to fend for himself.
You may say that I am generalizing, but I have observed that Short Service Commission (SSC) Officers get a raw deal.
I have seen many Permanent Commission (PC) Officers who consider themselves prima donnas and have a “superiority complex” vis-à-vis Short Service Commission (SSC) Officers.
Many PC Officers feel that SSC Officers are merely in a “supporting role” and their role is to fill up junior vacancies at the bottom of the pyramid, and then leave, thereby improving the promotion prospects of the PC Officers.
The yeoman’s contribution of SSC Officers is not acknowledged and hence they do not get the recognition and respect they deserve.
In a metaphorical sense, like the “sugarcane”, SSC Officers are “crushed and squeezed” till all the “juice” is extracted from them, and then they are shoved out of the defence services and left to fend for themselves in the civilian world.
The incident I narrated above happened more than 17 years ago when I was in the Naval Dockyard at Mumbai.
I observed that there were a large number of young SSC Technical Officers in the Dockyard and they were performing a stellar role.
All of them were Assistant Managers, who are the mainstay in a Dockyard, and their competence and performance were indeed praiseworthy.
It was ironical that while their Permanent Commission (PC) counterparts were busy undergoing training, doing PG Courses or enjoying cushy shore appointments following their sea tenure, the Short Service Commission (SSC) Officers were slogging it out in the field.
In my opinion, SSC Technical Officers, most of whom were engineering graduates from premier institutions (like IIT, NIT etc) were better suited for technical work on the “production floors” than the “in-house engineers” being produced by the navy.
There a few Women SSC Naval Officers too.
I distinctly remember a couple of Lady Naval Architects in the Naval Construction Branch who were giving an excellent account of themselves working shoulder-to-shoulder with their male colleagues on the dock-floor and in workshops. They were highly technically proficient and it was openly acknowledged that they were as good as, if not better than, their male counterparts.
I also remember two accomplished Computer Engineers who were engineering graduates from prestigious Regional Engineering Colleges or RECs (now called NITs - in 2003, all RECs became NITs or National Institutes of Technology).
Just because they were women, they were being employed as Education Officers though their talents could have been better utilized in the Technical Branches of the Navy.
These technically gifted ladies had joined the Education Branch because, in the Navy, Women could not join the Sea Going Technical Branches (those days, women officers did not serve on ships - I wonder whether this policy has changed and whether women serve on ships now).
It was a sad waste of the finest human resource – a waste for the navy and a waste for the officers themselves.
In fact, this is what I feel about Short Service Commission (SSC):
From a long term perspective, isn’t short service commission a waste of expertise for the navy and for the officers themselves?
I do not understand the rationale behind having Short Service Commission (SSC).
Are SSC Officers supposed to be like the Contractual Employees in the Industry?
More than that, I wonder why young people want to join as Short Service Commission (SSC) Officers when the option of directly joining as a Permanent Commission (PC) Officer is available.
It is a myth that Short Service Commission prepares you for a second career.
Let me give you two reasons.
1. Firstly, if you are already thinking of a second career even before joining the armed forces, then why join the armed forces?
You might as well join your preferred civilian career directly from campus placement.
2. Secondly, it is a fact that “industry specific experience” is valued more in the civilian world rather than the “jack of all trades” experience you get in the armed forces (army and navy).
So what is the point of dabbling with something which will not add as much value to your CV (career value) as compared to specialized experience in the industry that you wish to finally join?
I have seen that after leaving the armed forces, most SSC Officers land up in the ubiquitous “HR” appointments rather than in specialized technical front-line appointments in the industry.
I have met many SSC Officers who are doing well in the industry, but all of them agree that they would have done much better had they directly joined the industry after college instead of taking a career detour via a short service commission in the services.
If you interested in a career in the civilian world and ultimately want to join the industry then why waste your best years slogging in the armed forces as a Short Service Commission (SSC) Officer?
And if you are really interested in a lifelong military career then why not join as a Permanent Commissioned (PC) Officer?
I am not sure, but in the 1970’s, when I joined the Navy, there was no such thing as short service commission.
I do not recall any SSC Officer undergoing training with us.
Officers joined either via the National Defence Academy (NDA) Khadakwasla Pune or Naval Academy (NAVAC) Cochin (Kochi
An old Sea-Dog once told me that after the 1962 war, short service commission had been started in the navy for some years but then it was discontinued.
But it seems to have been restarted, since later, in the late 1980’s, I did come across a young short service commission (SSC) Engineer Officer on my ship while serving on a frontline destroyer.
I think short service commission proliferated in the 1990’s and thereafter especially due to the induction of women officers in the navy.
I have heard of various durations of short service commission – 5 years, 7 years, 10 years and 14 years.
These tenure periods keep changing from time to time.
Someone told me that, at present, the tenure (or engagement period) of short service commission is 10 years.
Like I said earlier, if you are really interested in a lifelong military career then it is best to join as a permanent commissioned officer.
But if you are interested in a civilian career, it just makes no sense of wasting 5, 7 or 10 years of the prime of your life in the army or navy.
You don’t agree with me?
Let me give you two examples.
Suppose you a male and you take short service commission (say 5, 7 or 10 years).
You will be never able to settle down and enjoy your military life as the “Sword of Damocles” will be constantly hanging over your head as time ticks away.
I have seen many Male SSC Officers postpone their marriage till they settle down in their second innings in the civilian world.
If you are a Female SSC Officer, in the Indian Social Milieu, it will be difficult for you to remain unmarried till you settle down in your second career.
Maybe you will be almost 30 years old by the time you leave the navy and stabilize in your new career.
Now 30 is considered as an “unmarriageable” age for a girl in our traditional Indian society since there will be hardly any boys left to marry.
If you marry a civilian during your service then you will have to be ready for a long distance marriage which is quite painful especially in the first inchoate days of married life.
And if you marry a fellow naval officer – well then all your problems will be solved!
(If you are a woman army officer it is a great advantage to marry a fellow male army officer, and maybe it is the same for the air force too)
It is no wonder so many “sister” officers are marrying their “brother” officers and these “in-service” alliances are marriages of great convenience.
But let’s come to the moot point.
Why have a short service commission...?
What is the need for SSC...?
What is the solution...?
But before I propose a solution, here is a small digression.
But before I propose a solution, here is a small digression.
As you know, in 2004, the government introduced a New Pension System or National Pension Scheme (NPS) for all civilian government employees.
NPS seems quite an attractive scheme due to its flexibility and its contributory nature (the government gives you a matching contribution).
One wonders why the Armed Forces were excluded from the NPS.
Maybe, as has happened in many other cases, like the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, the civilian bureaucrats did not want to give the benefit of NPS to the defence services.
Or possibly, the Military Top Brass did not want the NPS.
Maybe they feared an exodus of officers.
Because with the advent of the NPS, the “20 Year Syndrome” will disappear.
Also, if the New Pension Scheme (NPS) is introduced in the Armed Forces, concepts like Permanent Commission (PC) and Short Service Commission (SSC) will become irrelevant.
But that is another story.
The moot point is “Do SSC Officers Get a Raw Deal?”
The moot point is “Do SSC Officers Get a Raw Deal?”
Tell me, especially if you are a Short Service Commission (SSC) Officer, did you like the “sugarcane juice story”, and do you feel that SSC officers get a raw deal?
If you are a Permanent Commission (PC) Officer, I urge you to reflect whether it is fair to apply the “crush and squeeze” style of Human Resource (HR) Management to SSC Officers.
And instead of tinkering with tenures, why have Short Service Commission (SSC) at all?
Why have two classes of officers?
Why not scrap the concept of Short Service Commission and have only the Permanent Commission for all officers?
Any Comments – specially from SSC Officers...
VIKRAM KARVE
Copyright © Vikram Karve
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.
1. If you share this post, please give due credit to the author Vikram Karve
2. Please DO NOT PLAGIARIZE. Please DO NOT Cut/Copy/Paste this post
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.
Disclaimer:
1. This story is a fictional spoof, satire, pure fiction, just for fun and humor, no offence is meant to anyone, so take it with a pinch of salt and have a laugh.
1. This story is a fictional spoof, satire, pure fiction, just for fun and humor, no offence is meant to anyone, so take it with a pinch of salt and have a laugh.
2. Views expressed in the blog post above are personal.
3. All stories in this blog are a work of fiction. Events, Places, Settings and Incidents narrated in the story are a figment of my imagination. The characters do not exist and are purely imaginary. Any resemblance to persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
Copyright Notice:
No part of this Blog may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Blog Author Vikram Karve who holds the copyright.
Copyright © Vikram Karve (All Rights Reserved)
© vikram karve., all rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I Write and I Blog because I want to say something.
I also want to hear what you have to say, especially about what I have written.
Please Comment.
I would love to hear your views.
I will greatly appreciate and welcome to your Feedback.