Distribution: weekly

The Supreme Court has said that the Centre’s hyperbole on the One Rank One Pension (OROP) policy presented a much “rosier picture” than what is actually given to the pensioners of the armed forces.

What is OROP Policy?

• OROP means the same pension, for the same rank, for the same length of service, irrespective of the date of retirement.
• The concept was provoked by the then decision by Indira Gandhi-led government, in 1973, two years after the historic victory in the 1971 Bangladesh war.

How did the issue escalate?

• The Rank pay was a scheme implemented by the Rajiv Gandhi-led govt in 1986, in the wake of the 4th Central Pay Commission.
• It reduced the basic pay of seven armed officers’ ranks of 2nd Lieutenant, Lieutenant, Captain, Majors, Lt. Colonel, Colonels, Brigadiers, and their equivalent by fixed amounts designated as rank pay.

How was it reviewed?

• In 2008, Manmohan Singh led Government in the wake of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (6CPC), which discarded the concept of rank-pay.
• Instead, it introduced Grade pay, and Pay bands, which instead of addressing the rank, pay, and pension asymmetries caused by ‘rank pay’ dispensation, reinforced existing asymmetries.

Issues with this pension policy

• The causes that inform the OROP protest movement are not pension alone, as armed forces veterans have often tried to make clear, and the parliamentary committee recorded.
• The issues, veterans emphasize, are of justice, equity, honor, and national security.
• The failure to address the issue of pay-pension equity, and the underlying issue of honor, is not only an important cause for the OROP protest movement but its escalation.

Present status

• PM Modi-led government has accepted the OROP.
• It has already released Rs. 5500 crores to serve the purpose, but still, there are some grievances from the veterans’ side.
• It refined Pensions for all pensioners retiring in the same rank as the average of the minimum and maximum pensions in 2013.
• The veterans noted governments’ proposal as one rank many pensions since the review of 5 years would lead to differences in pension between senior and a junior.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Context

Last month, the Supreme Court upheld the 27% quota for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the All-India Quota seats for the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test and reiterated that reservations for backward classes were not an exception but an extension of the principle of equality under Article 15(1) of the Constitution.

Multiple dimensions of reservation

• The judgment highlighted how open competitive exams give the illusion of providing equal opportunity in ignorance of the widespread inequalities in educational facilities, the freedom to pursue such education, and societal prejudices.
• Psychological and social effects: The Court pointed out how such disparities are not limited to the issue of access to good education or financial constraints alone, but also to the psychological and social effects of inherited cultural capital (communication skills, books, accent, academic accomplishments, social networks, etc.), which ensures the unconscious training of upper-caste children for high-grade performance.
• The Constituent Assembly held a similar philosophy while introducing constitutional provisions which enable the government to make special provisions for the uplift of the “lower castes”.

Importance of justifiable data

• The politicisation of issue: Political parties often promise reservation for communities on being brought to power without any credible data collection exercises to justify the decision.
• It can be said that the faith of our citizens cannot be restored until credible exercises of data collection are undertaken regarding caste.
• Lack of data on OBC: Even though data concerning the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been included in the Census, there is no similar data on OBCs.
• Proper assessment: In the Indra Sawhney case, the Supreme Court held that the States must conclude the “backwardness” of a particular class of people only after proper assessment and objective evaluation. 
• It held that such a conclusion must be subject to periodic review by a permanent body of experts.
• The National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993, provides under Section 11 that the Central government may every 10 years revise lists with a view to exclude those classes which have ceased to be backward and include new backward classes.
• This exercise has not been done to date.
•  Impartial data and subsequent research might save the bona fide attempts of the uplift of the most backward classes from the shadow of caste and class politics and be informative to people on both sides of the spectrum – for and against reservation.
• Calls for caste data in Census: Last year, many calls were made for the inclusion of caste data (including that of the OBCs) in the 2021 Census, and the matter reached the Supreme Court.
• However, the government took the stand that the 2011 SECC was “flawed” and is “not usable”.

Conclusion

Caste data will enable independent research not only into the question of who does and does not need affirmative action but also into the effectiveness of this measure.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)