Recent press reports inform us that a group of 100 serving officers of the ranks of Major and Lt Colonel of the Army Service Corps (ASC) have approached the Supreme Court for rectification of an act of discrimination.

They claim they are deployed on combatant tasks when the army needs them, but are denied benefits on promotion prospects which come with operational deployment, as their service is categorised as non combatant. While ignoring the legal jargon in the case, there is merit in their claim, as the army continues to follow outdated policies solely to protect a select lot. When considered for operational deployment or counter insurgency tasks, there is no such term as non combatant.

All who wear the uniform are combatants and function accordingly, irrespective of their arm or service. However, to differentiate when promotions and appointments are considered is gross injustice. For decades, the army has followed the policy of distinguishing between different arms and services, and has generally been biased towards the infantry. Officers belonging to the infantry and armoured corps are automatically considered for command of formations, while those from other arms including engineers, artillery, air defence and signals need to be selected based on their performance, despite being equally fit. Very few are approved.

Officers from services (ASC, Army Ordnance Corps (AOC) and Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (EME)) are not even entitled to be considered for such appointments, only because they belong to these units. The logic conveyed is that the fighting arms, implying the armoured and infantry are at the forefront of battle, hence only they are capable of commanding formations. This logic may not be valid any longer for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, all officers, irrespective of arm or service are trained in common institutions and establishments in operations of war, in addition to specialised courses of their specific arm or service. During this period, there is no bias towards arm or service. Secondly, all major courses which determine higher appointments including the Higher Command course, Higher Defence Management course and the National Defence Course are attended by the crème de la crème of the batch from all arms and services.

The training and exposure is common; therefore to subsequently differentiate between officers is incorrect. Thirdly, there are claims that officers from the services are not exposed to operations. This is incorrect. Officers from the services have also been at the forefront of operations in the last few decades. They presently undergo two years of infantry attachment soon after commission. They are the front runners in operations of Infantry battalions.

In fact, the services presently claim more Ashoka and Param Vir Chakra awardees amongst the officer category than do Infantry regiments. The nation has fought no war since Kargil. Even in Kargil, many young officers who fought, laid down their lives and were decorated for bravery were from the services, mainly the AOC and ASC. In the valley, services officers continue to operate and produce results as an integral part of Rashtriya Rifles and infantry battalions and have been decorated for their bravery and performance on numerous occasions.

Every officer in the present environment, irrespective of arm or service, undergoes a minimum of one tenure in the valley or the North-East battling militancy. In addition, when posted to any establishment or unit in insurgency-affected areas, which is almost as frequent as the infantry, they are irrespective of appointment given additional tasks, including road opening or patrolling. Thus, operational experience at the junior level is the same.

Claiming they lack similar experience at staff levels, again a reason for denying rightful appointments, is because of the army’s faulty policies which prevents their getting the desired exposure. This bias implies a reduction of vacancies in senior ranks which translates into making them lose out on promotional avenues. Such a narrowminded approach of the top army brass leads to capable officers losing out only because they were commissioned into a service. Simultaneously, this faulty policy has the army bypassing qualified and capable officers.

At the stage of commissioning, a cadet is asked to list the arm or service of his choice. The final allotment is made on vacancies and his seniority in the training institute. Many never get their desired choice. To deny an officer a rightful future solely because he was commissioned into a service is wrong. After all he wears the same uniform, is trained in the same institutes and fights alongside his colleagues from other arms when he is so tasked.

There has been no report of any service failing in its role in operations or counter insurgency. This narrow-minded outlook of the army, protecting a select few, while denying equal rights to others, has affected morale and cohesion between officers of different arms and services. Officers from the services have begun questioning army headquarters on their discrimination.

Earlier, over three hundred officers from the services had approached the courts to offset a skewed promotion policy put in place after the Kargil war, when the army decided to reduce the ages of command.

They finally won that battle in the Supreme Court and have now been compelled to take up another. The third largest army in the world and the most respected institution of the nation is being sued by its own for discrimination and favouritism.

The hierarchy is aware of its shortcomings, but is unwilling to change. It is too steeped in trying to protect a select few, while ignoring others, only because they are serving in arms and services, other than the infantry. It may again have to be the courts that compel the army to change and become just and fair to all those who wear the uniform and swear allegiance to the nation.

After all, they too have done their bit in protecting the nation. Army headquarters must revisit its skewed policies and amend its biases internally, before it is embarrassed by the courts and publicly questioned.

(The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army.)