The Hindu : The greenback as lure

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Jul 25, 2003

National

National

The greenback as lure

By Amit Baruah

NEW DELHI July 24 . The dollar beckons. Under normal circumstances, very few Indian soldiers get to serve in lucrative peace-keeping missions under the auspices of the United Nations.

While a new U.N. Security Council resolution for a blue-helmeted force may not finally find favour with Washington, a division-strong Indian force being deployed in Iraq remains an alluring prospect for many Indian military personnel.

What it will mean is fat salaries for a possible 17,000-strong force that Washington had earlier wanted deployed in northern Iraq. However, one of the problems in sending Indian troops in response to the American request is that of "reimbursement".

If it is under the direct mandate of the Security Council, then there is a designated system of payment. Recent American statements do not indicate any basic shift in position towards agreeing to an overall U.N. command in Iraq.

According to informed sources, the government pays (in rupees) the equivalent of $1,200 (more than Rs. 55,000 at current exchange rates) per jawan a month, $1,600 (about Rs. 73,500) for Junior Commissioned Officers (JCOs) and $2,475 (about Rs. 1.14 lakhs) for officers of higher ranks.

The sources said that when deployed in India a jawan would be paid between Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 8,000 a month, a JCO would get between Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 14,000 and officers would get between Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 30,000.

An officer who had served in a U.N.-mandated mission said: "One soldier in a thousand gets a chance to go for a peace-keeping operation. The extra money is an obvious attraction for many."

Others familiar with Indian participation in peace-keeping told this correspondent that while the Army command is always ready to contribute its mite to U.N. missions, the Defence Ministry hierarchy, comprising civilians, often takes a different view.

One source said: ``The Defence Ministry has often told the Army command that it can provide soldiers for peace-keeping duties, but that it is not so keen to respond to deployment requests within the country."

For its part, the U.N. pays a flat rate per soldier to countries volunteering to send soldiers for peace-keeping operations. It is left to the contributing countries to work out the methodology of disbursing the funds. The U.N. also reimburses countries separately for equipment used.

If the government, after considering a fresh Security Council (that is yet another `if'), goes ahead and agrees to deploy its soldiers in Iraq, the force could come close to something like the international security force now deployed in Afghanistan. Here, the countries contributing troops foot the bill for their deployment.

One assessment that New Delhi had made before the July 14 meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security was that Rs. 1,300 crores would be required in order to station an Indian division in northern Iraq.

On the issue of a "blue-helmet" command, a U.N. fact-sheet issued in May this year said: "Only the most senior soldiers serving on United Nations missions are directly employed by the U.N.... the bulk of the troops remain under the ultimate control of their own governments, and participate in U.N. peace-keeping under terms that are carefully negotiated by those governments.''

The fact-sheet added: "While on duty, they report to the mission's force commander, and through him to the special representative of the Secretary-General. However, the authority to send or withdraw peace-keepers remains with the government that volunteered them and that government also retains the responsibility for their pay, as well as disciplinary and personnel matters."

It would appear that should it happen, the deployment of 17,000 soldiers in Iraq would include one of the biggest such operations since independent India began joining "blue-helmet" forces. The larger the force, the more the possibility of military personnel being able to make additional money.

There is, however, little doubt that the issue of "command" even under a "new" Security Council resolution is far from settled. Clarity with regard to moves by key veto-wielding powers in the Security Council on a new resolution remains elusive for the moment.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National