Paranoia in uniform

The report in this newspaper, about the army being seriously disturbed about ex-servicemen seeking private employment in Iraq and wishing to curb the practice, is disconcerting. In principle, men and women who have given the best part of their lives to the country in a noble profession for a noble cause must not be denied opportunities for post-retirement employment in the country or outside it. This is especially true for defence personnel who perforce retire young, with pensions that are patently inadequate to maintain their minimum social and economic obligations. Jawans, incidentally, retire while still in their mid-thirties.

A significant number of ex-servicemen do go to the Gulf countries for post-retirement employment. Many were in Iraq in their private capacity before the wars of 1991 and 2003 impacted on the process. We have decided not to send our forces to Iraq without a UN mandate. But surely this formulation should not apply to the private employment of ex-servicemen. And they would only be serving the larger national interest also if they can help stabilise Iraq and restore normalcy. Therefore, they deserve encouragement and assistance, if anything.

The reports also indicate the paranoia in our defence establishment about secrecy and security of information. How does the employment of ex-servicemen in Iraq pose security risks, any more than that of serving personnel posted abroad? The issue of securing sensitive information is addressed by the existing rules which require a certain “cooling off” period after retirement from sensitive jobs before an individual can take up fresh employment. Anybody who knows anything of today’s world would know that Iraq poses serious hazards, and anybody wanting to put his life at risk to help improve security in that unfortunate country would naturally have to be given a higher compensation package. This does not mean that he would sell his soul or country for that.