Why Debate Over Compensation To Martyrs' Next Of Kin Is Ill-Informed And Misses The Point

A debate is currently raging on social media about the compensation received by the ‘next of kin’ of the armed forces members who are martyred. 

It was triggered by this interview of Kirti Chakra awardee Captain Anshuman Singh’s parents, Ravi Pratap Singh and Manju Singh.

Captain Singh, a doctor serving in the Army Medical Corps, was posted in Siachen where he sacrificed his life on the night of 19 July 2023 while saving the lives of his fellow soldiers.

He was awarded the Kirti Chakra by President Droupadi Murmu at a ceremony in Rashtrapati Bhavan on 5 July this year. His widow, Smriti Singh, accompanied by his mother, Manju, received the honour from President Murmu.

The images of a grieving Smriti Singh receiving the honour, and her subsequent interview where she spoke of her martyred husband, was widely circulated and evoked strong empathy. 

But controversy broke out Thursday (11 July) after the interview of the parents of late Captain Anshuman Singh was aired. 

Ravi Pratap and his wife, in the course of the interview, regretted that their martyred son’s widow had left them and had started living with her own parents. They said she had received a major portion of the monetary compensation and ex-gratia.

Anshuman’s father, who had retired as a subedar in the Indian Army, was heard saying that the rules regarding the compensation for the ‘next of kin’ to soldiers who are martyred or died in the line of duty needs to be revised to provide an equitable share of the monetary benefits to the parents as well. 

This set off a social media storm, with many blaming the young Smriti Singh, who had married Anshuman on 10 February 2023 — just five months before his martyrdom — for cornering the lion’s share of benefits and leaving her in-laws in the lurch. 

Commentators felt she did not deserve to get so much money because she was married to Captain Anshuman Singh for only five months, while it was his parents who had raised him.

They opined that the contribution of Ravi Pratap and Manju Singh and their place in their son’s life overshadows that of his widow. 

Many others took a diametrically opposite view, saying that a widow has to bear the cross of her husband’s martyrdom and, thus, deserves all the benefits.

They vilified the parents as too demanding, especially since the martyr’s father is himself an ex-serviceman and draws pension and other benefits.

Another reason for the ire of those bashing the martyr’s parents is that they met Rahul Gandhi in Rae Bareli earlier this week and spoke out against the Agniveer scheme of short-term recruitment of jawans in the forces. 

But the entire debate misses a few key points.

The first is that it is the soldier, be it an officer or other ranks who decide who — wife, parents, or both — will get benefits like insurance (under Army Group Insurance), provident fund, and gratuity, and what proportion of the benefits they will get in case they die in harness.

A gentleman cadet (who is always unmarried) signs a declaration bequeathing all benefits to their parents a day before being commissioned into the armed forces. A jawan does the same once they are inducted into the forces. 

Later, on getting married, a soldier — officer, junior commissioned officer (JCO), non-commissioned officer (NCO), or jawan — signs a fresh set of documents expressly naming the beneficiaries and, in case they want the parents and spouse to share the benefits in case of death in service, specifying the proportion of the benefits that would go to the spouse and parents. 

“Usually, an officer whose parents are reasonably well-settled will name his wife as the sole beneficiary. But many officers also come from very modest or economically disadvantaged families, and in that case, they name their parents also as beneficiaries and specify what percentage of the benefits the parents will get,” said a Brigadier who was commissioned into the Punjab Regiment and had commanded the famous 23rd Battalion (or Longewala) of the regiment. 

Another retired Major General who was commissioned into the Maratha Light Infantry and served in the elite Parachute Regiment (Special Forces) told Swarajya that it is only in some cases of NCOs and jawans who are martyred or died in the line of duty that some problems arise. 

“Some of them don’t give much thought to the future in case of any adverse events and while naming their nominees, they are not very careful. Officers generally do some handholding and guide them properly,” he said. 

When a soldier is martyred, the insurance money (over Rs 1 crore) and the provident fund and gratuity (the amount depends on years in service) are paid to the next of kin as per the wishes of the martyr, as indicated in the documents they had signed after getting married. 

But the other ex-gratia by the Union government and also very often by the government of their domicile state is generally given to the spouse in case the martyr was married. 

It is not known who Captain Anshuman Singh had named as his beneficiary or beneficiaries in case of his death. But the Ministry of Defence is legally bound to honour his wishes and cannot act at its own discretion. 

If Smriti Singh (his widow) had been named as the sole nominee of benefits, then the Ministry has no choice other than to give the entire insurance money, the provident fund dues, and gratuity to her. 

There is, however, an issue that arises here. What if a soldier names their spouse as the sole beneficiary and the parents are very poor? 

Many recent court orders have said that sons and daughters have a moral and legal obligation to look after their parents. So, in case the son or daughter dies and the widow or widower (as the case may be) receives all the benefits, is it obligatory on the part of the widow or widower to take responsibility for their in-laws? 

Ethically speaking, they ought to if their in-laws are too poor and cannot afford a decent standard of living. The law is silent on this aspect. But also, there cannot be one law on this issue because each family and case is different.

Still, there is a general agreement among serving and retired officers that in case the earnings (pensions and so on) of parents of martyrs are below a certain threshold, a reasonable portion of the benefits due to the martyr’s dependents should also go to the parents.

And hence, in that sense, the wishes of late Captain Anshuman Singh’s parents that the rules governing the payment of benefits to the next of kin of martyrs should be amended and made fair by including the parents of the martyrs in case they don’t have a reasonable income is only just. 

They should not be vilified just because they met Rahul Gandhi; those doing so should remember that they had met Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Defence Minister Rajnath Singh as well, and had only words of praise for them.

Similarly, Smriti Singh does not deserve to be vilified. She was widowed at such a young age and has borne her tremendous loss with a lot of fortitude. What she decides to do with her life and where she stays (with her parents or in-laws) is her own choice and has to be respected. 

Lastly, from the looks of it, Captain Anshuman Singh’s parents are not poor. Retired Subedar Ravi Pratap Singh draws a fair sum as a pension and is entitled to the canteen, medical, and other facilities due to ex-servicemen and their families. 

The martyr's parents, thus, do not really need a large share of the benefits that have gone to their son’s widow. And they shouldn’t begrudge their daughter-in-law for returning to her parents' home.