SEMANTICS, RANKS AND BRIGADIERS

Whether the proposal to do away the rank of 'Brigadier' is a worthwhile one is a binary issue and requires more debate as it has its  pros and cons. And why only restrict this re-structuring at the brigadier level only? Considering that uniformed forces have a strict rank hierarchy, it has to be accepted that visible  'brass'  has military value in a profession where democracy is at second place. Excepting for the rare occasions where the establishment accepts refusal to obey certain instructions,'orders are orders' and these percolate top down. A combination of visible rank and seniority give authority.

 Top down invariably means from an authority or rank which is superior and visibly so. Authority not only requires ability, confidence, backing of the organisation but also visible trappings and aura for unquestioned obedience. There is no room for democracy here. For the military hierarchy, a General or an Air Commodore or the Captain of a submarine is a VIP if the normal chain of command is to be enforced. Herein lies the question of brass, rank, precedence, the baton, badges, flag, star plates and the vehicle 'red light'( the last since removed because of equating the in-house non-democratic values of the military with the so called VIP culture of civvy street). 
 Does it make any difference that a Corps Commander and an Army Commander hold the same visible rank and both are three stars ? Or that there is an Army Commander and his Chief of Staff with the same rank and the same star plate? So as far as the field armies are concerned, the Corps Commander ***, Army Commander *** and his Chief of Staff *** have the same brass whether on the shoulder or on the staff car. Does it create functional problems or has it created functional problems in your opinion and experience? Should the Army Cdr be a Colonel General? With what insignia and how many stars on his staff car? The COAS is a four star General **** (and the FM is a five star General***** ). So, to correct the dis-balanced military-civil equation, maybe it is not a bad idea to eliminate the Brigadier rank and have two grades of Major General** - the junior to command a Brigade and the senior to be the GOC of a Division. And do away with the Brigadier *.

The Russian army precedence goes like this: Colonel than Major General, then Lieutenant General, then Colonel General and finally the Army General. Something like what we are planning!! 
Russian Army Rank Structure

Military ranks correspond with the 'body of troops' being commanded. Company/Lieutenant Colonel, Battalion/Colonel, Brigade/Brigadier (and so on for the Division, Corps, Army) with one four star General (COAS) at the top of the pyramid as far as the IA is concerned. Whatever name you want to call a rank, it will always be based on the 'body of troops' under direct command of that rank. So, you can have a Colonel commanding a Battalion and a 'Senior Colonel' commanding a Brigade.  Or you can have a Major General as Brigade Commander with a 'Senior Major General' as the Divisional Commander!! Pure semantics--- but it will help in correcting the existing imbalance in the WOP, specially with the police putting on 'one higher' badges of rank, which over a period of time have resulted in the IG, though junior to a Brigadier in the WOP, now being taken as to be senior to a Brigadier; and  being equated to a Major General or Joint Secretary. And while the Army gets this rank after 30 plus years, the IG/Joint Secretary may have barely 18-20 years service!!

Lets have look at the IPS. Visible brass puts a DIG at par with a Brigadier, IG at par with a Major General and the ADG/DG at par with a Lieutenant General. Note, even in the police the DG and the ADG wear the same brass on the shoulder with three stars on their staff car, akin to the dichotomy existing for our Corps Commander, Army Commander and Chief of Staff at Army level.There is another interesting nugget here. The Director General Intelligence Bureau wears the brass of a General(COAS ****) but the babu's have cleverly mentioned that the DIB is 4 star 'post' and not a rank. It is given to the senior most IPS officer in the Bureau !! Make sense if you please. By the same rationale, perhaps the CDS, as and when it becomes a reality, could be given a Five Star  'post' and not rank, the rank being restricted for a FM as hither to fore! The DG, NSG puts the brass of a Lieutenant General. So do the DG, RPF and the Director Generals in CAPFs, all equivalent to Director (GOI), Director General (GOI), Secretary (R) Cabinet Secretariat (GOI) and Lieutenant General (restricted to Army Commanders, three-star rank).

 The top cop at the state and city level is the Commissioner of Police, tenanted by a DG in Delhi and Bombay and by an ADG in Pune, Ahmedabad, Chennai, Bangalore, Kolkatta, Guwahati etc and by an IG rank officer in Gurgaon, Ludhiana etc and by a DIG in Trivandrum, Kochi etc. Take UP for example.  there are a total of 18 police ranges in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Each range is headed by an officer of the rank of either IG (visible brass: Major General) or DIG (visible brass: Brigadier). On top of this you have a DG police and the ADG police (both have visible brass of a Lieutenant General). 

The PLA (below) has re-structured the army ranks which are now roughly similar to the IA . The Brigadier is 'Da Xiao /Col Commandant' (or OS 6  as per NATO designation for Brigadier rank for worldwide military ranks and their equivalence). 

Chinese Army Rank Structure

Pakistan and Britain are also similar to us. Brigadiers are counted as 'Field Officers'. The US army designates this rank as Brigadier General which protocol wise is counted as a 'one star' General, unlike Britain, India or Pakistan (there is no Brigadier General rank in the British army anymore).

British Army Rank Structure

Pakistan Army Rank Structure 

The fact remains, whatever be the nomenclature of the rank, the command of the number of troops will remain the same in our structured hierarchy!! On the other hand, having same rank, brass and stars for officers commanding two different bodies of troops (strength wise) may not be a good idea. If it helps in bettering the civil-military equation, pay band, precedence or the interse protocol in any way, then it is a welcome step nonetheless.