A recent post by a retired bureaucrat about rules and precedents reminded me of an interesting and educational encounter I had with regulations a couple of decades ago. The year was 1993, and the place was Chandimandir. But let me start at the beginning.
I got married at the age of 23—yes, a tad young. In the Army, marriage before 25 is informally discouraged, though not explicitly prohibited. One subtle deterrent is that officers below 25 are not entitled to married accommodation. I didn’t give it much thought at the time since my wife and I were quite happy in the two-room set within the regiment’s officers’ mess during the first two months of our marriage.
Then, I was detailed for a six-month course in Ahmednagar, where we were again provided ad hoc accommodation—a single large room in a repurposed stable, aptly named Ghoda (Horse) Barracks. These barracks housed numerous newlywed officers, each occupying a similar room. Immediately after the course, I was posted to Chandimandir as ADC to the Army Commander. Once again, we settled into a two-room set in the officers’ mess, content with our arrangement and mess dining facilities.
One day, the Station Commander—a brigade commander responsible for station matters, including accommodation—came to call on my boss, the Army Commander. While waiting in my office, he engaged in small talk, likely seeking insights into the station’s housing situation from someone at the grassroots level.
“How is your house, young man?” he asked.
I resisted the urge to quip, “What house?” and instead replied with due decorum, informing him that my wife and I were staying in the mess. He looked at me in disbelief. There was no shortage of accommodation in the station, and given that the ADC to the Army Commander was a privileged appointment, he saw no reason why I hadn’t been allotted a house.
“Why?” he asked.
I explained that I was not yet 25 years old.
“So?” came his next question, blunt and to the point.
Not grasping his confusion, I stated the obvious: “Sir, officers below 25 years of age are not authorized married accommodation.”
“Says who?” he shot back.
Having researched the matter thoroughly before getting married, I had my response ready. “Special Army Order 10/S of 86, sir.”
Our conversation was interrupted by the red light outside the Army Commander’s office turning green, indicating he was ready to receive his visitor. As the brigadier stood to leave, he instructed me to fetch the Army Order. Being the diligent staff officer that I was, I not only retrieved the document but also highlighted the pertinent sentence: ‘Officers below 25 years of age will not be authorized married accommodation.’ There it was, in black and white—unambiguous and definitive.
When the Station Commander returned, I handed him the highlighted page. He glanced at it, then pushed the book back toward me.
“Open the first page,” he said.
I complied.
“Read the last line of the first paragraph.”
I did. It read: ‘There will be no deviation from these rules except with the sanction of the Station Commander.’
The penny dropped.
With a knowing smirk, he looked at me and said, “So why haven’t you asked me for a sanction?”
Ten days later, we moved into a freshly whitewashed two-bedroom house—the entitled accommodation of a Captain.
Beyond the newfound domestic bliss, this experience left me with a lasting lesson. I had often heard the phrase, ‘Rules are for fools.’ That day, I understood its true meaning. Rules are created to be followed in spirit, not just to the letter. That’s why they include provisions for exceptions, allowing appropriate authorities the discretion to interpret them judiciously. The wise navigate these nuances to uphold the intent of the law, while the uninformed rigidly adhere to its wording, missing the bigger picture.
Great anecdote! Brought back fabulous memories of newly wedded couple days of the Army
When I got married, I was exactly 25 years old but posted in a station in Punjab with an acute shortage of married accommodation
We changed a record 6 guest rooms in one month before we could find an accommodation in civil accommodation close to the cantt as CILQ or Compensation In lieu of quarters
The compensation though never covered the costs in full but no regrets as every challenge faced then is a fond family memory now …
Rules are guidelines which €#uti¥@$ use to gain ascendancy over their betters
Show me the man and I shall show you the exception. Jest aside, the function of discretion is what differentiates an officer from a clerk/supervisor;this applies to government and private enterprise in equal measure.
Interesting read…But in India mostly rules are made to be broken !
Nice. Enjoyed reading. Use of discretion in the rules are seldom exercised by the authorities.
If you had left it at *rules are for fools*, it would have been a sacrilege. The explanatory couple of lines are the biggest takeaway Rohit. Well expressed.
Apt anecdote to drive home the point across..
Nice anecdote and probably real life experience…these stays in mess or small barracks have great memories associated with them 😃😃
What an interesting read! It underscores the necessity to study the rules and notes thereto carefully rather than going on heresay
Rules are for fools and here is one that the Indian armed forces had to struggle for over 70 years. Every year a soldier gets 60 days of annual leave and 20 days of casual leave along with this he is also authorised a free warrant which allows him to travel to a distance of 1450 km for free by train. This has been going on since independence and was in place up till a few years back.
If this was the practice, the question is why is it that in a country which is 3200 km north to south and over 3000 km east to west were entitled to a free warrant for 1450 km only?
And the answer would surprise you. The 60 days of annual leave was granted so that a soldier in the pre-independence army could travel to his home including England, and the 1450 km is the longest distance one can travel in the United Kingdom. Case closed.
A great read. True in all walks of life. There are rules and policies that govern but can always be circumvented.
In different contexts rules n exceptions are more often used for rent seeking.
Lucid narration of a funny incident by an accomplished writer. Great read . Thanks
Two individuals living it up within the cramped eco-system, finding their own space, a very relatable read.
Brilliant narrative, and very well penned down. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I can relate with it totally too. Being the boss of an organization, I know how it is to get a whole lot of stuff done by reading the small print, and between the lines. It’s important to know the rules well to bend or break them effectively. In the words of Pablo Picasso….”Learn the rules like a pro, so that you can break them like an artist”
Lucid and bang on the point… as always, Rohit👍
True. Rules are to facilitate the things qhich could otherwise be haphazard. They need to be reviewed and updated as per the need of time. Exception is always there to fit a situation.
Today the keeping style of Dhoni or batting style of Surya are considered pioneer for changing cricket thaugh these styles are not acceptable as per traditional cricket books