Agnipath: Pause and rethink

In today’s world, millennials have enormous obstacles when it comes to choosing jobs or getting into institutions that need high percentages. There are several possibilities and choices available, but it is difficult to choose one due to family and peer pressures, as well as incorrect counselling. Following in the footsteps of previous generations, the military forces have been the primary professional choice.

The government last week introduced Agnipath, a recruitment paradigm for inducting personnel into the armed services for a specific timeframe.
The two objectives of this scheme were one, to create a younger force and two, to develop a disciplined youth that would be available for employment. A good first step is the government announcement of 10% reservation for agniveers in Central Armed police forces, Assam rifles and Ministry of defence. Some of the benefits of this scheme include:
1) Exposing India’s youth to a disciplined lifestyle instilling valour, nationalism and passion
2) Opening doors for new talent.
3) The defence forces have access to a pool of youthful talent,
4) Reduction of the ballooning pension bill of the armed forces.

However, the timings and the policies of this scheme have met with criticism from many veterans — with the benefit of experience in service as well as time spent at the grassroots which must be looked into seriously. Many of them have recommended modifying the scheme to make it more lucrative.

The pension bill for the defence forces has been a source of anxiety for the Indian government for a long time. The Chief of Defence Staff, Gen Bipin Rawat, seemed concerned about it as well. The defence services’ strength is about 1.5 million, while that of civilians in the Ministry of Defence is 3.75 lakh. However, their pension in proportionate terms is far more than that of the military personnel. The pension bill of state police and Central Police Organisations too is many times more than that of the soldiers. The average annual defence civilian pension is roughly Rs. 5.38 lakh compared to Rs. 1.38 lakh for military pensioners due to the longer career lifespans of the former.

In Agnipath, 75% of the agniveers would be bid goodbye after completing a four-year tenure. In this highly technology driven world, only highly motivated and well-trained personnel of the armed forces must be a part of the troops not short term soldiers or agniveers simply waiting to conclude their four-year tenure and move on to larger endeavours. Hence a pilot project would have been a better course of action to prove the viability of the scheme.

It takes time for soldiers to emotionally and physically connect with their unit, to be moulded and infused into the unit’s ethos, to pledge loyalty to the unit flag and eventually to be willing to lay down their life for the unit’s honour (naam, namak, nishan). A soldier needs to master many tricks like Weapons, communications, equipments, fieldcraft and tactics and mastering them requires a great deal of time, practice, and dedication.

Serving in the army is a calling that comes with a strong sense of patriotism in the heart, mind, and spirit. Joining it entails much more than just seeking mere employment.
Should an Indian soldier be replaced with a semi-trained, unmotivated person who is just waiting for his four-year term to end under the new scheme?

Learnings and examples from history have also proved that short-tenure soldiers don’t perform well leading to falling in battle. A few examples are the American soldiers in Vietnam and the Russian soldiers in Ukraine. The NATO troops’ performance in Afghanistan is likewise a clear example of demotivated soldiers resulting in battle losses and inefficient administration. In the US, an army veteran has higher chances of being unemployed as compared to a normal American.

As a conclusion, this scheme is very short sighted. It does not appear to have fulfilled the aspirations of those who wish to join the military services and might not contribute to better operational efficiency of a unit on the frontline. A recruit is named a soldier, sailor, or airman, but why under this scheme should he/she be liked called by a different name when the country expects both to be warriors ready to lay down their lives. Why should there be a separate class of troops in an organisation whose common solitary dharma, motto is “service before self”?

The Indian armed force is a noble institution, functioning as the first responders to any crisis and last bastion of the state in protecting the nation’s honour and security. Therefore, its manpower requirements, both qualitatively and quantitatively must be adequately met.

Agnipath scheme should be reconsidered!