The Agnipath Scheme of recruitment into the armed forces has once again come up for a media trial. This was expected since the scheme always had detractors from Day One. The Opposition has found a new found voice with a somewhat better performance in the general elections and is sparing no effort to discredit the scheme. In fact, there were promises of revoking the scheme if the INDIA bloc came to power at the Centre. At the same time, the ruling coalition members have also requested the Prime Minister, though in somewhat muted voices, to review the scheme and tweak it if the situation so demands.
The last few days have seen several articles in the mainstream media, some even by very senior veterans, who have voiced several issues regarding the Agnipath Scheme and have raised concerns about its deleterious effects on the combat preparedness of the armed forces. They have also opined that the only reason for the government to implement the scheme was to reduce the pension bill and that there is no other advantage that will accrue out of it. Time will tell – the scheme has barely seen two years since its implementation. The first batch of Agniveers will complete their four years of mandatory service 2026. Maybe we could just hang on till then before making sweeping judgements.
There have also been concerns voiced about Agniveers being short-changed as most will not be re-recruited as permanent soldiers, sailors or airmen and hence will not get a secure, pensionable, government job. That was not the intention in the first place. Those who are keen to serve will be re-inducted on merit and if merit is the only criterion, how does it compromise combat capability? For the first four years, they would be under training for 36 weeks and for the remaining time it is the responsibility of the Services to employ them commensurate with their training. Again, where is the compromise on military effectiveness?
Just to make things clear, I am not siding with the government but neither am I rubbishing the opinions of the critics. I am sure both sides have good reasons to do what they are doing. However, it will be wise to remember that India is a democratic set-up where policy formulation and decisions are clearly the prerogative and responsibility of the political executive. The armed forces leadership, at best, can render advice, voice concerns and make recommendations. Once that is done, it is the responsibility of the political executive to formulate policy for which they will be responsible and held to account.
The military leadership has the freedom to step down if it feels so strongly about an issue. The fact that no Chief has stepped down indicates that even if they felt strongly that the contours of the Agnipath Scheme were not right, they did not feel it strongly enough to step down. There is this counterargument one hears and that is, ‘Resigning is not the answer. You must stay in the system to correct it from within.’ This is all humbug. It cannot be done from within. Had any Chief stepped down after the Agnipath Scheme was implemented, that would have caused animated debate in society and perhaps a review at that juncture itself.
As mentioned earlier, the Services are peripheral to policy formulation about defence and national security matters. They are professionals in their own right and enjoy great autonomy in operational matters. In other areas, where there are several angles at play, the political executive will decide one way or the other, after having duly considered the views of the military leadership. The Agnipath Scheme is one such example for which the political executive bears full responsibility and accountability in every respect, including its impact on military preparedness.
That having been said, I have three points that must be considered carefully by the political executive. First, has there been any official communication from the Service Chiefs that the scheme compromises military preparedness in any way? If yes, have their views been seriously considered? Second, is the re-induction of 25% adequate to maintain the strength of the Services? If not, are we willing to accept reduced numbers and yet maintain combat effectiveness? Third, is there a commitment from the government to absorb Agniveers leaving after four years? If so, how and in which industries/forces? If in the police or paramilitary forces, have gazette notifications been issued to formalise quotas or priorities? If these questions are satisfactorily answered, many unnecessary debates will be avoided.
And another thing – why is nobody talking about the Short Service Commission (SSC) Officer Entry Scheme? That is also non-pensionable. They too leave after 10 years. They too have no job assurance or security once they leave. The Services are happy with the scheme for several reasons. There could be similar benefits from the Agnipath Scheme too – and if one such benefit is reduction in the pension bill, what is wrong with that? I would go a step further to suggest inclusion of SSC and Agnipath equivalent schemes in all government jobs. It may just enhance efficiency and promote merit rather than be assured of a life-long son-in-law (damaad) status with all perks, privileges and pension.
In today’s world of opportunity, let me end on a personal note. I have served the Indian Navy four decades, starting with a life-long commitment at the age of 17, when I was packed off to the National Defence Academy in a second class compartment with a steel trunk containing all my belongings. I would definitely not do it if I was today’s youngster. If I did wish to serve in the defence forces, I would have opted for the SSC entry if I were to join as an officer and the Agnipath Scheme if I were to join as a sailor. Fifteen or twenty years is too long a commitment to make in this day and age. And when individuals leave the armed forces with good training, discipline and age on their side, a plethora of avenues open up for further education, employment and service to the nation.
Give the Agniveer a chance. Such public domain discussions affect their morale and dedication – and that, if anything, will definitely affect combat-effectiveness.
One point that is not touched upon. It is in public domain that Gorkhas from Nepal have stopped getting recruited into the Indian Army and also that they are now being taken in the Chinese Army.
If this is true is such a loss to Indian Army acceptable?
That is for the Army Chief to bring out to the political executive in clear terms and for the latter to consider. I am not aware if Gurkhas can opt for Agnipath…perhaps they can. I understand a review is on the cards.
Very thought provoking. I feel the comparison between SSC and Agniveer is missing a point. SSC is an option. You can join Pmt Service or SSC. Agniveer is not if you have to join the services as a PBOR.
While we can debate about effectiveness for an uncertain period. Then with what reference point? Time till all get used to it? Or an actual war? Or two? Depending when?
There is one data point though. The East India company was the best paymaster at any given time among all the employers of the paiks/ sepahis/ sepoys.
In Agniveer, the individual has a chance to get pmt service after 4 years. The issue is that everyone wants it easy from the start.
Dear Admiral
You have given a very balanced and matured view regarding the Agniveer scheme. The Commanding Officer INS Chilka who is giving the initial training to the Agniveers has also opined that Agniveer is a very good scheme and would be successful.
I think the Government would have gone for it after seeing the success of the SSC scheme for officers. The Government would have probably considered the three questions you have raised. I too feel we should wait for a few more years and then analyze the effectiveness of the scheme and make necessary changes, if required.
A balanced and nuanced article presenting point of view of both the sides. Unfortunately the frivolous tone, and shrill tenor of the debate on social, digital and AV media is causing confusion and damaging the morale and mental health of soldier. Hope each citizen of this nation maintains the decorum while discussing issues of national security, especially the Armed Forces.
Very well articulated as usual Admiral. You have also brought out one very crucial question is retaining 25 percentage sufficient?
If it’s not then obviously that would be required to be increased and my guess is that is what is going to happen
Sir. Very thoughtful of you to keep this discussion private, otherwise ‘havebeens’ are very quick to give gyan on TV. In my opinion, our current and future leadership is well groomed and competent. We should leave it to them to run their affairs.
I would certainly recommend harvesting experiance and suggestions of retired leadership through an internal mechanism. Most of the commentators may not have read the full file on Agniveer. Commenting with half baked knowledge is not recommemnded. Lastly, grateful to be part of this forum. Regards
Very well articulated covering most aspects comprehensively,,I feel Agniveer scheme will go a long way in making large number of Indian youth skilled and thereby employable after going through the rigour of a military life and will emerge as a useful input in Nation Building.
It is all a vote bank politics played by the opposition, view there may be ammendments with the policy once the feedback from Services is received & hence, the govt should promulgate these intentions to stop the infructuous debates. Secondly, the absorption guarantee in a govt job should also not be there- these personnel shoul be given a predetermined weightage for selection.
Well written but there’s more to the armed forces which need to be considered. Scores of villages in North India have atleast one or two of their boys in the army or other forces. It brings them prosperity and respect. It also acts as a pool for enlistment. And, what of the officers leading or training Agniveers. Do they accord the same treatment knowing they will leave in a few years? As India is desperate for jobs, people may join, but not for the same reasons that the village boys joined the army hitherto.
Thanks Monish. These are for the political executive to consider and formulate policy. The forces dont compromise trining or handling enlisted persons just because they are one category or another. I can say that for the Navy.
Very nicely articulated sir.
Agree with your pointof view Admiral. This debate has just come midway of the first batch of Agniveers finishing around two years of their contractual terms. Let’s wait and watch as to how those who get released from their respective service get absorbed in the overall ecosystem as promised by the MoD/ Govt of India. We are jumping the gun and assuming far too many things at this stage.
Well articulated Admiral. I particularly like the comparison with Short Service Officers scheme.
Sir very balanced views. No scheme is perfect in first attempt but evolves with passage of time. Many veterans who have echoed anti Agniveer sentiments speak from the society they grew up. They education levels and aspirations of the youth are different today. The permanent job concept as we knew when growing up is being replaced rapidly with evolving technologies and opportunities that come with it. While Army will always root for ‘boots on the ground’ will win wars where territory need to be held, the present day warfare itself is undergoing metamorphosis with AI driven technologies that can provide same result with lesser number of human(thereby reducing lesser loss of human lives). We need to think beyond the traditional means if we are to emerge as a major power
A very balanced view of a somewhat controversial issue. It’s only two years old. We should wait for another two years to analyse its full impact, before making a major change. Combat effectiveness however always remains paramount, and can’t be allowed to be compromised at any cost.
Thanks for sharing your candid opinion.
Well thought and scripted Admiral. A balanced view has been presented, quite pragmatically. There are forces at work to break up this country and voices of dissent should have been appropriately megaphoned rather than going to the press. As you have said, there is a need to give the scheme some time to experience the experiment. Services are increasingly finding it tough to attract the right talent in right numbers. A more mature approach is the need of the hour. If the Chiefs who are protesting today, had done the corrective measures to clip the nonproductive numbers, when they had the opportunity, we would not have to see the Government taking a tough stand to prune the pension bill.