First batch soldiers recruited under the Agnipath scheme of the Indian Armed forces undergo weapon training at the Grenadiers Regimental Centre, in Jabalpur.
Credit: PTI File Photo
The 25th anniversary of Kargil Vijay Diwas will be memorable for all the wrong reasons. Instead of the nation grieving with the families of soldiers—of all ranks—who died in action defending India’s borders, it turned into a day where quarrels broke out between politicians and even retired soldiers, over the Agnipath scheme. Provoked by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi returned the fire, and the problem has now escalated into a crisis.
Designed as a four-year contractual recruitment plan for India’s Army, Navy and Air Force the fact that experts and politicians are arguing over its design, effectiveness, and impact on the crucial issue of defence preparedness two years after it was launched is an indication that there are serious flaws in the scheme.
Two years from now will the nation be compelled to watch young men and women, mostly in their mid-20s, taking to the streets to demand better terms of retirement? Hypothetical as the question may be, the Agnipath scheme is turning out to be not a brain wave but a half-baked measure. The best place for anything as unsuitable as this is the trash bin.
Kargil Vijay Diwas threw up the difference between the terms on which post-2022 India’s physically and mentally fittest youth are being recruited, and the way it was before. The family of an Agniveer who dies in action will get a lump sum as compensation, whereas the families of the Kargil bravehearts are covered even when their sons are gone. Despite death being the great equaliser the difference is stark.
It was bad enough when the nation was compelled to watch, presumably with some guilt, the spectacle of soldiers and generals sitting in dharna demanding from the state ‘One Rank-One Pension’. That was when the retired bravehearts used to be recruited in the old-fashioned way and served the forces the old way, as well. The tenure of service varied from 18 to 30-plus years, with a pension and benefits that covered the families too.
India is dotted with petrol pumps, gas distribution agencies, and even kiosks selling food and non-alcoholic beverages that were allotted to defence personnel often as part of a rehabilitation programme. Will the Agniveers or their families qualify for rehabilitation programmes that have been in place for decades? It is important to ask this because a controversy has broken out over something as basic as just how much compensation the family of a fallen Agniveer received from the Centre and what the family was assured by the state government. What is certain is that retired Agniveers will be assisted to get bank loans should they want to become entrepreneurs.
The army pre-dates Independent India. It is a professional army with tenured service. Armies in other countries have hybrid models; some personnel serve limited terms and others have full tenures. India’s defence services were not designed for the hybrid model, except for short service commission officers who left early. The regular recruitment model and the Army as an institution is built on institutional memory and muscle that plays a significant role in creating the spirit and strengthening the bonds required of people who are prepared to die with each other. On the contrary, having sunk a vast number of resources into training the Agniveer, releasing them to be recruited by some other entity is a colossal waste of the nation’s money.
An abrupt change of the model, therefore, required better planning, including the critical factor of what happens once the four-year hires exit the service. Scrambling to announce that retiring Agnipath recruits would be hired by state governments to serve as forest security, policemen, and assorted such streams as happened around Kargil Vijay Diwas, was a knee-jerk reaction.
Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Arunachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Haryana all rushed to promise to give priority to ex-Agniveers in two years-time, as the pressure from the political opposition to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) intensifies.
Led by the Congress, the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (I.N.D.I.A.) is clear in its stance that the Agnipath scheme should be scrapped. That, however, is not a solution. Justified as the demand may be, the Modi regime must come up with an alternative design. If it fails to do so, it will have lost a nation-wide constituency of young voters who invest large sums of money and time to prepare to be recruited to the defence services.
Deferring the moment when a fresh plan for filling up the thousands of vacancies in the defence services will further deepen the divide. As of now, there is a line separating those who think the Agnipath scheme can be rescued by making amendments to the terms of service including tenure and those who think the earlier model was better. This line exists within the defence services and outside, that is, families and youth who dream of being in the Army-Navy-Air Force.
Can the Modi regime afford the cost of destabilising and by extension weakening an institution that serves to secure the nation from external danger? Obduracy is bad politics and the worst kind of governance, because at some point someone else will come and clean up the mess.
That would leave the BJP straddled with the legacy of Modi’s mismanagement. Quite obviously, the BJP is reluctant to be weighed down by its leader’s error of judgement. The slew of assurances from BJP-ruled states on post-retirement opportunities for Agniveers ahead of 2026, by which time several crucial states will be up for Assembly elections, is one way of cushioning the impact of presumed discontent.
The other way would be for Modi to invite the Opposition to participate in a discussion to find a consensus on how India, not the regime, can redesign its defence services to be future-ready.
(Shikha Mukerjee is a Kolkata-based senior journalist.)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.