The decision to review Agniveers Scheme is a fair one in view of the opposition to it, however, it is a political decision. Before I come to Agniveers proper, I’ll touch upon the environment and human angle connected to the scheme.
The need for a younger soldier profile was highlighted post the IPKF operations since it reflected in the performance on ground. Kargil operations was a validation of the same and so is Galwan clash. Formally accepted over 30 years ago, it has unfortunately materialised at an overly politicised time. The previous govts couldn’t fulfil many of the defence needs and also couldn’t stop the pension bill escalating to 61% of the defence budget in 2020-21 especially after 6th and 7th pay commission which too was a political decision. NDA govt on coming to power reviewed the priorities and amongst others upgraded the infrastructure, encouraged self-reliance in defence equipment and also began filling the gaps and shortfalls.
All this needs funds and belts had to be tightened. While security is critical for any country and govt, so is welfare of the masses and we aren’t a weak military or country though with a large population still BPL. We are strong enough to handle all external threats even in our current state. Apart from contest by opposition political parties, a lot of global agencies aren’t happy seeing India becoming self-reliant and strong and tried hard to keep us fragmented and weak. We all are aware of the extensive prolonged efforts made to keep BJP out of power. In doing so, they stoked regional issues and aspirations along with religious and political fractures in our diverse country. Agniveers policy too received criticism in the same efforts.
Another important aspect is the human behavioural aspect. Humans especially above sixty and increasingly thereafter tend to remain in comfort zone relying more on personal experiences and beliefs and don’t welcome changes much with a mindset that why fix it when it is not broken. This mindset tends to overlook the fact that new technologies and thoughts have changed warfare tremendously and are doing it at a very rapid pace. Ukraine and Gaza wars have thrown up a lot of lessons for all militaries. We are in an era of Disruption wherein rate of change is exponential with heavy reliance on technologies and they are expensive. It actually revives the Guns versus Butter debate. Most voices heard are from the senior lot and from the sections from where most recruitment happens.
NDA entry right from beginning has been kept at 16.5 -19.5 years purposefully. All children are like wet clay when born, idealists and ethical but mouldable by the environment as they grow. Their values and ethics are formed by about 14-15 years of age and they have grown physically to a large extent but still open to improvements. At 16-19 their exposure to the environment has by and large been under the watchful eye and protection of parents or in other words not much corrupted by the world. The impact of education is still strong and patriotism runs high along with idealism. Agniveers too carry the same patriotism and idealism though not as strong on leadership qualities.
NDA tries to induct them after an in-depth selection through SSB and thereafter enhance their strength and physical abilities while infusing self-discipline and basic military skills. NDA is followed by a year in respective Service Academies to focus on the service skills to become officers. The age factor and training duration is the major reason why a few even tend to discriminate amongst regular officers and SS officers though it isn’t much justified as post training SS officers skills and motivation levels are as good as Regular officers. Competence and motivation are purely individual traits. For IAF, it is largely individual skills integrated amongst officers with little team work required with the other ranks.
In case of IN, it is comparable to equipment-oriented arms of the IA. Please answer this question honestly; after four years of intense training under the best of instructors with best of infrastructure, were we all experienced leaders to begin leading our men or becoming XO on ships? Or, did we build upon the foundation provided by the academies by picking up the ethos (Naam, Namak, Izzat) of the unit/ ship/ air squadron and enhancing our professional skills? Equipment oriented units have a tradition of letting YOs work from the lowest level of a crew trade upwards and learn the ropes which helps both integration with the unit personnel and improve their professional skills. Most training and competitions are aimed at strengthening both these aspects. Armoured Corps has a tradition of YOs being addressed as Mr till he finishes YO course which isn’t very different from junior terms at the academies. Artillery, Engineers, Signals, Air Defence all treat their YOs as freshers that most of us are on joining. If one analyses the motivation of the heroes of operations, along with patriotism and age factor the Izzat of his unit also plays a big part. If that be so, is it fair to expect an Agniveer to be a fully trained soldier after four years and with not as good a personal calibre nor opportunities as officers?
Agniveers enrolment criteria is the same as earlier so there should be no difference in numbers at the unit level though a shortfall of the pandemic era is required to be made up. They are joining units after six months of training giving them early exposure to the unit ethos and norms. The CO has that much better control over their training and ability to monitor, motivate and guide them. Training of his unit is an inherent task of every CO. He also has the option of selection of the better 25% out of every batch which shall inculcate a competition amongst them since most are expected to be wanting to become regulars. The training of the selected 25% doesn’t stop here and instead has a higher take off level. The collective competence level of every batch and consequently the unit is likely to improve with every batch. The large numbers being spoken about statistically may be relevant at the macro level but not at the unit and formation level and wars are fought by units and formations. Agniveers are quite like the recruits earlier with only a change in name. Most reactions are emotional ones which is a natural human response. Most opposition appears to be largely from mindsets, political inclinations or may be even local considerations. These discussions are also happening when the first batch is yet to finish their four-year contract and the feedback from the training establishments and Agniveers themselves are positive. The responses (objections) also seem a mix of welfare considerations (salary, pension, welfare schemes) in an environment where all these are sought to be curtailed in govt departments gradually.
While approving the scheme the govt seems to have come to a conclusion that it does not impact the professional skills/ unit competence and only the military can discipline and train the youth which seems to be becoming increasingly poor disciplined and skilled and, in the numbers required. The culture of Sarkari Naukri for lifelong benefits is costing the country heavy financially and in delivery of administration and services and hence is sought to be curbed.
The decision to review the scheme seems a political one especially in view of NDA not crossing the expected 400 and still needing to expand its vote share.
Comments