PM Modi’s less than convincing Agnipath defence does him no credit

Prime Minister Narendra Modi defended the Agnipath scheme — the four-year contractual recruitment of soldiers into the defence services — at Drass on Friday, 26 July, and claimed that it was introduced at the behest of the Army. He described the scheme as a much-needed reform to reduce the average age of soldiers. Finally, he denied that the government was motivated by the compulsion of reducing defence pension payments, which constitute 50 per cent of the defence ministry’s budget.

On each of these grounds, the PM was being less than truthful.

At the behest of the Army, really?  

While the PM was technically correct in claiming that the Army had proposed the scheme, he held back the details. It is true that the Army had forwarded the proposal after being nudged by the political leadership, but the scheme was meant for just 5,000 Agniveers (those recruited via Agnipath), 75 per cent of whom were to be absorbed after training.

Since the Army was annually recruiting 50,000-60,000 soldiers, the scheme would have been an experimental pilot project. The government, however, stopped recruitments for two-three years owing to the Covid pandemic, though elections and all other political activities, rallies etc. continued, and finally notified that all recruitment to the defence forces would be made through Agnipath, with only up to 25 per cent (or less) to be eventually absorbed after being demobilised first.

In other words, the lucky 25 per cent of Agniveers would first be released, and then join afresh as soldiers.

In his book Four Stars of Destiny, which is yet to be cleared for publication, former Army chief Gen. Manoj Mukund Naravane wrote, “We in the Army were taken by surprise…but for the Navy and the Air Force it was a bolt from the blue”. Gen. Naravane also conceded that it was his limited proposal on a 'tour of duty' scheme that was turned by the government into the Agnipath scheme.

Why did the Army top brass give in, then, after resisting the scheme for two years? Sushant Singh, senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, explained in a lecture at Hyderabad that the Indian Army is trained to accept the decisions of its civilian masters. It may put its concerns forward, but accepts the decision taken by the civilian establishment. Not accepting the decision would leave the top brass with no option but to resign, if the civilian establishment put its foot down, he pointed out.

Some senior officers, he added, may have decided to kick the can down, concluding that problems that they foresaw would have to be handled by the next generation of officers after eight to 10 years. The PM’s claim that the scheme was introduced at the behest of the Army is thus not borne out by facts.  

Unfair and discriminatory

The prime minister did not address this issue, which is one of the key criticisms of the scheme. Soldiers in the Army generally serve for an average of 17 years and become eligible for pension, gratuity and other benefits after 15 years of service. A re-inducted Agniveer, therefore, would have to serve 21 years (including four years as an Agniveer) to become eligible for the same benefits.

Faced with mounting opposition in and outside Parliament, the PM was clearly looking at saving face and make light of the concerns. The government has already declared that 10 per cent of Agniveers will be absorbed by Central Armed Paramilitary Forces (CAPF).

Several BJP-ruled states, at least seven of them, have quickly announced that each would absorb 10 per cent of Agniveers into the state police, seeking to reassure concerns about the future of those who are ‘rejected’ by the Army. While this undesirable tag will haunt the Agniveers for the rest of their lives, these assurances and ‘reservations’ are quite meaningless in view of past experience.

Ex-servicemen, for example, enjoy 24.5 per cent reservation in group D jobs in Central public sector undertakings. However, CPSUs have filled up only 0.3 per cent of Group D posts with ex-servicemen. Similarly, there is already a 10 per cent reservation in Group C jobs in CAPFs for ex-servicemen. Once again, the reservation has been largely on paper, as only 0.4 per cent of the posts have been filled with ex-servicemen.

If this has been the treatment accorded to fully trained soldiers after serving 17 years, the announcement of reservation of posts for ‘rejected’ Agniveers after four years in the Army does not carry much conviction.

No concern for pension?

The prime minister’s claim that the government was not concerned about the rising pension bill while launching the scheme was also a half-truth at best. Defence pensioners number 34.1 lakh, but they include defence civilian employees as well as the officers, who draw a far higher pension than soldiers and JCOs (junior commissioned officers).

Defence pension is also an assured pension and not contributory as is the case in other government departments. The amount required to pay defence pensions is much higher than the total budget for the nationwide MGNREGA and mid-day meal scheme. In the last two years, most defence commentators have agreed on the urgency to stem the outflow on account of pension, which is restricting funds for operations and modernisation of the defence services.

All of them are on record stating that the Agnipath scheme was justified on this ground. Therefore, for the prime minister — who assured OROP (one rank one pension) even before he assumed office, and whose government has not been able to revise the amount under OROP since 2019 — to say that the government was not concerned about rising pension payments is, again, not convincing.

A younger Army?

The prime minister also defended the scheme on the ground that the government wanted to ensure a younger and fitter Army by retiring most of them by the age of 26. The Army’s current average age is said to be 32, and most defence experts believe that with people living far longer and being a lot fitter, soldiers at the age of 32 cannot be said to be ‘old’.

What is more, everyone in the defence services has to clear a fitness test every year. Unfit people, therefore, cannot last in the Army. Soldiers also require emotional maturity and sufficient experience to last in the Army. The ‘average age’ argument, therefore, is totally arbitrary and baseless.  

“Did anyone fighting in the Kargil War say that the age profile of the soldiers in the unit was wrong? That they were too old for high altitude warfare and performed poorly. Which committee has recommended that inexperienced young men are better than trained, hardened soldiers?”, questioned Sushant Singh on X.

Roger Federer retired from international competitive tennis at the age of 40, he pointed out; and at a time when most modern armies are looking at technology and unmanned drones, missile systems and satellites to conduct warfare, the fetish for a younger Army is misplaced, believe several commentators.

There are other structural flaws in the scheme, with Army veterans questioning the six-month basic training for Agniveers. Six months of training can make a young man stand straight and look like a soldier but little else, quipped one.

Another veteran wondered why it was so difficult to understand that a policeman is different from a soldier. You can learn to parade and use firearms even without joining the Army. But you need seven to eight years before you can become a hardened soldier, ready to lay down your life for others.

Judging by the prime minister’s stubborn defence, however, it seems the government is in no mood to review the scheme. What kind of damage to society can the scheme do? In his lecture in Hyderabad, Singh mentioned a research paper which studied the impact of demobilisation of Indian soldiers after World War II on the Partition riots.

As many as 25 lakh Indians were drafted into the British army during the war, and quickly disbanded after. These men, predominantly men from the majority community trained in violence, played key roles during post-Partition rioting.

The prime minister must, in the national interest, allow a full discussion on the scheme in Parliament, consult experts with an open mind, and then take steps to correct the anomalies and address the concerns. Or is that too much to expect?