The centre’s decision to overhaul the Agnipath scheme—extending Agniveers' tenure from four to six years and offering another chance at permanent absorption—implicitly admits the original scheme was not adequately thought through. Introduced four years ago, it drew criticism from defence experts who questioned its rationale and warned it was conceived without sufficient consultation with stakeholders, particularly the armed forces and their personnel. The fundamental flaw was that the scheme ran counter to the permanent character of the Indian armed forces. A professional military cannot be built on the assumption that most personnel will leave after a brief stint. Short-service commissions for officers were not new, but they served a different purpose, had longer tenures, and offered conditions broadly comparable to those of regular officers. Agniveers, by contrast, were guaranteed employment for only four years.
Under the original arrangement, 25 per cent of each batch would be absorbed into regular service. The remaining 75 per cent would return to civilian life, with a severance package of less than Rs 12 lakh and the promise of preferential consideration in police and paramilitary recruitment. The latest decision offers the remaining 75 per cent another two years, with higher remunerations. At the end of this period, they will be considered for regular enrolment. Those absorbed through this route will have lower seniority than the first 25 per cent. The government has thus created a second pathway, but uncertainty remains integral to the scheme. The government argues the changes follow positive feedback on Agniveers' fitness, motivation, and technological adaptability. But physical fitness and technological skills alone do not make a professional soldier. Military effectiveness also depends on experience, institutional memory, unit cohesion, and bonds of trust developed over years of service. Frequent turnover can undermine these qualities. Indian armed forces have earned international recognition for their professionalism, discipline, and operational competence.
Any recruitment policy must protect these strengths rather than compromise them in pursuit of a younger force. There is also the question of what happens to those who eventually leave military service. Young men who join with patriotic fervour and professional ambitions may find it difficult to reconcile themselves to working as security guards in factories, residential complexes, and commercial establishments. Military training deserves better recognition. Another disturbing aspect is the scheme's limited appeal among minorities. Their representation in the armed forces is already a matter of concern. A national institution like the armed forces must inspire confidence among all communities. The armed forces are not just another employment-generating establishment; they are entrusted with the country's security. Their personnel policy must be guided primarily by operational requirements, professional excellence, and the welfare of those who serve. National security is too serious a matter to be treated as an experiment in manpower management.
