Orchestrated Campaign Against Agnipath Lacks Credibility

 

 

They are completely integrated and assimilated into the units. Just like other soldiers, Agniveers are carrying out all operational tasks and other professional duties.”Further, he announced that around 50,000 vacancies for Agniveers have been released for the current year and the recruitment process was in progress.

 

Apparently, the Army is very happy with the success of the scheme. All those apprehensions regarding adverse effects on the combat effectiveness have proved totally misplaced. On the contrary, due to their commitment, physical fitness and motivation Agniveers are much sought after. They are considered an asset.

 

The Agnipath scheme was announced by the government on 14 June 2022. All terms and conditions were made public. Except for a few isolated demonstrations by the affected coaching institutes in Bihar, the environment accepted it well. A few veterans did express their reservations and suggested minor changes. No one condemned it as such. Most felt that it was an overdue reform. Success of the Short Service Commission convinced them of the viability of the Agnipath scheme.

 

Why is it that the commanders who shed uniforms decades ago are carrying out a concerted campaign against it now – nearly two years after its introduction? Is there a discernible pattern in spreading misinformation to dissuade the youth?

 

 

In December 2023, former Army Chief General MM Naravane wrote in the advance copy of his memoirs that the Agnipath scheme had surprised the Indian Army, while it was a ‘bolt out of the blue’ for the Navy and the Air Force. He appeared to be conveying to the environment that he had not been a party to the scheme and that it had been thrust upon the services.

 

If that be so, why did he accept the Agnipath policy without protest. For that matter, why did the services field senior commanders to defend it publicly? On 19 June 22, a joint press conference was held by Lt Gen Anil Puri, Addl Secy DMA MoD, Adjutant General from the Army, Air Officer Personnel from the Air Force and Chief of Personnel from the Navy.

 

 

In his bid to market his book, Gen Naravane forgot the basic norms of service. Once he accepted the policy, he became a part of the collective decision-making. He cannot disown it after shedding the uniform. It was an act of gross injudiciousness, most unbecoming of a Chief. He has done immense disservice to the armed forces.

 

As the campaign for the general elections was picking up, the opposition parties were looking for issues to corner the government. Gen Naravane’s imprudent utterances provided rare ammunition to them to politicise the policy. A policy matter that should have remained within the military’s domain, has since been subjected to uninformed public invectives to demoralise the services and sow seeds of doubts about the fighting potential of the Agniveers.

 

However, once the elections were over, the issue got consigned to the backburner, till a former Navy Chief experienced ‘enlightenment’ and discovered the detrimental nature of the scheme. Although he had retired decades ago and had no access to the latest inputs on the national security imperatives, he decided to teach the incumbent top brass how to run the services and to counsel them as to what is good for their combat effectiveness.

 

Soon thereafter, another former Navy Chief joined the bandwagon and went on to declare,“The fact that this scheme will degrade combat effectiveness is known to all who understand national security.” With this single sanctimonious statement, he branded all serving Chiefs and the senior commanders to be ignorant of national security imperatives. He further went on to say that ‘the only motivation driving the Agnipath is reducing the pension bill’.

 

The fire ignited by the three former Chiefs was further fueled by some well-known habitual dissenters. They came up with their own critiques, cleverly shifting the discussion from combat effectiveness to the pensions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

During the period 2005 and 2010, the UPA government did not want to earn unpopularity by increasing oil prices. All oil marketing companies were ordered not to increase the retail price. As cash subsidy to compensate them for the losses would have imposed unacceptable burden on the budget, promissory notes (commonly referred to as oil bonds) were issued, thereby deferring the liability to the future governments. It was an ingenious move.

 

 

Undoubtedly, the stratagem of oil bonds was smart politics. The UPA government secured its present by deferring the financial burden to the future.

 

On the other hand, the introduction of the Agnipath scheme is earnest and committed politics. The Modi government took the plunge, not for immediate benefits but for the long-term good of the armed forces and the country.

 

Yet, the Modi government earned considerable unpopularity, and, in fact, had to pay some price for it during the last elections. The critics conveniently ignore the fact that the primary aim of the scheme is to have younger soldiers. Instead, they keep accusing the government of trimming the budget by depriving the soldiers of their pensions.

 

 

 

Agnipath is undoubtedly an innovative, radical and highly overdue reform. In addition to the services, the society and the country will benefit when Agniveers return after completing their tenure. They will contribute to nation building in myriad fields with their nationalist fervour and disciplined work-culture. They are going to prove to be an invaluable national asset.

 

The government should ignore the subjective criticism and continue with the Agnipath scheme. No changes need to be made for the present. A review to finetune the scheme should be carried out in 2030 – only after a number of batches complete their tour of duty and get assimilated in other vocations. For the present, efforts should be made to increase avenues for their assured lateral absorption.

 

Some veterans may be having genuine concerns, but they must appreciate that their criticism of the Agnipath scheme, however well-meaning it may be, is proving counter-productive. It is doing more harm than good. We, the veterans, should exercise restraint, lest our utterances generate disaffection in the country. We must have faith in the wisdom and professional competence of the current decision makers.They are not enemies of the state. Why would they implement a scheme that degrades combat effectiveness?