Avoid sudden changes

Recruitment reform should have been handled carefully

Many parts of north India have been rocked by protests against the new recruitment scheme for the Indian armed forces, which the government has called “Agnipath”. Last week, the Union Cabinet cleared the new system, which it described in glowing terms: “(A) transformative move to modernise the country’s armed forces” which would “create opportunities for the youth” and upgrade their skills. Reducing the manpower intake of the army in order to transfer its focus to advanced weaponry has long been advised. India cannot maintain a World War One-style army to fight 21st-century wars — the Ukraine conflict has made it clear what a disadvantage poor military organisation can be. It is also necessary, given the mistaken decision to introduce “one rank, one pension” (OROP) for political reasons, to reduce the ongoing drain on the government finances caused by a personnel-heavy military. For both these reasons, Agnipath is not only a step in the right direction but also long delayed. The serving military establishment has come out strongly in favour of the move, citing, among other concerns, that the average age of the soldiers is too high.

Yet, as with the farm laws in the past, the government’s management of the introduction of new and disruptive reform has been found wanting. Given that the positive fiscal impacts would be felt with a delay, it is far from clear why the transition to a new recruitment system, based on tours of duty, would not be phased in a more gradual manner. Much of the anger on display today is from young people who have been training and preparing for military opportunities for some time. In the context of the OROP scheme, the launch of Agnipath has also raised the issue of intergenerational injustice to those who join the army under the new scheme and has, therefore, given rise to violent protests by them. A more gradual transition would have dissipated some of their anger. The government must also recognise that its apparent reduction of opportunities in the military does not sit well with other developments on the public employment front. After all, it just announced filling a million government jobs in the next 18 months. Would the pensions and benefits associated with this not have a fiscal impact? Some state governments have also announced that they are returning to a defined-benefit pension scheme from a contribution-based one. This too will be fiscally problematic. Nobody is claiming that the Indian military can be treated merely as an employment scheme. But it is hard, given such inconsistencies in approach to sustain an expenditure-based case for the Agnipath reform. “Minimum government, maximum governance” is a good maxim, but should be applied across the board.

The government has already had to modify some aspects of the Agnipath scheme. The widespread anger seems to have taken it by surprise. Given its undoubted political skills, it is a wonder that this keeps on happening with major reform steps. Its fondness for sudden moves that can cause a public-relations splash leads it over and over again into actions taken without due deliberation and consultation. Such deliberation helps prepare the ground for reform and ensures that the concerns of all relevant stakeholders are taken into account beforehand — so they cannot sabotage it afterwards. It is also necessary, in the light of this violence, to consider the broader social impact of giving young men weapons training and then releasing them into society with little hope for further employment.