Lagatar24 Desk
New Delhi: On Kargil War Diwas, a significant debate erupted between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Congress leaders over the Agnipath scheme, which was launched to reform military recruitment. Congress leader Karti Chidambaram sharply criticized PM Modi for endorsing the scheme at a memorial event honoring Kargil War soldiers, arguing that it undermines the Army’s professionalism and should be abolished.
“The Agniveer scheme should be scrapped. Modern warfare demands fully-trained soldiers, and this scheme does not meet those needs,” Chidambaram stated. He further emphasized that the Indian Army’s esteemed legacy should remain apolitical, stressing that respect for the armed forces should not be used for political gain.
Congress leader Sukhjinder Singh Randhawa also voiced concerns, questioning the future of Agniveers after their four-year term. “PM Modi claims we are creating confusion, but he should address the real issues facing Agniveers after their short service,” Randhawa said.
Introduced in 2022, the Agnipath scheme recruits soldiers for a four-year term, aiming to modernize and reduce the average age of the armed forces. However, Agniveers do not receive the same long-term benefits, such as pensions for their families, as regular military personnel. This has led to widespread discussion, with a parliamentary panel suggesting that Agniveer families should receive benefits comparable to those for regular forces.
Earlier in the day, PM Modi defended the Agnipath scheme, accusing Congress of spreading misinformation to deter youth from joining. “Congress opposed advancements in our defense forces and is now against a scheme that aims to keep our soldiers young and fit. They claim the scheme is a ploy to cut pension costs, forgetting that a soldier recruited now would only be eligible for a pension in 30 years,” Modi said at the Kargil War memorial.
The controversy gained additional attention when the family of Agniveer Ajay Kumar, who died in service, demanded recognition and ‘hero’ status for him. They argued that monetary compensation cannot replace the loss of their loved one.
