Military & Aerospace

Does India Need Compulsory Military Training
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
Issue Net Edition | Date : 22 Apr , 2021

First Published on November 1, 2013.

Conscription is the compulsory enlistment of people in some sort of national service, most often military service. Conscription dates back to antiquity and continues in some countries to the present day under various names. The modern system of near-universal national conscription for young men dates to the French Revolution in the 1790s, where it became the basis of a very large and powerful military. Most European nations later copied the system in peacetime, so that men at a certain age would serve 1–3 years on active duty and then transfer to the reserve force.

Most European nations later copied the system in peacetime, so that men at a certain age would serve 1–3 years on active duty and then transfer to the reserve force.

In China, the State of Qin instituted universal military service following the registration of every household. This allowed huge armies to be levied, and was instrumental in the creation of the Qin Empire that conquered the whole of China in 221BC.

Conscription is controversial for a range of reasons, including conscientious objection to military engagements on religious or philosophical grounds; political objection, for example to service for a disliked government or unpopular war; and ideological objection, for example, to a perceived violation of individual rights. Those conscripted may evade service, sometimes by leaving the country. Some selection systems accommodate these attitudes by providing alternative service outside combat-operations roles or even outside the military, such as Zivildienst (civil service) in Austria and Switzerland. Most post-Soviet countries conscript soldiers not only for Armed Forces but also for paramilitary organizations which are dedicated to police-like domestic only service (Internal Troops) or non-combat rescue duties (Civil Defence Troops) – none of which is considered alternative to the military conscription.

As of the early 21st century, many states no longer conscript soldiers, relying instead upon professional militaries with volunteers enlisted to meet the demand for troops. The ability to rely on such an arrangement, however, presupposes some degree of predictability with regard to both war-fighting requirements and the scope of hostilities. Many states that have abolished conscription therefore still reserve the power to resume it during wartime or times of crisis.

Historically, the vast majority of conscription measures involve male-only participation. Even today, most countries mandating conscription only do so for males. Men who opt out of military service must often perform alternative service, such as Zivildienst in Austria and Switzerland, whereas women do not have even these obligations.

Nominally gender-equal societies such as Finland and Denmark also employ male-only conscription, as have the Netherlands and Sweden in contemporary times. The onerous time and other commitments involved with conscription, spanning two years in many cases, raises serious questions about the fairness of such programs and how they fit in with expectations of equal treatment irrespective of sex.

The onerous time and other commitments involved with conscription, spanning two years in many cases, raises serious questions about the fairness of such programs and how they fit in with expectations of equal treatment irrespective of sex.

While women, almost always exempt from conscription, are free to pursue work, study and other activities, men’s early career and life prospects can be impeded by conscription.

American libertarians oppose conscription and call for the abolition of the Selective Service System, believing that impressments of individuals into the armed forces is involuntary servitude. Ron Paul, a former leader of the Libertarian Party has said, “Conscription is wrongly associated with patriotism, when it really represents slavery and involuntary servitude.” The philosopher Ayn Rand opposed it because “Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle.”

In 1917, a number of radicals and anarchists, including Emma Goldman, challenged the new draft law in federal court arguing that it was a direct violation of the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude. However, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the draft act in the case of Arver v. United States on January 7, 1918. The decision said the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war and to raise and support armies. The Court emphasized the principle of the reciprocal rights and duties of citizens:

“It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government in its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need and the right to compel.”

It can be argued that in a cost-to-benefit ratio, conscription during peace time is not worthwhile. Months or years of service amongst the most fit and capable subtracts from the productivity of the economy; add to this the cost of training them, and paying them. Compared to these extensive costs, some would argue there is very little benefit; if there ever was a war then conscription and basic training could be completed quickly, and in any case there is little threat of a war in most countries with conscription. In the United States, every male resident must register with the Selective Service System on his 18th birthday and is available for a draft.

William James, consider both mandatory military and national service as ways of instilling maturity in young adults.

The cost of conscription can be related to the parable of the broken window. The cost of the work, military service, does not disappear even if token salary is paid. The work effort of the conscripts is effectively wasted, as an unwilling workforce is extremely inefficient. The impact is especially severe in wartime, when civilian professionals are forced to fight as amateur soldiers. Not only is the work effort of the conscripts wasted and productivity lost, but professionally skilled conscripts are also difficult to replace in the civilian workforce. Every soldier conscripted in the army is taken away from his civilian work, and away from contributing to the economy which funds the military. This is not a problem in an agrarian or pre-industrialized state where the level of education is universally low, and where a worker is easily replaced by another. However, this proves extremely problematic in a post-industrial society where educational levels are high and where the workforce is highly sophisticated and a replacement for a conscripted specialist is difficult to find. Even direr economic consequences result if the professional conscripted as an amateur soldier is killed or maimed for life; his work effort and productivity is irrevocably lost.

Jean Jacques Rousseau argued vehemently against professional armies, feeling it was the right and privilege of every citizen to participate to the defense of the whole society and a mark of moral decline to leave this business to professionals. He based this view on the development of the Roman republic, which came to an end at the same time as the Roman army changed from a conscript to professional force. Similarly, Aristotle linked the division of armed service among the populace intimately with the political order of the state. Niccolò Machiavelli argued strongly for conscription, seeing the professional armies as the cause of the failure of societal unity in Italy.

Other proponents, such as William James, consider both mandatory military and national service as ways of instilling maturity in young adults. Some proponents, such as Jonathan Alter and Mickey Kaus, support a draft in order to reinforce social equality, create social consciousness, break down class divisions and for young adults to immerse themselves in public enterprise.

Israel and Switzerland have compulsory military service. So can we implement something like this in India?

It is estimated by the British military that in a professional military, a company deployed for active duty in peacekeeping corresponds to three inactive companies at home. Salaries for each are paid from the military budget. In contrast, volunteers from a trained reserve are in their civilian jobs when they are not deployed. John Palmer: Military conscription isn’t dead yet

In June of 1973, the last man to be subject to military conscription was drafted. Previous to this time men of all social classes could be drafted into the armed services; were put, usually against their will, into uniform, and were sent to Vietnam to kill people in their own homeland, or to support those who did the killing.

The war in Vietnam itself does not, of course, seem foreign to modern sensibilities because it parallels the recent pointless war in Iraq. Neither Vietnamese nor Iraqis had ever attacked Americans but in both cases they invaded and attacked them. No, it is not (alas!) the war itself that seems incredible, it is the fact that the soldier-killers on US side were in some sense, enslaved (forced) to do the job.

Because they do not like to remember these events in their actual, raw form have deceived themselves by building a myth that their fighters were “defending freedom in America (and, by extension, in the world).” And now, since they have apparently given up the draft, they tell that this defense is carried out by an “all volunteer army.”

But how many readers know how many of these “volunteers” are not able to serve a full enlistment term? (Answer: about one-third of them) And how many readers are familiar with the term “stop loss” — a phrase which implies that involuntary servitude — even now — has not yet really been abolished? How many remember that early in the Vietnam conflict it was mostly professionals who died? (In 1965, 16 percent of battle deaths were draftees, but later on it was mostly hapless amateurs. In 1969, 62 percent of battle deaths were draftees.)

It is fair to say that the end of the draft in 1973 was indeed a step forward. But, that said, the current situation is still onerous, unjust and inefficient. The motive of most of  military volunteers has more to do with economic necessity than with love of country — and, once they are in, many can’t make it and those that can make it might be held in longer than their contracted time..

Compulsory military service can give person a sense of discipline and patriotism.

One hundred and fifty years ago slavery was ended in the United States; this was indeed a great humanitarian step forward and will never be reversed. Forty years ago military conscription was ended in the United States and this also was a clear humanitarian victory. But in this case, the outcome could be reversed. Young men (but not women — feminists, where are you?), must still register for the draft. It is, as they say, the law. Scoffers may claim that the days of forcing men into uniform, and giving them weapons to confront other men whom they do not consider to be their enemies, are clearly over. Well … maybe. But then some of us who were subject to the draft thought there would never be another Vietnam. Iraq proved us naïve.

The time may arrive again when a megalomaniac comes to power in the United States. Once again we will hear of striking blows for freedom against nefarious enemies! And once again young men may learn to dread the ironic words “selective service” just as their grandfathers did. Palmer, of Charleston, served in the U.S. Air Force in South East Asia in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Should India implement compulsory military service?

Can you imagine every Indian man and woman over the ages 18 attending 2-3 months of military school or even attending compulsory military training? Israel and Switzerland have compulsory military service. So can we implement something like this in India? Will it be of any benefit?

After military training, the person should be given a choice of joining the armed forces or doing 6 months of compulsory social work. This will provide the armed forces with trained volunteers and the volunteer will get valuable experience

It’s definitely a good idea to have a well trained civilian as well as a trained army. Compulsory military service can give person a sense of discipline and patriotism. The army also offers numerous chances of basic as well as higher education. Compulsory military training can be taken up after graduation and should be completed anytime before graduation. The training period can be of 6-12 months depending on which branch the person shows a capacity for. After military training, the person should be given a choice of joining the armed forces or doing 6 months of compulsory social work. This will provide the armed forces with trained volunteers and the volunteer will get valuable experience that can count for school credit as well as an impressive resumé.

However, many are of the opinion that we don’t really need bigger armed forces. Every year, there’s a huge rush of youths competing with each other to enter the armed forces. And why not? The army offers good education opportunities, good salaries, housing for the officer as well his family, and don’t forget the army canteens which provide essentials at discount prices. For India’s vast collection of unemployed youth, the military is a good calling. So there is currently no shortage of soldiers, but a shortage of educated officers. The educated youth don’t really prefer the army as a profession as they know they have a ready market for their talent.

Is mass recruitment through alternate channels like compulsory service the best way for the army to get higher caliber officer cadets? Will the best still leave? Or will the training provide the hook needed to rope in the best brains for the officer cadre?

So this is where we get stuck! Compulsory army training is a good idea but we have the right to choose and the government can’t really force the choice. Do you think there’s a middle path here?

Admiral(Retd) J G Nadkarni  says only limited conscription can end army’s manpower woes

The command chief engineer had a glib answer for everything. Hauled on the mat by the commander-in-chief for the poor maintenance of base buildings, he said, “Well Sir, it’s like this. The maintenance money has more or less remained fixed. It is based on an old formula derived many years ago. We have to both pay the maintenance staff as well as the materials out of the total maintenance grant. As you know, the outgo on pay has kept on increasing with doses of allowances and the DA — today I am paying 90 per cent of the grant in pay and allowances, leaving me little to buy the paint. How can I maintain anything?”

Today India’s armed forces are in the same quandary as the chief engineer. The defence budget has more or less stagnated over the past 10 years. In fact, after allowing for inflation and the nosedive in the value of the Indian rupee it has declined steadily. On the other hand manpower and maintenance costs have been escalating. The Sixth Pay Commission has put an additional burden on the services. Today the Indian Army spends nearly 90 per cent of its budget on manpower and maintenance. It leaves less than Rs 10 billion each year for buying and updating equipment of a million plus strong force.

Fully 60 per cent of the army’s budget of about Rs 175 billion is spent on manpower related costs. Just 20 years ago, this figure was a more manageable 40 per cent.

To put it more graphically, if the army purchases a new field gun (no, not Bofors) it will require five years of its modernisation budget to pay for it.

In such a drastic situation, the army chief may have to carry out a force reduction of up to 80,000 men to make more money available for buying new equipment. These are only emergency measures. What is indeed required is a totally new approach if one wants to maintain a sizeable force of over a million.

The Indian Army was about 300,000-strong at the time of Independence and remained at that strength until the Chinese border war of 1962. The sudden expansion of the army after that setback saw the army grow steadily to about 800,000. Unfortunately the expansion did not stop there. During the past 20 years the army has continued to grow steadily and today stands at about one and a quarter million.

Add to that the nearly half-a-million-strong paramilitary forces and you have a sizeable chunk of manpower to pay, to feed, to clothe and to house. Fully 60 per cent of the army’s budget of about Rs 175 billion is spent on manpower related costs. Just 20 years ago, this figure was a more manageable 40 per cent. With the constant increase in the cost of paying and feeding this vast manpower, there is little chance of reducing the amount in future. The army has to look for other means to reduce manpower costs. It needs to look at limited conscription as a serious alternative.

Conscription of course is as old as the ages. Every country expects its young citizens to serve in the armed forces in the time of war or emergency. Most western countries including the United States and Britain required its young population to serve in the armed forces until recently. Of course, conscription, being a dirty word, is normally replaced by such euphemisms as ‘draft’ or ‘national service’ in these countries. These countries resorted to conscription not for cutting costs but to make up shortfall of manpower during the two World Wars, Korea and Vietnam wars. But the draft always remained unpopular and the United States managed to get rid of it after the Vietnam war by downsizing the army and increasing the pay and incentives. Today it is an all-volunteer force.

If India decides on limited conscription it can hardly follow the American way. It should look eastward for its role model. At the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had an army of over three million. China and Vietnam even today have large standing armies. How do these not-so-affluent countries manage to maintain such large forces? By the simple expedient of compulsory military service for its youth. In every socialist country it is drummed into every school child that he owes three years of his life to the nation. Each citizen is required to serve three years between the ages of 18 and 21 in one of the armed forces. This well-educated and surprisingly motivated manpower makes up the vast majority of the armed forces of these countries.

…former army chief said, “The Indian Army is proud to be an all-volunteer force. The esprit-de-corps, the elan and the fighting tradition all come from an all-volunteer, in-for-life force. We will never allow the fighting ability of the army to be diluted by conscription.”

During their three years in the forces, the soldiers are clothed and fed at government expense. In addition they are paid a petty stipend each month as ‘pocket money’. They stay in barracks and there is no question of leave. Yet a vast majority undergoes the three-year hardship quite willingly and is proud of their little contribution to the nation. On completion of the three-year stint, they happily resume their civilian life. Apart from the considerable saving on their pay, the state also saves on such items as housing, pension and welfare.

There are, of course, other benefits. A majority of the conscripts are high school graduates and bring to their job a higher educational level than the ordinary soldier. Those who have completed their military service not only provide the country with disciplined manpower but also a well-trained reserve in times of emergency.

The question of limited conscription in India has come up from time to time. In the past, the army leadership has shown extreme reluctance to go in for conscription. Asked about this alternative some ten years ago, an army chief said, “The Indian Army is proud to be an all-volunteer force. The esprit-de-corps, the elan and the fighting tradition all come from an all-volunteer, in-for-life force. We will never allow the fighting ability of the army to be diluted by conscription.”

He conveniently forgot to mention that conscripts, the 90-day wonders, whose gallantry, heroism and determination far outstripped the professionals, won both the World Wars. The all-conquering Red Army was mostly made up of conscripts. And so was a vast majority of American and British armies. These everyday school teachers, salesmen, truck drivers and businessmen served their time and then happily went back to their jobs after demobilisation.

Limited conscription will have a number of beneficial fallouts in India. To start with, India is blessed with an embarrassment of manpower and thus can afford to be selective. A three-year tenure in the armed services can be made a prerequisite not only for college entry but even for entry into the civil service. The services will gain from a rich and educated crop of national servicemen each year. Nearly a million men can be inducted each year for a three-year tenure. It will also meet the cherished army goal of keeping the service young.

The nation too will benefit from a million disciplined and well-trained men each year, proud of having served their country, bringing with them in their civilian life ample self-confidence and maturity. The army will take youth and give the country men.

Selection boards will no doubt find easy ways to manipulate the selection process to make an easy buck.

Make no mistake. Conscription is no peaches and cream solution. It is bound to be an unpopular move. In most western countries, it is a solution of last resort to be resorted to only in dire emergency such a war. In India, where the people in power look at the army as a public sector enterprise, open to patronage, nepotism and corruption, conscription is bound to be severely opposed by all political parties. India’s populist politicians, unable to take hard or unpopular decisions, are unlikely to support such a move.

There are bound to be other problems too. Where selection is involved, corruption cannot be far behind. Selection boards will no doubt find easy ways to manipulate the selection process to make an easy buck. But compared to the enormous savings that the process will bring these are pinpricks to be suffered for the overall good. Eventually all the teething troubles will be overcome and the processes streamlined.

The army leadership, used to an all-volunteer force for so many years, is unlikely to support any such idea, at least for the present. But then minds can change, especially with a little political pressure. Only eight years ago both the Army and the Air Force opposed vehemently the Indian Navy’s proposal of inducting women in the armed forces. Today they are showing off their women recruits with considerable pride.

India’s armed forces are fully aware that manpower costs are bleeding them to oblivion. A number of remedial measures in the past, such as reduction in colour service, have in no way reduced the annual bill on manpower. The day is not far away when the Indian Army will find itself in the most ridiculous situation of spending its entire budget on maintaining its manpower. However unpalatable or unpopular the measure may seem, limited conscription appears to be the only solution to the army’s manpower problems.

Benefits of compulsory military service have on the society.

Literacy: Modern army relies on tactical superiority more than numbers. Hence in order to make any productive use of any recruit, a lot of time, energy and efforts have to be spent to educate and train them. A boom in disguise for the country whose 1/3 of the population still cannot read/write.

Many of these objectives will be better served by making participation in NCC compulsory at the school level, and having NCC performance count in college admissions.

Discipline: Every army takes great pride in the discipline it creates. Countries like Israel, Singapore, South Korea enforce this training in the late teens/early twenties. This is the time when the maturity kicks in and army creates the best environment to control it and channelize it for the good of the society. This makes them more dedicated, better in organizing themselves, following order without creating chaos even under little/no supervision.

Vocational training: Indian educational system (esp. college) is often criticized for draining the prime years of a youth’s life without imparting much which will make him/her employable. Armed forces on the other hand teaches you skills to operate/maintain machinery/electronics and encourage troops making modifications to make them better.

Issues likely to crop up should India consider conscription?

Would it be practical considering the size of our population?

Would it help foster a sense of national pride?

Would it help strengthen our national identity?

Would it help bring down the walls between rural/urban India, the states, the regions and the communities?

Would it help manage the worrying shortage of officers in the Indian Army (almost 25%)? Should it be limited to certain groups of people (e.g. civil servants)?

Would it lower the standards and quality of recruits in the army?

Many of these objectives will be better served by making participation in NCC compulsory at the school level, and having NCC performance count in college admissions.

http://www.lancerpublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=496

Click to buy

What are the modifications? What if it’s institutionally encouraged, just like Voluteerism/community work is encouraged in US academics resulting in students getting credits which affects their grades/future. That would  actually do wonders in India as more bodies will get involved in all sorts of Volunteering.

This Compulsory Enrollment might result in a few complications.

  • The bribe-taking might increase or decrease.
  • The present NCC needs a lot of modifications, lets take USA or Russia where they have Scout badges and levels. Change the name of  NCC to something much more pompous or posh
  • This modified NCC should be a part of the school/college curriculum where it can start at an early age like 5th or 6th Std. And the “Conscription” should be a 1yr draft as the Russians have it. Mandatory for all the Males in between 18-27.:

A lot of countries have conscription. Israel, Sweden, Norway an US also had during World war II. Some of those Generals who served in World war II like Eisenhower went on to become presidents of US. Joe Biden’s son served in Iraq/Afg.

Rate this Article
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.

About the Author

Brig Amrit Kapur

former  Commandant of Counter- Insurgency and Jungle Warfare School, Vairengte, Mizoram.

More by the same author

Post your Comment

2000characters left

52 thoughts on “Does India Need Compulsory Military Training

  1. May i ask who wants to die in battlefield and hence who wants to join army. And another question why only poor peoples children are sent there? Why not Ambani, or Tata or Birlas children go there? Will the conscription be on Ambani’s children also?

    And now you are praising conscription as if the mothers of those children want them to be army personal instead of becoming capitalist like Ambani! Even Steve jobs was poor lad. Is it because you yourself were in army that you ask others to be pushed in? Ambani’s wife’s one cup of tea costs 3lakh rupee. Thats not even gonna be my 6 months salary!! Plus the fear of losing life! My mom would not like it!

    Is it fair. What if in fear they become dons of the society or rather shoot each other or rather become maoist? There is a don called Mutthappa rai in karnataka. He is a billionare and is leader of a party today. He has murdered more than 100 people. He lives freely today in society with his photo on the banners. Will he and his children be pushed too?

    If not, then shame that conscription should ever be even thought in India!!

    Please answer!

    • Sir, I suppose you are absolutely right ,your mother will not like it if you go and serve the army and risk your life for others ,may it be only for a few months. But ,did you listen to yourself while writing your comment ? Did you ? You sound like a whining kid.It doesnt feel like your mother wouldnt like it , it was rather like you disliked it ,its like you hate army services or something….Sir I aint an army man, I am a student of 12th class and I dont have any immediate relation with any army person , so you dont need to worry about getting answers from one who is already in army or in your words it would mean one who is already being tortured and wants you to feel the same pain….
      You said something about Ambani sir’s wife or let me be more specfic about the price of the tea she has daily 3 lakhs ,right ? That aint gonna be your salary for 6 months ,is it? Well I knew that if social service records are added to your resume it gets a boost and military service are like a super boost…I dont think that any good company would let a disciplined, quoted and degreed man go for a person who has degrees only probably with some other talents , but I just now used a word quoted here it means quoted with military service and training well I dont think you will be able to drink 3 lakh rupeed tea if that man would not be able to..
      Yeah I get the exception in my mind that its possible if you are already that rich and just want to comment anywhere and everywhere( sorry if you arent this sort of person please ignore the preceeding line).
      And now for your other questions will Ambani ‘s, Tata ‘s and all the don’s children be asked to serve the military , According to me it has to be a yes all citizens above the age of 18 will have to serve in the military and get training including pm or presidents children , thats what equality means I suppose..its easy to tackle the ones who try to diobey ,citizenship of India should be threatened, though its a strong step but its the best

      • My dear friend. I liked your comment. But the rich guys will never be pushed for conscription ever. This is the harsh truth. There was a guy in my class. His father runs a company called Anasim in Arizona. He is a billionaire and he always used to laugh at us for being poor. He also used to laugh and say “Poor pussies like you only will be sent as draft or conscription. Not us.” I used to get so angry on him. Earlier there was a time when Kings and soldiers used to fight war together in the battlefield. I am willing to do it right now. But now the same notion does not apply. Kings remain comfortable and soldiers suffer greatly. As if being poor is a sin.
        I also liked your comment where you said PM or president’s children and the capitalist’s children also must serve with us in the army and hence that will be a fair game. Else it becomes a dictatorship where the upper table people will just scream on TVs and the others will just follow any orders.
        We can always see where such dictatorship leads us. You can see North Korea. It’s one such example. Game is simple for North Korea. Occupy all the assets and lands of the country and then breed the other poor citizens without giving them any right to power just like those chickens in the chicken shops which are about to being cut. I am also a student of BCA. I see inequality when Kings, princes and capitalist’s do not take part in the bloody battles. And not only that, they laugh at us for being conscripted in the army. I see they do not even respect us. They consider us fools and our parents fool for not being rich enough and getting conscripted. Just like my that rich friend whom I mentioned earlier of Anasim company Head’s son. This breaks my heart. Is this the value we will get from the rich class when we get drafted?? Oh God!! Rich class is mean dude. I have seen it with my own eyes. They just cruelly laugh at us. That gives me self-pity feeling in my guts.

    • Kind Sir,
      I totally agree with the 12th grader who has replied.

      I went on another website and found this

      It promotes equality because people of all classes will be trained in the same manner. This inturn makes people feel united despite having class differences.

      So I think you should listen to him.
      It’s your choice . I am simply a 5th grader in school who has a debate on this and saw your comment.

      Please listen to us!

  2. Sir we need to make our citizen strong both physically and mentally .So they don’t depend much on police in extreme times (specifically girls).
    To achieve this every body has to learn at least basic training as a part of right to education. And people in reserve force might give training only in government schools making it different from others . Any how I have passed my school and I will train myself but my coming generations will be of much better quality if it’s implemented.

  3. As someone who is an SSB reject. Here is my two cents. I was in the NCC, LOTSSSSS of guys had set their heart out on a career in the Army, /Air force. I have personally seen people break down in tears when not selected in SSB.
    WHAT exactly is your criteria in selecting or rejecting people in SSB? I presume you look for “natural born leadership qualities”? Throw people in a situation, the natural leaders will shine through? REALLY? Short service commission, followed by IPS/Intelligence Bureau/RAW was my dream career. James BOnd anyone?

    My second choice, was Sales/marketing. Let me tell you , I was a VERY successful as a front line sales manager, LEADING a team of salesmen in the battlefield of the market place. I am not boasting, but guys in other divisions of the company used to try their “jack/vaseela” to work under me in my diivision.

    Leadership qualities anyone? Hell forget combat roles I would have been happy even in AOC/ASC etc, support roles. Just wanted the glamour of the uniform. And the title of captain/Major before my name. Check Israeli army system. HIGH intellligence/medical profile go for combat roles, second profile go for armoured corps etc. Lower than that for support roles. Why not the same in INDIA?
    shotage of officers, my ass.

    • This is exactly why u got rejected :(, look at the way you are sad and wonky about it. Your Attitude about rejection isnt Positive, its ok if it didnt happen, youre just too Negative and those words like , my ass, and sarcasm like a Los Angeles girl, like u said, “Leadership anyone ? or Natural Leaders will shine ? Really ?” Israel had different Times, dont compare them with ours, they are definitely one of the strongest but not the largest and the ranked 3rd strongest like us, stop it Whiney COW

  4. The author claims the army has surplus 80000 jawans oho so much hippocratic. When you have 100000 jawans working as personal servents of the officers(Sewadar/Butman). This is gross missuse of menpower. in the times of ‪#‎Skill‬ India you are equating the Robust Indian Jawan to a Jhaduwala of municipality and writing off/discarding Thousands of jawans every year after completion of their initial engagement period of 15-20 years. Why the colonial blue blooded people do not want the jawan to be promoted and become an officer, is a thing to wonder. They are worried if the AAM AADMI will become officer then their colonial empire will fall and ‪#‎SainikSwaraj‬ will begin. Not a single Indian Officer has ever written about human rights violations in the Indian Armed Forces. The 1.5 million discardable manpower that the author is talking about have guarded this nation ever since independence.

  5. It is funny when we have such a serious subject being authored by someone who just copies and takes references from the google. The funny author is so much worried about so called deficit of officers than about facts. Less than 1% jawans are promoted to the ranks of commissioned officers!! A robust Desi fellow is not good enough huh?? Than The author claims the army has surplus 80000 jawans oho so much hippocratic. When you have 100000 jawans working as personal servents of the officers(Sewadar/Butman). This is gross missuse of menpower. in the times of #Skill India you are equating the Robust Indian Jawan to a Jhaduwala of municipality and writing off/discarding Thousands of jawans every year after completion of their initial engagement period of 15-20 years. Why the colonial blue blooded people do not want the jawan to be promoted and become an officer, is a thing to wonder. They are worried if the AAM AADMI will become officer then their colonial empire will fall and #SainikSwaraj will begin.

  6. A noble idea, however not workable in the Indian context. We have a large standing Army and there is no shortage of manpower. Shortage is only there at the officer level. But what I suggest is that we need to have “Targeted” military service in certain categories of Government Service. Specially so in the case of the Officer cadre. These could be as follows.

    We should have a Combined Services Academy. All aspirants for the officer cadre of CPOs, BSF and IPS should be put through the NDA ( non graduate) and the IMA and OTAs for the graduate stream. Its their choice go to NDA as a non graduate or IMA and OTA for those who graduate. The Number entering can be modulated to strike a balance. On commissioning they will do 3 years compulsory service with the Army Units as commissioned officers In the rank of a Lieutenant and then move on to their respective streams of service.

    For the IAS there should be 1 year of training at the IMA and 2 years of service with Territorial Army and various Army units.

    People from various streams of the corporate world should be encouraged to do 2 years of service in the Armed forces administrative wings/ logistics wings after 6 month’s of military training. By ‘Law’ their service should be counted towards their corporate experience. All corporate houses and various industries should be encouraged to nominate their personal for 2 years with the Army.

    Short service intake should be increased. There should be 2 streams in SS. One those who aspire to become regular officers and the second – those who just come for 5 years only. These aspirants should be given preference in employment in Government Service.

  7. The difficulty is that India has no conception of military matters or martial culture beyond the Mahabharatha and the Ramayana now that the King’s Commissioned Officers have all retired after delivering the 1971 military victory for the Neta Babus to squander. Our Generals and Admirals rise over thirty years to reach the level of a Devyani Gobra Gadi with some seven years of distinguished diplomatic service in a Bombay Adarsh apartment. We are a Nation of Durgo Poojos and Ganesh Chathruthis. So, the main thing, is six months of preparation for Republic Day and six months of recuperation from it. There is a longer life cycle for Fleet Reviews like the Kumbh Mela. Yes, we do fight when we it is pushed on us within our own borders and offer up soldiers who are “paid to die”. They are better off than our farmers who are not paid to die. Jai Jawan Jai Kissan. Otherwise, where would we find recruits? But we never carry a fight to the enemy. You see, India has no enemies. As within, so without. Those who steal and slaughter our cows, rape our women and denigrate our Spiritual leaders are our best friends and privileged citizens within India. Why not outside India as well? This is Gandhism in action. Truly, in India, Khilafat Gandhi has fathered the depravity of his dreams. After a Century of dismantling the spirit of adventure and eradicating the “Savarna” “People of Dharma” who the PANGOLINs * considered to be as much their enemy as the Army, where do we begin?

  8. Not really. What India needs to do is integrate the National Cadet Corps with the Territorial Army and create an Indian Naval Volunteer Reserve and an Indian Auxiliary Air Force. A tour of part time duties through training and leave vacancy postings with the regular army, air rescue and surveillance and coast guard must be created along the life time of volunteers, subject to physical and mental fitness, into a REAL volunteer Second Line.

  9. No one needs any training. It is very simple and easier than that. All that is need is to provide a hand gun, a machine gun and some bullets to each citizen. The rest will take care by itself..

  10. Hi
    I would like to know how and from where shall I get the certificate that I have not received any military service anyehere in India.I have recently applied for a job in middle east but they asked me to submit such a certificate.
    Appreciate if you could guide me.
    Thanks

  11. One definite advantage of military indoctrination is that the thinking of people or rather the psyche of people gets some sort of mutual alignment. This i feel is really needed whether or not we make them serve in the arms or not. Common beliefs n ideas alone can promote development.

  12. This is still a long time due thing which hasn’t happened in India.

    National Service for 2-3 years must be made compulsory. Imagine our country so vast and having a large pool of young enthusiastic minds who enrolled for NS could easily transform the fate of nation to a stronger force in all paradigms.

    Right time our Parliament passes this bill with ubiquitous acceptance from all the parties.

  13. Students after 12th in india must be given achoice to do national service in armed forces , education , medical industry and all walks including agriculture , fishing , merchant navy , engineering firms , with 6 months apprentice ships when working in schools , hospitals police stations , army , navy airforce and depts of their choice the students get exposure and can then volunteer and take up one profession . compulsory service in armed forces cannot work in india , as the mantries , babus , civilservice police officers , businessmen do not let their wards join the armed forces . for them it must be made compulsory or reservation given . The stakes of development of armed forces are totally bent and only poor families from class two , three towns and cities , farming community in distress or wards of middle and junior servicemenjoin the armed forces . No politcian , Ias ,Ips , or businessmenof 3 crores and above joins the forces any more . With this lopsided model of recruitment India is heading towards a weakened demotivated , poorly equipped armed forces , where the nations elite has no stake except to collect rent and bribes from contracts . The seeds of the nations disintegration have been sown by bothe congress and bjp , WITH RETIRED SERVICEMEN SIGNING PETETIONS IN BLOOD AND GOING ON HUNGER STRIKE . THE SUPREME CDR OF THE ARMED FORCES HAS TIME AND MEETS EVERY CROOK OF THE NATION BUT REFUSES TO MEET THE EXSERVICEMEN . THE ARMED FORCES WILL BE WITHIN THEIR RIGHT NOT TO LOWER THE STANDARD FOR SUCH INDIVIDUALS .

  14. I fully agree and it should be part of the Indian Constitution that every Young man has to serve either in Military or social services for 16 months, without exceptions. National decipline and responsibility towards the nation.

  15. Make it compulsory for all before taking any civil posts including Municipal Councillor,MLAs and,MPs. RM shd be appointed from the lot who hve more service in armed forces.

  16. Sharad Bailur Politician should be allowed to contest elections only if they can prove before the Election Commission that they have qualified by having served in the Armed Forces.

  17. It is humanly impossible to impart compulsory conscription to all young people. However it will be useful to have all the entrants to government service to undergo at least two years of service in operational duties in lower ranks if they have no introduction to NCC and those who excelled in NCC in officer cadre. This will give these government officers a sense of pride and officer like qualities in their future career.

  18. Hi Sir

    This is a absolute need of the hour the training should be made compulsory for a period of 1 year ,along with one month of Hard posting (some difficult area) ,this will train them for the worse conditions also teach them survival skills and more importantly discipline and law obedience ,Also this will make sure that during such process all unwanted elements can also be filtered out and identified

    regards
    Sai

  19. It is really a great idea to implement compulsory defence training in India taking into consideration all its diversities and complexities. Wao what a great idea!! Every Indian should start his day at 5 o’ clock sharp in the morning. He/she should have minimum phyiscal strength to run 2kms at a stretch in 10 mins and last but not the least will have the fire in his belly to raise his/her voice against corruption which knowingly or unknowingly he/she ignores for the lack of courage…..Everybody will be proud to be an Indian.

  20. yes it should be compulsory , but i don’t want it only for male gender it must be compulsory for both genders males as well as female like china . being a women i too want to serve defense, specially i wanna to join Air force cuz my father was also served IAF and i too wanna to do it like him. and it raises women empowerment too.
    plzz plzz i dont want any inequality.

  21. May be in ten years , YES. The statement by Arun Jaitley is correct however it does not mean it cannot be done to create a Indian Generation which is a class apart… as this country needs a better class of people.

  22. Countries that have adopted the model of conscription/compulsory training are short of manpower (person power) : which does not apply in our case. There is no point having quantity over quality. The conscripts could bring values and a culture incompatible with the performance of military duty into the professional armed forces – a contamination we must recognize as a real possibility. Moreover, should we provide military training gratis to some disgruntled individuals who will drift into extremist groups? While the article has a populist ring – it is better to be careful before opening that Pandora’s Box. You cant put toothpaste back into the tube!!

  23. India needs conscription in military services. This is an absolute necessity to re-orient our youth to wards nationalism, ingrain better values and respect ourselves and our country.

    Our ‘citizens’ have never been oriented to be nationalist, instead they are led to believe that people like Rahul Gandhi, Neera Radia, Salman Khurshid, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sonia Gandhi etc. are the role models.

    Our text books, education system, governments and ‘historians’ have been busy portraying India as a nobody and instilling psychological slavery to babudom and ‘sardar and chalis chor’.

    We have been taught to hate our culture and feel inferior.

    This has an over all effect : corruption, nepotism, congressism, economic slavery, and being led by thieves and traitors. Every babu and most of the politicians are busy selling this country, Congress creates a scam every day with help of babus, and each scam is more damaging than previous one. Every journalist is busy covering up congress and implanting false news about nationalists.

    If we have to rise above all this, building a better and more nationalistic culture is the need of the hour. One of the ways is to train the youth by making them join Armed Forces.

  24. Firstly a famous man had said we are a peace loving non aigned nation we need only police for internal security and no military as we have no enemy thus is our foundation of independent India, and with this back drop army has lost its elan and charm amongst the youth. It is said never assault a fort find traitors who will hand over the keys . So, we have plenty of people in hierarchy who have destroyed the fort.So first train & clean your existing system before thinking of expecting todays youth, who are well informed, to join you and waste their time,

  25. While I do not subscribe to the idea of compulsory military training for all and sundry, I do agree that anyone who wishes to join Government Service(central or state services) must under go military service for at least 2-3 years, for then he may just realise the value of time,discipline and service to the nation.Incidentally NCC is no military training;it is adventure training military style.

  26. • 2453 words article. Only 404 words i.e. 16 % related to the topic.
    • These 404 words also do not offer anything substantial at all.
    • There are certain suggestions, which, after initial hearing ought to be rejected outright because of the complexities and non- implementation factor involved. This subject is one.
    • In my opinion, authors ought to be more thoughtful and responsible and not just take up a topic for the sake of it.
    • Yet IDR chooses to publish it. Thoroughly disappointing.

  27. Its really pathetic to think compulsory military training,, it cause new revolution in country n no party is willing to have such rick, cause all party n politicians are happy with their corrupt money looting system, and particularly,, why no party has changed country name “india” into Bharat,, still sticking as colonial name,, how scoundrels these politicians are !
    And fact is,, such low slavery salaries for its soldiers ,, and upper army ppl are happy to get huge corrupt money to support politicians in country, they neither care for country nor think.
    No one can save this country, except GOD.

  28. When there is NCC, why do we need compulsory military service?

    Conscription has always led to more corruption in militaries the world over & has reduced combat effectiveness with the only exception of Israel.

    And that is because that Army is organized according to religion.

More Comments Loader Loading Comments