The recent revision of the Agnipath scheme shows that policy can correct itself based on evidence. Examine whether it addresses the original criticisms of the scheme.

Agnipath was introduced in 2022. It recruits Agniveers for four years and keeps up to 25% of each batch in the regular cadre. In November 2026, the Union Cabinet approved an extra two-year engagement for the remaining 75%, after which they may be considered for regular enrolment [1]. The revision answers the criticisms about skills and job security well, but it answers the fiscal and resettlement criticisms only partly.

Revision as evidence-based correction

• It rests on the three services' "elaborate evaluation and feedback", which found outstanding skills, motivation and technological ability among Agniveers [1].
• The core design is retained because the 25% gate at year four continues [1]. This makes it fine-tuning, not a reversal.

Criticisms addressed

• Skill loss and professionalism: Critics said four years was too short for technical trades. A six-year path keeps trained personnel and protects the training investment [1].
• Job insecurity: Every Agniveer now has a pathway into regular service, subject to willingness and selection criteria [1].
• Parity within the ranks: Higher pay, an enhanced Seva Nidhi and seniority benefits mean second-route entrants are not disadvantaged [1].

Criticisms only partly addressed

• Fiscal logic: PRS noted that the scheme could lower pension expenditure because at least 75% of Agniveers exit without a pension [2]. Every second-route regular reduces this saving. Salaries and pensions are still estimated at 44% of defence expenditure in 2026-27 [3].
• Exit safety net: MHA's 10% CAPF and Assam Rifles quota comes with a 3-year age relaxation (5 years for the first batch) [4]. This was set for exit at year four. A six-year Agniveer who is not selected has already used most of it.
• Uncertainty: Enrolment after year six is "consideration", not a guarantee [1]. No cap, selection criteria or pay scales have been notified yet.
• Equity across batches: Agniveers already released earlier gain nothing from the change.

The revision shows a scheme learning from its own performance data. It eases the concerns about skills and job security while keeping the force young. To complete the correction:

• The Ministry of Defence should publish a range for second-route enrolment and clear criteria for each service.
• Agnipath costs should be shown separately in the Demands for Grants.
• MHA should recalculate the age relaxation for six-year leavers.

Evidence-led changes of this kind can balance a young, technology-ready force with fiscal prudence and the soldier's right to a secure livelihood.