Why military training for youth and children is a misguided idea

The protagonists clamouring for military training for youth and children are not clear about intended objectives.

Military training for youth and children is common in autocracies, military dictatorships, warmongering and war-torn countries. However, they are infrequent in mature democracies – structured on citizens’ natural consent, loyalty and obedience. Yet, some prominent public figures have emphasised upon military training for all youth and children in recent times. One state government plans to implement the policy in schools. Such demands, raised recurrently in the past, have patriotic, nationalist and sincere intentions, but military training ‘alone’ is not the gateway to disciplined and loyal citizenry. It is a debatable and perhaps bad public policy idea fraught with dangerous consequences.

Unclear Objectives for Military Training Push

The protagonists clamouring for military training for youth and children are not clear about intended objectives. Ideational objectives like encouraging patriotism, fostering discipline, promoting physical fitness and developing responsibility, without detailed elaboration and data-backed evidence, do no good to their cause. If the objective is to have a reserve force of volunteers for future wars, the riposte is evident through paramilitary forces and other reserves for any war eventuality. Contemporary wars, moreover, are not won through ‘sheer numbers’. Those who proposition that military training leads to better citizenry probably forget that there are no research findings to substantiate this hypothesis. Military training is not necessarily the best gateway to better citizenry. For the disinterested, it takes away the precious moments of their prime that could be gainfully utilised.

In recent times, we also hear about ‘citizen-soldiers’. All citizens can be good soldiers in some or the other way – most importantly, by excelling in their own professions. It also implies a higher level of national security consciousness wherein the citizen-soldiers contribute also by ‘buying made in India items, touring domestic destinations, using domestic commercial portals and promoting Brand India in every possible manner’. Military training is not required here!

At a structural level, the National Cadet Corps (NCC) trains around 20 lakh students every year in urban schools. However, there is no data to establish that NCC is better than the National Social Service (NSS), focusing largely on social issues. There is also no data to establish that the large number of unfortunate students in rural areas are less disciplined than their fortunate NCC or NSS counterparts. That debunks the oft-quoted, untested and rather ideational hypothesis that military training helps in shaping a disciplined and patriotic citizenry. Therefore, proliferating military training beyond the NCC to a wider spectrum needs data-based evidence.

Sociological, Economic, and Political Pitfalls

In glorifying military training as the sine qua non for good citizenry, we commit ourselves to probable mistakes at many levels. At the sociological level, it is fraught with dangerous consequences such as academic over-burdening of the youth and children, militarisation of society and lower levels of the political concepts of tolerance and agreeableness. Harmonious civil-military relationship, a characteristic feature of democratic India, will take a backseat.

At the defence economy level, military training for youth and children across the spectrum is neither feasible due to resource constraints nor desirable, since genuine developmental priorities would stand relegated to the background. This will also lead to demands for a larger share of GDP as defence budget. Despite budgetary provisions for ₹12,500 crore in the 2025–26 Union Budget, many schools are unable to provide mid-day meals to our growing children. Further, training a large number of youth may also disturb the demand-supply equilibrium, since many of them would like to join the armed forces and would not be able to do so!

At the political level, military training, if not handled properly, may weaken the democratic edifice of the state in the long term. The debate and discussion culture may take a backseat; foreign policy may become more conflictual; and the country’s strategic culture may sound aggressive in tone, if not in intent! The youth will clamour for military solutions to all matters of war and peace!

Philosophical Contradictions and Moral Concerns

The philosophical level is most worrying! The protagonists over-emphasise ‘discipline’ while talking military training for youth and children. It implies that youth and children are essentially ‘indisciplined’. Left to themselves, they would grow as ‘rowdy citizens’. This notion militates against the philosophy of individualism, where individuals are considered masters of their own body and mind and must be given regulated freedom and space to grow. The military training protagonists also imply a fallacious perception that citizenship values are something that are ‘ordained through training’ and not natural. The riposte is that loyalty towards country is as natural as it is towards parents, kith and kin etc.! The emphasis on military training also implies that it is the ‘only’ mode to groom the youth and children and discounts the impact of parents, teachers, social atmospherics, peer groups and role models. In reality, these institutions play a crucial role in the grooming process through examples, role modelling, socialisation, etc. They are also on a volitional basis! Most importantly, military training school implies separation of body from mind.

Education – A Better Path, Not Militarisation

However, the consequences could be dangerous! The docile body may metamorphose into a machine, relying heavily on conformism and affirmation. This ‘one-dimensional man’ may remain a victim of ‘bounded rationality’ for quite some time. In the real world, youth and children start their existential journey through critical questions and exploring the world of knowledge! They are ‘innovative artisans of arguments’ and are engaged in building their own ‘nascent theories of life’ through trading in thoughts and experiences. Most democratic states (including India) encourage this natural evolution without the artificial construct of military training hampering the learning process.

Contemporary public policy formulations rely upon sound economic considerations (in terms of sustainability), political considerations (in terms of expediency) and philosophical considerations (in terms of the policy’s moral uprightness). Demands for military training for youth and children are at best ‘populist clamours’, wastage of money and a moral hazard. Instead, our public policy considerations should attempt more educational and skill-development opportunities to shape their future. For the moment, we can walk past such ideas.

(The author is in the Indian Defence Accounts Service. Views are personal.)