(By packaging a lie between two half-truths or established truths, propaganda can make the subconscious mind accept the lie without pausing to question, reflect upon, or verify its authenticity. This was one of the essential techniques of Goebbelsian propaganda, through which the minds of German youth were systematically conditioned and cultivated to embrace Nazi nationalism.
There are disturbing parallels with the ideological project propagated by the RSS–BJP combine, with Narendra Modi as its most prominent political face. It is therefore important that this article does not merely present assertions, but carefully separates established facts, political claims, assumptions and unsubstantiated allegations.
That distinction is not a matter of semantics; it is essential to protecting public discourse from propaganda and preserving the capacity of citizens to think critically and independently)
The ‘Agniveer Skill Development Scheme’ conference organised on 17 July 2026 at Kuanwala in Dehradun by Colonel Ajay Kothiyal, Kirti Chakra, Shaurya Chakra and Vishisht Seva Medal awardee and former military officer, has sparked an important political and policy debate—not only about the Agnipath scheme itself, but also about the future of Agniveers after their four years of service.
There is nothing objectionable in itself about a decorated military officer raising the issue of skill development and rehabilitation of young people. In fact, such an initiative is welcome. However, when such an initiative appears to become connected with the broader narrative of a ruling political establishment, it becomes equally necessary in a democracy to ask questions.
I remember Colonel Ajay Kothiyal’s public intervention during the Dharali disaster, when he publicly raised the discrepancy between the government’s official figure of deaths and the number that he himself had presented. At that time, his questioning of the government’s official figures was a courageous step.
But today, when the same Colonel Ajay Kothiyal appears to be standing alongside the political establishment, it is equally necessary to ask him questions that may be more demanding and uncomfortable.
Facts and allegations must be kept separate
On this entire subject, some matters are established facts, while others are merely political allegations or logical apprehensions. It would not be appropriate to present the two as though they were the same.
- Mamata Banerjee accused the government in 2022 of creating an “armed cadre” — an established fact
In June 2022, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee alleged that through the Agnipath scheme, the BJP wanted to create its own “armed cadre base.” She also questioned what would happen to Agniveers after four years of service and whether they would eventually be deployed for security at BJP offices.
This was a political allegation made by Mamata Banerjee. - Kailash Vijayvargiya spoke of giving Agniveers preference at BJP offices — an established fact
Senior BJP leader Kailash Vijayvargiya stated in 2022 that if he had to appoint someone for the security of a BJP office, he would give preference to Agniveers. His statement led to widespread political controversy.
Vijayvargiya subsequently issued a clarification — an established fact
Following the controversy, Vijayvargiya clarified that what he meant was that the discipline and skills developed by Agniveers could be utilised in the future, and that his statement had been misunderstood.
Therefore, the facts here are clear: the statement was made, controversy followed, and a clarification was subsequently issued. But this does not establish that the Agnipath scheme was introduced to create a BJP “armed cadre.”
This is precisely the distinction that must be maintained in any political debate.
Now, a new question after 15 August 2026
On 15 August 2026, Prime Minister Narendra Modi emphasised the need to develop a strong and vibrant Civil Defence network in the country. The stated objective was to strengthen citizen participation and preparedness to deal with modern challenges, disasters and emergency situations.
There is nothing inherently suspicious or unusual about such an idea. Civil Defence can serve legitimate purposes such as protecting citizens, disaster management and providing assistance during emergencies.
Similarly, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that trained ex-servicemen or former Agniveers could be useful in areas such as disaster management, first aid, communications, discipline and emergency response.
But this is precisely where a legitimate democratic question arises.
The question is not why former Agniveers would join Civil Defence.
The question is:
If, in the future, large numbers of trained Agniveers return to civilian life after completing four years of service, and at the same time the policy of expanding a nationwide Civil Defence volunteer network is being pursued, then—
Will former Agniveers have any special or preferential role in Civil Defence?
If so, what process will be followed for their selection?
Will selection be based entirely on merit, qualifications and genuine requirements?
Will uniform, nationwide rules be framed for this purpose?
Will the selection process be open, transparent and publicly accountable?
Will persons associated with political parties be excluded from receiving any preferential treatment?
Will the command and training of Civil Defence remain entirely under constitutional and administrative control?
And most importantly, will the government explicitly ensure that Civil Defence will never be used for the organisational or electoral interests of any political party?
These questions are not part of a conspiracy theory.
They are legitimate questions concerning transparency and institutional neutrality in a democracy.
Most importantly: What has NOT been established?
To say that—
“The government is planning to induct former Agniveers into Civil Defence”
—would require clear official evidence.
And to go even further and claim that—
“The government is creating a BJP armed cadre through Civil Defence”
—there is, at present, no established evidence to substantiate such a claim.
Therefore, these propositions should not be presented as facts.
But that does not mean that the possibility cannot be questioned or examined.
My Political Concern
My concern does not arise from any personal animosity towards an individual. It arises from the relationship between political power and public institutions.
If, in the future, a large network of millions of trained young people is organised through any governmental or semi-governmental mechanism, then its structure, training, leadership, financing and political neutrality must be subject to rigorous public scrutiny.
History teaches us that an unhealthy alliance between organised youth power and political authority can pose a serious threat to democratic institutions. The history of Mussolini’s Blackshirts and Hitler’s Brownshirts is cited as a warning for precisely this reason.
I am not saying that Civil Defence in India has itself become any kind of political militia. Such a claim would go beyond the evidence currently available.
My apprehension, however, is that if institutional safeguards are weakened and a political party is given an opportunity to establish influence over a large, trained, disciplined and organised youth network, such a network could potentially be misused politically in the future.
That is why clear safeguards and rules need to be established today.
And my question to Colonel Ajay Kothiyal
From a decorated military officer like Colonel Ajay Kothiyal, I expect something greater than merely praising or criticising any particular political party.
A soldier’s greatest assets are impartiality, devotion to the nation and commitment to institutions.
Therefore, my appeal to him is that, irrespective of his proximity to any political establishment, he should place greater importance on military values and the independence of democratic institutions.
If he is speaking about the skill development of Agniveers, then with the same clarity he should also say:
Agniveers are the youth of India; they are not the cadres of any political party.
Their training is meant for the security of India, not for the political interests of any party.
And if, in the future, they are given a role in Civil Defence or any other civilian security system, that system too must remain completely independent of political parties, transparent, merit-based and firmly under the authority of constitutional institutions.
That is nationalism.
That is the spirit of military service.
And that is the real defence of democracy.
Therefore, the hard political question today is not:
“Is the BJP creating its own private militia?”
The more precise question is:
“Will the government publicly assure the nation that Agniveers, or any trained civilian security network, will never be used for the organisational or electoral interests of any political party—as gunmen or musclemen, as was seen on 20 July 2026?”
If the government’s answer is an unequivocal “Yes,” then transparent rules should be placed in the public domain.
If no such plan exists, the government should make that equally clear.
Because in a democracy, the best answer to suspicion is not propaganda—it is transparency.
And asking such questions of those in power is not evidence of anti-national activity. It is, rather, a citizen’s responsibility towards democracy.
This needs to be said all the more clearly because, in my view, the BJP is a deeply dishonest political party and Colonel Ajay Kothiyal’s credibility is questionable.
Jai Hind.
BRIG. Sarvesh Dutt Dangwal, The author is a social activist….
The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author.
