Is Compulsory Military Training Necessary

Wars are peaceful than marriages…… but…… let him who wants peace never prepare for a war………I agree with the second part….. * Military training is schooling of body and spirit in the art of killing. Military training is education for war. It is the perpetuation of war spirit. It hinders the development of the desire for peace. * Conscription involves the degradation of human personality, and the destruction of liberty. Barrack life, military drill, blind obedience to commands, however unjust and foolish they may be, and deliberate training for slaughter undermine respect for the individual, for democracy and human life. ————————————————- It is debasing human dignity to force men to give up their life, or to inflict death against their will.
The country which thinks its entitled to force its citizens to go to war will never pay proper regard to the value and happiness of their lives in peace. Moreover, by conscription the militarist spirit of aggressiveness is implanted in the whole male population at the most impressionable age. By training for war men come to consider war as unavoidable and even desirable. 1. Military training – is for people who fight external aggression through the army, navy & air force. The threat perceptions that India faces could arise from – Pakistan, China, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Burma. However the Indian army has deployed more forces in fighting insurgency within India than in fighting wars. More army personnel have died in internal operations than in all the wars we’ve fought. This is demoralizing for an army who has to fight ;amp; kill it’s own citizens.
What is required is training for better policing and better policies to avoid internal uprisings – fire prevention rather than fire fighting. 2. Compulsory – The Indian armed forces are a volunteer force. They face a shortage of officers, not soldiers. This shortage is in thousands whereas 20 million youth join the work force each year. Even our soldiers number around 1 million. So what would you do with the 19 million extra trained people? 3. Youth of India – our literacy rate is around 50-60%.

Over 100 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 are not in school. It’s not that youth don’t need training – they do. And some of the qualities that military training gives – discipline, working for and in a group, fitness, energy are all useful to make them more capable so they can lead more meaningful & productive lives and contribute to the overall success & productivity of their families & land. We need more trained teachers, doctors, social activists, engineers, entrepreneurs… the list is endless.
We need more roads, more schools, more food, more electricity, more water, more houses… this list is endless too. Trained & educated youth would contribute to the removal of poverty and distress – first for them selves – and then for their society. When unattended these cause violent uprisings which are then suppressed by the military. * They talk about conscription as a democratic institution. Yes; so is a cemetary. ————————————————- 4. Like Singapore – The answer to this part of your question lies not in geography but in economics.
While Singapore is about the size of Bombay, it’s recourse to compulsory military training is not because of it’s small size but because its economic development is far ahead of India’s. The variety of fulfilling opportunities that exist for young people in Singapore makes the military an unattractive career. O the other hand, for India’s enormous pool of unemployed & maybe unemployable youth, the military is good career opportunity. So there is currently no shortage of soldiers.
But for the better educated youth, with excellent career opportunities, joining the officer corps of the armed forces is not so attractive a choice, and hence the shortfall of officers. Perhaps a day will come when all our youth are educated and can choose good careers in industry, commerce or other civilian pursuits and then we may need to resort to some type of compulsion. Or India may be a participant in a large & long duration war, with many soldiers killed and not enough wanting to die for their country, and then some type of compulsion may be necessary. As far as physical improvement is concerned, it is agreed that a year of military service might be helpful to many men. It is also true that the problem of physical condition is one of major proportions.
About half the men examined by the Army and Navy during the present war have been rejected for military service, chiefly on account of mental or physical deficiencies. * Economics: It can be argued that in a cost-to-benefit ratio, conscription during peace time is not worthwhile. 77] 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 in some countries paying them. * “I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. ” * In peace sons bury fathers, but war violates the order of nature, and fathers bury sons. * ————————————————- “How come the dove gets to be the peace symbol? How about the pillow? It has more feathers than the dove, and it doesn’t have that dangerous beak. ”