Addressing these demands, Sitharaman began with the issue of minimum wage, which she interpreted as referring to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
On Wednesday, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman firmly rejected the Opposition’s call to abolish the Agniveer short-service recruitment scheme during a session in the Rajya Sabha. She emphasized that the scheme was crucial for “national security” and accused “vested interests” of trying to dismantle the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) to facilitate the “selling” of medical seats. These were among five demands made by Congress leader P. Chidambaram during his speech on the Union budget on July 24.
Towards the end of her detailed response, which spanned over two hours, Sitharaman addressed the issues raised by Chidambaram without naming him directly. She stated, “Former finance minister… had said, I’ve got five questions for which I want the finance minister to answer. And the five questions pertain to minimum wages, legal guarantee, education loan waiver, abolition of Agniveer, scrapping of NEET. … I just want to give a very quick response to each one of the points.”
Chidambaram, while initiating the budget debate, had outlined five key demands, urging the finance minister to address them: A minimum wage of Rs 400 per day for all types of employment; a legally-guaranteed Minimum Support Price (MSP); waiver of unpaid interest or installments on educational loans up to March 2024; complete abolition of the Agniveer scheme; and scrapping NEET, with an option for states to decide their own approach. He asserted, “These five demands will echo not only in this chamber but throughout the country until you concede these demands.”
Addressing these demands, Sitharaman began with the issue of minimum wage, which she interpreted as referring to the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), where Chidambaram sought a minimum wage of ₹400 per day. However, she did not commit to any immediate changes in this regard. On the subject of education loans, Sitharaman highlighted that the budget had already introduced measures to assist young people who are not beneficiaries of any other government schemes. “We have announced the financial support of Rs 10 lakhs for higher education within the country. E-vouchers for this purpose will be given directly to 1 lakh students every year for an annual interest subvention of 3 per cent of the loan amount,” she explained.
Defending the Agniveer scheme, the Finance Minister underscored its significance in enhancing the military’s capabilities and battle readiness. “Agniveer is a very reformative step to enhance the capabilities and battle readiness of our armed forces. It ensures actually that we have fit soldiers who are on the front line,” Sitharaman stated, pointing out that one benefit of the scheme is the reduction in the average age of Indian soldiers. She cautioned against politicizing national security matters. The Agnipath scheme, introduced in June 2022, marked a significant shift from the traditional recruitment system in the Indian military, which was replaced by this initiative under the NDA government. The scheme recruits soldiers for a four-year term, with a provision to retain 25 per cent of them for regular service. These recruits are known as Agniveers. The scheme has become a focal point in the election discourse, especially in Punjab and Haryana.
Sitharaman also defended the NEET system, arguing that it prevents the exploitation and commercialization of medical education by those advocating its removal. She remarked that the timing of Chidambaram’s question coincided with the Supreme Court’s final verdict on the matter, which upheld NEET. “Supreme Court did not scrap NEET exams. It observed that there is no material at the present stage to indicate any systemic leak. That’s about the NEET exam leakage. But, abolition of NEET, I’m afraid to say, was triggered even before the leak,” she noted. Sitharaman pointed out that NEET was introduced in December 2010 during the UPA-II government, under the then DMK minister Gandhiselvan. She emphasized NEET’s role in enabling students from marginalised backgrounds to pursue medical education, citing examples of successful candidates from underprivileged families.
This year’s NEET-UG examination faced turmoil due to widespread protests over alleged paper leaks, inflated scoring, and arbitrary allocation of grace marks. Despite demands from opposition parties for a Supreme Court-monitored investigation, the government ruled out a retest, asserting that the leaks were localised incidents. The Supreme Court eventually ruled against conducting a retest, citing a lack of evidence for a widespread paper leak.
While Sitharaman addressed most demands, she did not elaborate on the request for a legal guarantee for MSP during her Rajya Sabha speech. However, she had previously discussed the issue in the Lok Sabha, accusing Congress and the INDIA bloc of politicizing farmers’ concerns. Referring to historical recommendations by the National Commission on Farmers led by M.S. Swaminathan, Sitharaman stated, “I am saying it with consideration. I am not speaking loosely. The National Commission on Farmers, M.S. Swaminathan had recommended in 2006 that the minimum support price should be at 50 per cent more than the weighted average cost of production. This was not accepted by the UPA government. The cabinet note, which was drafted in July 2007 said and I quote: ‘… MSP is recommended by the CACP on objective criteria considering a variety of factors involved. Therefore, setting an increase of at least 50 percent on the cost may cause distortion in the market. In some cases, there may be a mechanical linkage between MSP and cost of production per producer …,’” she explained.
Sitharaman’s remarks highlight the government’s stance on key issues raised by the Opposition, reiterating the administration’s focus on national security, educational reforms, and economic stability. As the debate on these topics continues, the government remains steadfast in its decisions, emphasizing reforms over populist demands.
