Why in News?

The Union Cabinet approved a two-year additional engagement for the 75% of Agniveers who would have left after four years, creating a path for all Agniveers to join the armed forces as regular soldiers, subject to their willingness and the selection criteria. The first batch is nearing the end of its four-year tenure.

About the Scheme

• Ministry: Ministry of Defence, through the Department of Military Affairs.
• Launched: 14 June 2022, to recruit personnel below officer rank into the Army, Navy and Air Force for four years, under the respective service Acts.
• Who can join: Men and women aged 17.5 to 21. The upper age was raised to 23 for 2022 only, after protests.
• Tenure: Four years, including about six months of training, with the rest in deployment.
• Original exit: Up to 25% of each batch could be retained in regular service on merit. Others left with a Seva Nidhi package of about ₹11.71 lakh (their contributions, a matching government contribution and interest), which is exempt from income tax, and no pension.
• Aim: A younger, technology-ready force.

The Revision (4 November 2026)

• Stage one: 25% of Agniveers are selected on merit for regular service after four years, as before.
• Stage two: The remaining 75% are offered an additional two-year engagement, and then can be considered for enrolment as regular soldiers, if they are willing and meet the selection criteria.
• Benefits in the second period: Higher remuneration, an enhanced Seva Nidhi package and seniority benefits.
• Scheme continues: The four-year structure remains, and the Defence Minister called the extension a “second tour of duty”.
• Why the change: A review found that Agniveers showed outstanding skills, motivation, fitness and technological ability, and the three services recommended the extension.

Why in News?

For the second year in a row, no Indian university is in the top 50 of the QS World University Rankings: Asia 2027. IIT Delhi, India’s best, slipped from 59th to 66th, even though India’s total ranked institutions rose to 325.

Where India Stands

• IIT Delhi: India’s best, at 66th (down from 59th).
• IISc Bengaluru: 79th (from 64th).
• IIT Bombay: 83rd (from 71st).
• IIT Madras: 85th (from 70th).
• IIT Kharagpur: 90th (from 77th).
• Delhi University: 106th (from 95th), out of the top 100.
• Top 100: Six Indian institutions.

More Institutions, but a Slide

• Ranked institutions: 325 (up from 294), with 34 new entrants.
• Position in Asia: Second only to mainland China (448).
• Movement: About 71% of Indian institutions slipped and 18% improved.
• Improvers: Chandigarh University, Lovely Professional University and Jamia Millia Islamia.

Growth since 2016

• Indian institutions ranked: From 24 to 325, over 13 times.
• Other countries: China about 315%, Indonesia 164%, Japan 44%, South Korea 30%.

Strength in Research Output

• Papers per Faculty: India leads Asia, with 27 universities in the top 50 and five in the top 10.
• Staff with PhDs: Fifteen Indian universities share first place.

Weakness in Impact

• Citations per Paper: Only three Indian universities are in Asia’s top 50. This indicator measures the impact of research.
• QS’s view: India must turn research strength into impact and international recognition.

Who Leads Asia

• Top three: The University of Hong Kong, Peking University and Tsinghua University (up to third).
• Singapore: NUS (6th) and NTU (8th) both fell.
• Coverage: 1,722 universities across 26 systems, including 195 new entrants.

Background

• QS: Quacquarelli Symonds is a UK-based higher education analyst that publishes world, regional and subject rankings.
• What it measures: The Asia ranking uses 11 indicators, including academic and employer reputation, faculty-student ratio, citations per paper, papers per faculty, staff with PhDs, international research network and the share of international students and faculty.
• NIRF: India’s own National Institutional Ranking Framework, run by the Ministry of Education.
• Why rankings matter: They influence student choices, funding and research partnerships, though critics say they favour reputation and internationalisation over teaching quality.