Punishments at NDA and IMA: Discipline vs Reality
In the Indian Armed Forces, discipline forms the bedrock of officer training. The National Defence Academy (NDA) in Khadakwasla, Pune, and the Indian Military Academy (IMA) in Dehradun serve as premier institutions that transform young individuals into commissioned officers. A key element of this transformation involves punishments—officially termed corrective measures or informally known as “ragda.” While the official stance portrays these as structured tools for building resilience, accountability, and leadership, the on-ground reality often reveals a more complex and sometimes controversial picture.
The Official Perspective: Purposeful Discipline
Both academies view punishments as essential for forging officers capable of thriving in high-stress, life-or-death situations. Cadets hail from diverse backgrounds, and the training demands uniformity in punctuality, turnout, obedience, and teamwork.
Authorized punishments are supervised, progressive, and safety-conscious. They typically include:
- Extra Physical Training (PT), running, or drills.
- Push-ups, front rolls, squats, or other fitness exercises.
- Additional duties, restrictions on liberty (weekend outings), or minor administrative tasks.
The philosophy emphasizes that consequences teach responsibility, while physical exertion builds mental toughness. As cadets advance—particularly in later terms at NDA or during IMA’s leadership-focused phase—such measures become less frequent, shifting toward self-discipline and professional growth.
Recent developments reflect a commitment to modernization. With female cadets graduating from NDA for the first time in 2025 and joining IMA since July 2025, there’s increased emphasis on inclusivity, safety, and ethical boundaries. The inclusion of women is expected to prompt further refinements in disciplinary practices to ensure fairness and prevent any form of excess.
The Reality: Tradition, Intensity, and the Gray Area
While official channels stress controlled, constructive discipline, alumni accounts, reports, and discussions highlight a harsher dimension, especially during the initial “breaking-in” phase.
At NDA, where cadets (aged 16–19) enter after Class 12 for a three-year tri-service program, the adjustment to military life is intense. Authorized exercises like push-ups and rolls are standard, but unofficial “ragda” by seniors has historically included more demanding practices—such as prolonged strain, forced endurance tasks, or collective punishments for individual lapses. These aim to foster unity and ego breakdown but have occasionally crossed into excess, leading to injuries or medical issues.
Historical data points to significant attrition: thousands of cadets have left midway over the years, with reasons ranging from medical grounds and family pressure to the sheer intensity of the regimen. Some incidents, including serious injuries from unsanctioned actions, have sparked debates about the line between toughening and harm.
At IMA, cadets are older (often graduates) and more mature, with training centered on Army-specific leadership. “Ragda” here tends to be creative yet physically demanding—examples include crawling on gravel (“Swimming on the Rocks”), endurance runs in full gear, or writing orders in challenging positions. These are often collective, reinforcing shared responsibility.
The academy maintains a strict stance against excesses: in 2016, 16 cadets faced demotion for improper conduct toward juniors, underscoring zero tolerance for abuse. As of 2025, no major systemic changes to the punishment framework have been documented, but the entry of women cadets may drive future reforms focused on inclusivity and safety.
Key Differences Between NDA and IMA
- Age and Experience: NDA’s younger cadets face more initial intensity and risk of overzealous senior actions. IMA benefits from greater maturity.
- Training Focus: NDA combines academics with basic military skills; IMA emphasizes advanced professional and leadership development.
- Scale of Issues: NDA’s longer duration and tri-service nature have historically amplified controversies; IMA’s structured environment leans toward supervised discipline.
The Bigger Picture: Evolution and Balance
Many serving and retired officers credit these experiences—harsh as they may seem—for instilling unbreakable resilience, camaraderie, and the ability to perform under pressure. The intent is to prepare leaders who can endure real-world challenges, not to cause unnecessary suffering.
Yet, the debate persists: where does constructive discipline end and potential toxicity begin? Over the years, reforms have included better oversight, surveillance, counseling, and mentorship to address grievances constructively. The system continues to evolve, particularly with greater gender diversity and modern expectations.
For defence aspirants, the message is clear: expect challenges, but recognize them as preparation for leadership, not torment. The academies aim to shape capable, ethical officers—not break individuals. Discipline remains non-negotiable, but the journey is increasingly guided toward purpose over pain.
Jai Hind! 🚩
About The Author
