By Brigadier Sarvesh Dutt Dangwal (Retd)
The physical fitness system of an army does far more than measure athletic performance; it shapes the very character of its soldiers. For the Indian Army, whose soldiers often operate in some of the world’s most demanding terrains and climates, physical endurance has historically been a decisive operational advantage. Any change to the framework that evaluates soldier fitness must therefore be examined carefully, for it ultimately influences the training culture and physical conditioning of the entire force.
For decades, the Army’s physical conditioning system evolved around two structured evaluations: the Physical Proficiency Tests (PPT) and the Battle Physical Efficiency Tests (BPET). These were not merely routine administrative assessments. The PPT established the baseline components of human fitness—endurance, strength, speed, agility and coordination—while the BPET translated these attributes into military-specific performance. Together, they formed a carefully balanced progression that cultivated the endurance culture for which the Indian soldier is widely respected.
The proposed Combined Physical Tests – 2026 (CPT-26) represents a significant effort to modernise this system. Reform in training methods is both necessary and inevitable. Military institutions must continually adapt to advances in sports science and evolving operational demands. However, when a system that influences the physical conditioning of an entire force is altered, it becomes important to ensure that the proposed changes reinforce the foundations of military fitness rather than inadvertently weaken them.
One area that deserves attention is the proposed age grouping of 18 to 35 years for physical evaluation. Exercise physiology clearly indicates that physical performance changes progressively with age. Cardiac efficiency, muscular strength and respiratory capacity gradually decline after the early twenties. Expecting soldiers across nearly two decades of physiological variation to meet identical standards may therefore not be scientifically appropriate. Earlier Army systems recognised this reality by maintaining smaller age categories that ensured greater fairness and realism in performance expectations.
Another important aspect is the proposed removal of the Physical Proficiency Tests (PPT). These tests assessed the basic components of human physical fitness and served as the foundation upon which military capability was built. Eliminating this baseline evaluation risks weakening the structured progression that has traditionally underpinned military physical training. In any professional training system, foundational fitness must precede specialised operational performance.
The proposed change in endurance assessment also merits careful consideration. Under the existing framework, soldiers perform a five-kilometre run in field service marching order, which evaluates endurance under realistic operational conditions. The proposed replacement with a 3.2-kilometre run may shift the emphasis towards shorter-duration anaerobic performance rather than sustained aerobic endurance.
In actual military operations, endurance frequently proves more critical than short bursts of athletic performance. Soldiers are often required to move long distances under load, conduct prolonged patrols and function under conditions of fatigue, stress and environmental hardship. A physical evaluation system must therefore ensure that aerobic endurance remains the cornerstone of combat fitness.
Some elements of the proposed testing structure also appear to duplicate the assessment of similar strength components. For instance, rope climbing and push-ups both measure upper-body strength, while certain core exercises overlap with traditional sit-up tests. While strength remains essential, excessive duplication may complicate the evaluation system without significantly improving the assessment of operational capability.
Another noteworthy change is the removal of traditional obstacles such as the eight-or nine-foot ditch jump. Such obstacles historically served not only as physical challenges but also as psychological conditioning tools. They required soldiers to overcome hesitation and perceived risk, thereby cultivating confidence and decisiveness—qualities that are indispensable in combat situations.
International experience offers useful insights. The United States Army’s Combat Fitness Test, for example, incorporates several strength-based events but still retains a two-mile run to ensure endurance remains a central component of evaluation. Similarly, British and Canadian military fitness systems align their tests closely with operational tasks while maintaining the primacy of endurance and functional strength.
These examples underline an important principle: modernisation of training systems should enhance operational relevance without undermining the physiological foundations that sustain military performance.
The objective of raising these observations is not to resist reform. Reform is essential for any professional military institution. However, the guiding objective must remain clear—any new system must strengthen the attributes that have long defined the Indian soldier: endurance, resilience, strength and courage.
The endurance culture of the Indian Army has been forged through decades of operational experience. As new frameworks such as CPT-26 are introduced, it is essential that this legacy continues to be preserved and strengthened for the generations of soldiers who will serve in the demanding battlefields of the future.
“The physical testing system of an army does not merely measure fitness; it ultimately shapes the physical character of the force.”
(Brigadier Sarvesh Dutt Dangwal (Retd) served in the Indian Army for 37 years and has extensive experience in military training and physical conditioning. He writes on issues related to military leadership, training doctrine and institutional development within the Armed Forces.)
