Modernisation of Indian Defence forces is taking place rapidly

Simultaneous need is to properly look after welfare of veterans

By Aritra Banerjee

Walk into any conversation about veterans’ welfare today, and you can sense a quiet tension running beneath the surface. It is not anger or disappointment as much as a kind of fatigue. Veterans see reforms moving rapidly on paper. They hear announcements about digitisation, restructuring and future readiness. Yet, when they approach the systems designed to support them, the experience often feels uneven, unpredictable or unnecessarily complicated. That gap between design and delivery is where the debate now sits, and it is a debate India can no longer postpone.

Modernising warfare is an unavoidable requirement. The armed forces are expanding technologically, pension accounts are growing, and healthcare demands are rising as the veteran population ages. But the real test of modernisation is not the sophistication of the system; it is the ease with which veterans can navigate it. A digital platform that locks a pensioner out, a medical referral system that does not respond in time or a benefits process that requires repeated appeals is not modernisation. It is a transfer of responsibility from the state to the individual under the guise of efficiency.

The last few years have shown how quickly gaps can open. SPARSH demonstrates the problem clearly. The platform is robust in theory, but veterans who lack digital literacy frequently find themselves stranded in procedural loops. Meanwhile, ECHS, designed as a dependable healthcare lifeline, continues to struggle with shortages, empanelment breakdowns and inconsistent service quality. These issues do not suggest a lack of intent. They point to the absence of a user-first design philosophy.

A system centred on veterans would begin by assuming that the average beneficiary is elderly, unfamiliar with digital tools and dependent on physical support for documentation. Once that assumption is baked into the design, most recurring issues resolve themselves. Instead, the burden today often falls on the veteran to adapt to the system rather than on the system to adapt to them.

There is also the question of transparency. Veterans do not expect perfect outcomes, but they rely on predictable procedures. When disability assessments shift, boards interpret policies differently or pension rules change without adequate notice, uncertainty spreads faster than clarification. This uncertainty forces veterans to seek legal redress, which in turn clogs institutions built for welfare rather than litigation. The cycle then repeats. A small administrative adjustment becomes a multi-year grievance because the communication lines were unclear from the beginning.

Comparisons with other countries help frame the discussion more sharply. Nations with professional armed forces tend to build veteran systems around three principles. First, ease of access. Second, continuity of care. Third, systemic respect. These principles appear simple, but demand sustained administrative discipline. They require that a veteran never be left guessing where to go, whom to approach or what process to follow. They require that medical support continues seamlessly, even when hospitals change or empanelment contracts shift. And they require that every step of the process reflects recognition of service rather than suspicion of misuse.

India has already acknowledged the need for improvement. Senior military leadership has repeatedly emphasised the need to strengthen welfare mechanisms. Government announcements on upgrading SPARSH support centres, expanding ECHS infrastructure and improving grievance redressal indicate intent. But intent must translate into consistent effect. The point of a modern welfare system is not just speed. It is dependability. Veterans do not need faster systems as much as they need systems that work the same way for everyone, every time.

The conversation must now move beyond upgrades and into accountability. Each grievance logged, whether about pensions, healthcare or documentation, is a data point signalling a structural weakness. If those weaknesses are treated individually, nothing changes. If they are treated as patterns, the system evolves. India already has the institutional muscle for this. What is required is a cultural shift towards continuous course correction and user-centred planning.

Ultimately, the question is not whether reforms are necessary. They are. The question is how they are implemented and who they are designed around. Veterans have carried the weight of national security for decades. When they return to civilian life, the state carries a parallel responsibility to ensure that dignity is not replaced by procedural fatigue. A welfare system earns its legitimacy not through its size but through its simplicity. If India aspires to build a modern military ecosystem, it must begin by ensuring that the people who built its foundation experience the full measure of respect their service deserves. (IPA Service)