THE SPARSH CONUNDRUM

Dear Readers,

The issue of migrating to SPARSH has drawn much attention lately in the veteran community. Most defence pensioners have migrated or are awaiting their usernames and passwords. The experience is very personal, and I have described mine. It will be a good idea to record your experience if you are a defence pensioner so that some opinion could be formed about its completeness or lack of it. I would request the readers to please contribute in the comments section. Thank You.

THE SPARSH CONUNDRUM

Recently there were many messages and queries raised on social media by veteran defence pensioners who were both confused and angry about their status of migration to SPARSH portals. The confusion came from the lack of knowledge about complete migration, half or no migration. News travels like wildfire when a neighbour or a friend informs his status and pension credit differently than others. Depending upon which side of the divide one stands, panic and confusion set in. 'Will I miss out on my pension this month? When will I migrate to SPARSH?' These common doubts and queries besieged every pensioner's mind. It is natural, as pension remains the only source of revenue and thus the livelihood in the case of the majority of pensioners. What most pensioners are unable to understand is what was the need for SPARSH when the original system of banks (Called the Legacy System) was doing so well. This article tries to find the truth and misgivings.

SPARSH is not a name but an acronym. It stands for "System for Pension Administration (Raksha)". It is an initiative by the defence ministry to digitise the pension system for the personnel of the Army, Airforce, Navy, and Civilian Defence personnel. Such a system has yet not been devised for any other government service. All other government employees, including the Members of Parliament, continue to draw their pensions through the Central Pension Accounting Office (CPAO), which comes under the Ministry of Finance. In the SPARSH system, demands, documentation, and accounting is a function of one agency: The PCDA (Prayagraj), and the disbursal is met through the banks. Why only the defence ministry migrated to SPARSH is a difficult question. The Ministry of Defence was under its pension department PCDA, even before and not under the CPAO. However, the system followed was the same, i.e. documentation and demand through the CPAO and disbursal of pensions through banks. The change has been necessitated due to the need to make the system more transparent and open. Also, the official explanation includes the need to reduce the reconciliation of defence accounts after the disbursal of pensions by the numerous banks that deal with defence pensions.

All defence pensioners would sooner or later migrate to the SPARSH system. On paper, consent is required from the pensioner before he/she migrates, yet the approval comes like any online App consent: tick 'yes' in the box after reading ten pages of the agreement. Most pensioners would not even know if they said 'Yes or No'. Having migrated to the SPARSH system, the author tried to explore the ease of operation and migration. The PCDA has developed the SPARSH system by outsourcing it to TCS, India's most famous name in software development, at INR 158 crores. This cost does not include the installation, which is around INR 78 crores. Despite the claim that the system is easy to operate and user-friendly, the author found it very difficult to log in. First, a few 'Log In' attempts were rejected on one pretext or the other. Persistence in abundance is a mantra to get into the SPARSH system. The process of filling up documents to support the claim is hard to complete, as is the logic as to why a pensioner needs to upload a school leaving certificate and an affidavit for the middle name. Without uploading these two, the documents section does not upload the balance of five other easy-to-furnish document requirements. Thus, the data validation remains unfinished. Also, the repeated verification of the Aadhaar card number was the most annoying. It happened more than once (eight times and still counting).

On the whole, it was not a very satisfactory interaction. The call centre experience is the worst among all others. The wait goes on forever. In defence of SPARSH, it could be argued that the system is still stabilising, and these teething problems would get resolved as the system matures. Yet this defence is weak when one finds that it has been more than one and a half years since the scheme's introduction.

It is necessary to understand that, as of today, SPARSH deals with two classes of defence pensioners. The first is the batch which retired in 2016 and after that. They were the first to migrate, and all the new retirees were born in SPARSH as a default pension system. Then those who retired before 2016. This category is called the 'Legacy Pensioners'. All legacy pensioners are moving from the old to the new system in a phased manner. They also have faced with maximum problems. Their migration without Username and Password has caused heart burns and anxiety amongst those left behind. Unfortunately, the OROP (One Rank One Pension) revision which is still in process, has inadvertently got linked up with the migration to SPARSH. The two are not interconnected. It's a misnomer that arrears of the pay revisions would accrue only to those pensioners who are on the SPARSH system. Everyone would get them in due course of time. Per the PCDA, by February '23, all Legacy defence pensioners would also be on SPARSH. (Most likely to get extended and could go till the end of this year, 2023)

Many questions remain unanswered. Would the defence pensioners be better off with SPARSH? What about the pensioners in the villages? How do they connect to SPARSH portals? What about the life certificates (Jeevan Praman) done every November? SPARSH authorities and defenders have answers for each of them. The user doesn't need to interact with the portal as there is a back end which does it for them. The existing system of Life Certificates can continue. In addition, the government designated common service centres and defence service centres where the pensioner can provide proof of their existence. The banks would continue to remain a source of uploading the life certificate. Regarding the pensioners in the villages, they could visit these centres once a year and verify or modify their SPARSH data.

Yet on the flip side, there is a strong argument that veteran defence pensioners make. Earlier, the bank was the link which could be approached if and when a pensioner felt aggrieved. There was a sense of holding hands. In the new system, the pensioner has to battle the web portal to get relief or an answer. Going by the experience thus far, this seems a difficult proposition. Add to this the complexity of operating a not-so-friendly portal for a village-based veteran pensioner. It is most probable that his query would be 'Lost in Translation'.

There is also the mounting burden of the defence pension angle, which overhangs any debate about SPARSH. ‘It is an effort to reduce the defence pensions’, say some casual commentators. Ever since the government launched the 'Agnipath' scheme, there has been growing suspicion amongst the defence veterans that the government is trying to curb the pension benefits of the retired defence personnel. While there is no truth in the apprehension. But once an idea is sown in the minds, it takes a long to wipe it out. SPARSH has no connection with the Agnipath scheme.

Conclusion

In times to come, a digital platform for any service is a preferred option. If PCDA has taken the initiative to migrate to a digital platform, it will benefit the end user. There were many anomalies in the legacy system, including accounting reconciliation, improper disbursements and unauthorised pensioners. The government could also be trying to root out the anomaly of double pensions or pensions being disbursed in the names of dead pensioners. It could be true; a digital platform will bring more efficiency and transparency. It is not the intent the old pensioners are questioning; it is the means adopted for change which is under scrutiny. The pension disbursing authorities could do well in keeping their ear to the ground and not make tall claims about the site, which most of the time refuses to open. If it is a test of perseverance for even the most ardent of admirers of the scheme, then it would be natural for it to have many detractors. ‘All is well, as I see no evil’ is an ostrich policy that needs to be shunned if more acceptance is desired. Today, the scheme would not get one star if tested on an audit platform. Yet, for a collective good, all would wish it succeeds in its original aim & objectives, which the defence ministry has set for it.