Think of the Indian Army — what comes to mind? Large formations of soldiers walking in unison, guns slung over their shoulders? Tanks and cannons? Convoys of defence vehicles carrying multiple battalions? You are not wrong. This is what most of a nation’s army looks like, and India is no exception.
In fact, we have one of the biggest armies in the world, with approximately 1.4 million personnel in active service. Our defence budget isn’t exactly low either. India’s defence budget for 2025–26 stands at ₹6.81 lakh crore ($76bn), a 9.5% increase from the previous year. Of this, roughly ₹3.11 lakh crore goes toward salaries and operational expenses and ₹1.6 lakh crore toward pensions, totalling 4.7lakh crore ($52bn) — meaning nearly 70% of the defence budget is spent on manpower-related costs. Only about ₹1.8 lakh crore ($20bn), or roughly one quarter of the budget, is allocated for modernisation and new equipment. And yes, from our defence budget, we pay as much for pensions (for personnel no longer in uniform) as we do for modernization and procuring new equipment.
This model of building personnel-intensive, land-warfare-heavy armed forces worked well a few decades ago. It did help us win the 1971 war, for instance, and the 1999 Kargil war.
However, it isn’t 1999 anymore. We are in 2026.
Take a look at the multiple recent wars around you (I can’t believe we humans are fighting so much in 2026, but that’s a separate story). Whether it is the ongoing Russia–Ukraine conflict, the USA–Israel–Iran tensions (and several other countries caught in the crossfire), or even the relatively short Operation Sindoor, wars have changed.
Wars today are about technology. Software over soldiers. Bandwidth over battalions. Not boots on the ground, but brains in the cloud. Terminals over trenches. It’s algorithms, not tanks and machine guns. It’s missiles and drones delivered through the air. It’s intelligence, cutting-edge technology, and unmanned weaponry controlled from thousands of miles away. National leaders can be eliminated without sending a single troop onto the ground. A country can be dominated without deploying large land armies.
For instance, imagine two countries going to war.
Country A sends 100,000 soldiers and hundreds of tanks.
Country B sends 10,000 soldiers — and thousands of drones, AI targeting systems, satellite surveillance, and precision missiles.
Ten years ago, most people would have bet on Country A.
Today, many defence experts would bet on Country B.
Modern warfare is rapidly shifting from mass to technology, from boots on the ground to brains in the cloud. Yet India’s military spending and structure still reflect an era when wars were fought mainly by large armies facing each other across borders.
If most of the defence budget goes to salaries and pensions, there isn’t much left for the technologies that actually win wars.
The wars of the future will not be won by the country that has the most soldiers.
They will be won by the country that has the best technology.
Let’s look at the defence budget split for the USA, easily the mightiest defence force on the planet. First of all, the overall defence budget is gigantic — about $850 billion, more than ten times that of India. While that may be an unfair comparison given differences in per capita income, the allocation of spending is instructive.
In the USA, personnel costs account for about 18–25% of the defence budget. Procurement makes up 17–20%, while research and development — a separate category — receives 14–15%. Infrastructure, operations, and maintenance account for the remaining 40–43%.
This means R&D alone amounts to roughly $140 billion annually, funding cutting-edge work in artificial intelligence, hypersonic missiles, cyber warfare, and space systems. Procurement spending is around $160 billion.
While nobody expects India to match these numbers, we can certainly improve the proportion of our budget devoted to R&D and the procurement of advanced technology. Right now, we are running an army that is also expected to have the responsibility of being employment generator and running a retirement welfare system. While it sounds noble that the Army creates so many jobs and supports so many retirees, it comes at a cost — not just financially, but also in terms of keeping our forces less modernised and inadequately equipped for future warfare.
To be fair, India does face a unique challenge. We must not only prepare for remote, technology-driven conflicts but also defend two long land borders with large neighbouring countries. That may require significant personnel. However, even in defending land borders, new technology is likely more effective than simply adding more manpower.
Does this mean the defence forces may provide fewer jobs in the future? Possibly. The Agniveer scheme is one example of the Army attempting to reduce the lifetime financial burden of recruitment by making employment more contractual. Yet whenever the Army tries to reduce recruitment or pension liabilities, it faces massive criticism.
This needs to change. The Army is not a welfare scheme. Its primary job is to protect the country. And if changing times require the Army to evolve, so be it. We must spend more on defence, and within that, allocate a larger share toward researching and acquiring new technologies for modern warfare.
India must decide whether it wants to prepare for the wars of yesterday — or the wars of tomorrow.