Category: indigenisation

Posted on

742: REPERCUSSIONS OF KEY CHANGES IN THE NEW DEFENCE PROCUREMENT MANUAL 2025

 

Presented my views on the subject during a discussion on CNBC News Channel

 

The Defence Procurement Manual (DPM) 2025 has been approved by Raksha Mantri Shri Rajnath Singh, replacing the 2009 manual. It aims to streamline and simplify revenue procurement processes for the Ministry of Defence, aligning with modern warfare needs and promoting self-reliance under Aatmanirbhar Bharat. The DPM 2025 governs ₹1 lakh crore in revenue procurements for FY 2025, and incorporates technology, fairness, and accountability to meet contemporary public procurement standards. Highlights according to the press release include:-

Enhanced Self-Reliance. A new chapter promotes innovation and indigenisation, encouraging collaboration with private industries, MSMEs, startups, academia, and DPSUs to develop defence items/spares in-house.

Ease of Doing Business. Simplified processes, relaxed penalties (e.g., minimal 0.1% Liquidity Damages post-prototype, capped at 5-10%), and supportive financing options address industry concerns, fostering participation.

Expedited Procurement. Empowers Competent Financial Authorities (CFAs) at lower levels to facilitate faster decision-making, timely payments, and flexibility in extending delivery periods or bid dates, thereby boosting participation.

Support for Innovation. Assured orders for up to 5-10 years, technical support, and handholding for suppliers to ensure successful development.

Operational Efficiency. Allows 15% upfront provision for repair/refit/maintenance to reduce equipment downtime and provisions for limited tendering (up to ₹50 lakh) and proprietary item procurement.

Transparency & Fairness. Aligns with Ministry of Finance guidelines, promotes competitive bidding by removing DPSU No Objection Certificate requirements, and streamlines Government-to-Government procurement.

Jointness & Preparedness. Facilitates coordination among the Armed Forces, ensuring timely resource availability at optimal costs to maintain military readiness.

 

Repercussions of Key Changes

 Assured guarantee of orders in terms of quantity, up to five years and beyond that, up to another five years in exceptional circumstances: This provides long-term financial predictability for vendors, encouraging investments in production capacity, technology, and workforce. For the industry, it lowers entry barriers for private firms and MSMEs, boosting confidence to participate in defence contracts and fostering sustained supply chains. It could accelerate indigenisation by enabling economies of scale, potentially reducing costs over time. However, it might lock the government into commitments if requirements change, though the special circumstances clause adds flexibility. Overall, this enhances defence readiness by ensuring the timely availability of spares and equipment, reducing procurement uncertainties.

 

Requirement of obtaining NOC from some DPSUs before open bidding has been dispensed with & tenders will be awarded purely on a competitive basis: By removing the NOC barrier, this levels the playing field between public (DPSUs) and private entities, promoting fair competition and potentially driving down costs through broader bidding. For private industry, it increases opportunities to win contracts, encouraging more participation from startups and non-traditional players, which could spur innovation and efficiency. DPSUs may face heightened competition, pushing them to improve performance but possibly eroding their traditional advantages. The repercussion on procurement is faster and more transparent processes, reducing bureaucratic hurdles. This supports defence readiness by diversifying suppliers and mitigating risks from over-reliance on a few entities, though it could initially lead to adjustment challenges for DPSUs.

 

Upfront provision of 15% in growth of work to be allowed in maintenance of various aerial & naval platforms to reduce equipment downtime: This flexibility accounts for evolving maintenance needs, such as increased complexity or fleet expansions, allowing contracts to adapt without renegotiation. It directly improves operational readiness by minimising downtime for critical assets like aircraft and ships, ensuring higher availability during missions. For the industry, it provides revenue stability and encourages specialised service providers to invest in skills and infrastructure. Potential downsides include slightly higher upfront costs for the government, but the focus on efficiency could offset this through reduced long-term disruptions. This change aligns with modern warfare demands, enhancing the armed forces’ agility.

 

Liquidated Damages will not be levied during the development phase: Eliminating penalties in the early R&D stage reduces financial risks for developers, particularly startups and innovators experimenting with new technologies. This encourages bolder participation in prototype development, fostering innovation and accelerating indigenisation efforts. For the procurement process, it shifts focus from punishment to collaboration, potentially shortening development timelines by removing fear of harsh repercussions. However, it might lead to laxity if not monitored, though overall it boosts industry confidence and supports defence readiness by speeding up the introduction of advanced systems.

 

Minimal liquidated damages of 0.1% will be levied post-development of the prototype: This lenient post-prototype penalty (far below typical rates) incentivises vendors to prioritise quality over rushed delivery, while still maintaining some accountability. It makes contracts more attractive to industry players, especially smaller firms, by minimising financial exposure during scaling-up phases. Repercussions include enhanced innovation through reduced risk, but it could slightly prolong timelines if vendors exploit the leniency. For defence readiness, it ensures reliable prototypes transition smoothly to production, contributing to better-equipped forces without excessive delays.

 

Maximum liquidated damages to be levied have been lowered to 5% & in case of inordinate delays, a maximum penalty of 10% will be levied: Capping penalties at 5% (with 10% only for extreme cases) protects vendors from crippling financial losses, making defence contracts more viable and encouraging broader industry involvement. This could lower overall bid prices as risks decrease, benefiting procurement efficiency. Implications for innovation are positive, as firms can invest more in R&D without fearing disproportionate penalties. However, it might weaken deterrence against delays, potentially affecting timelines if not paired with strong oversight. On defence readiness, it ensures continuity in supply chains, prioritising long-term partnerships over short-term punitive measures.

 

In summary, these changes collectively aim to streamline procurement, reduce delays, and promote self-reliance, with broad positive repercussions for private industry growth and military efficiency. They could transform India’s defence ecosystem by attracting more domestic players, though careful implementation will be key to balancing leniency with accountability.

 

Historical Evolution of the DPM

The Indian government’s defence procurement policies have evolved significantly since the introduction of the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP-2002), driven by the need to streamline military hardware acquisition and enhance self-reliance. This evolution, spurred by post-Kargil War recommendations, reflects a shift toward indigenous design, development, and manufacturing, aligning with initiatives such as ‘Make in India’ and ‘Aatmanirbhar Bharat’. The policies have progressed from DPP-2002 to the Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP-2020) and the Defence Procurement Manual (DPM-2025), with each iteration emphasising transparency, efficiency, and indigenisation.

 

Early History and DPP-2002. Following the Kargil War, the Group of Ministers recommended a structured procurement process, leading to the DPP-2002. This policy aimed to ensure the timely, transparent, and competitive acquisition of equipment for the Armed Forces while fostering self-reliance in defence manufacturing.

Evolution and Revisions. The DPP was revised multiple times (e.g., DPP-2005, DPP-2013) to address practical challenges and emerging needs. A significant milestone was DPP-2016, which replaced DPP-2013 and prioritised indigenous design, development, and manufacturing (IDDM) to reduce dependence on imports.

Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP-2020). In October 2020, DPP-2016 was superseded by DAP-2020, which further emphasised self-reliance. Developed through consultations with foreign and domestic industries, DAP-2020 streamlined procurement processes and reinforced the focus on indigenous manufacturing.

Defence Procurement Manual (DPM). The DPM-2009 was the first comprehensive manual to guide procurement, offering flexibility while aligning with government regulations. Updates, including DPM-2010, followed it. The latest, DPM-2025, approved in September 2025, introduces a dedicated chapter to promote self-reliance through innovation, indigenisation, and collaboration with industries, academia, and public/private sectors. It also provides assured orders to support long-term development.

 

Key Trends in Policy Evolution

Self-Reliance. The ‘Aatmanirbhar Bharat’ initiative has been central, with policies increasingly prioritising domestically produced defence systems.

Indigenisation. Emphasis on IDDM systems has grown, encouraging private sector participation and reducing reliance on imports.

Streamlined Processes. Continuous efforts have been made to simplify procedures, reduce delays, and enhance responsiveness to the Armed Forces’ needs.

This progression from DPP-2002 to DAP-2020 and DPM-2025 reflects India’s commitment to building a robust, self-reliant defence ecosystem through innovation, collaboration, and efficient procurement practices.

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

2001
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

References:-

  1. Ministry of Defence, Government of India. (2025). “Defence Procurement Manual 2025: Official Release.”
  1. The Times of India. (2025). “Defence minister approves new manual to streamline procurement, boost indigenisation.”
  1. Economic Times. (2025). “Defence Procurement Manual 2025: Key reforms to enhance private sector participation.”
  1. India Today. (2025). “New defence procurement rules to reduce delays, support Aatmanirbhar Bharat.”
  1. The Hindu Business Line. (2025). “New Defence Procurement Manual to boost ease of doing business, promote indigenisation.”
  1. Financial Express. (2025). “DPM 2025: Lower penalties, faster procurement to boost defence industry.”
  1. Business Standard. (2025). “Defence Procurement Manual 2025 to cut downtime, enhance readiness.”
  1. LiveMint. (2025). “New defence procurement rules to drive innovation, reduce risks for vendors.”
  1. Sengupta, P. (2021). “Aatmanirbhar Bharat and Defence Procurement: Evolution of Policy Framework.” Journal of Defence Studies, 15(3), 45-62.

Posted on

727: GEOPOLITICAL DYNAMICS AND DEFENCE MODERNISATION: LESSONS OF 2025 CONFLICTS

 

Presented my views at a round table conference at the Best Practices Meet 2025 organised by Data Security Council of India on 21 Aug 25.

 

The year 2025 has been a decisive moment for international security. It has confirmed trends that have been emerging over the last decade. Growing rivalries between several powers, the swift development of hybrid warfare, and defence transformation have been evident in fighting in Ukraine, and Gaza, elsewhere. These scenarios represent a combination of great power competition, scarcity of resources, and technological innovation that compelled countries to adapt rapidly to new realities. This article emphasises salient geopolitical dynamics, lessons of the 2025 wars, and emerging defence modernisation trends. It summarises how nations are reacting to a more precarious world.

 

Geopolitical Dynamics

Changing Power Blocs and Multipolar Rivalries. The world in 2025 is undeniably multipolar. Power is shared among contesting blocs. The US-China competition is most notable, shaping trade tensions, technological divisions, and alliances such as AUKUS (Australia, UK, US) and the Quad (US, India, Japan, Australia). AUKUS has broadened its scope from naval security to include technology cooperation. The Quad, on the other hand, has enhanced strategic collaboration in the Indo-Pacific. China’s aggressive moves, especially control of key supply chains, have increased tensions. This has compelled the US to deepen alliances with India, Japan, and South Korea. At the same time, Russia and Iran are testing Western strength. Russia’s moves in Ukraine and Iran’s proxy interventions in the Middle East are destabilising Europe and the wider world. Therefore, protectionism is on the rise, global markets are disintegrating, and supply chain breakdowns are common, particularly in semiconductors, rare earth elements, and strategic minerals. These strains have amplified geopolitical risk premiums, causing energy and commodity market volatilities and creating regional polarisations.

Resource Competition as Flashpoints. Scarcity of resources is a major source of geopolitical strain in 2025. China’s dominant hold on rare earth processing—more than 80% of the world supply—gives strategic vulnerabilities to Western countries that depend upon those commodities for electronics, green technology, and defence systems. The competition for energy has gained strength, particularly with Russia employing the use of gas supply as a bargaining chip and the volatile oil prices in the Middle East. Climate change is aggravating water scarcity, emerging as a palpable flashpoint, especially in Africa and the Middle East. Conflicts between Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and Middle Eastern water shortages fuel political tensions. These are putting pressure on migration channels and over-stretching international aid systems. These are influencing resource flashpoints to emphasise the need for diversified supply chains and robust infrastructure to reduce geopolitical risks.

Hybrid Warfare and Non-State Actors. The wars of 2025 illustrate that hybrid warfare, which involves conventional military operations along with cyberattacks, propaganda, and the utilisation of drones, has become the primary nature of conflict. In Ukraine, Gaza, as well as the India-Pakistan standoff in April 2025, the methods have created a fusion of state and non-state actors. Non-state actors, such as private military companies and terrorist groups, are acquiring sophisticated technologies, frequently with the intermediation of major-power proxies. In the Red Sea, Houthis, with Iranian backing, have interrupted global supply chains. In the Sahel, uprisings in Mali and Niger are taking advantage of shortages of resources related to climate change and foreign assistance to challenge state control. These hybrid threats need adaptable defence approaches that can integrate cyber capabilities, physical means, and information tactics.

Regionalisation of Conflicts and Proxy Involvement. Local conflicts are spilling over into larger conflicts with support from influential nations. The April 2025 India-Pakistan tensions in Kashmir entailed quick mobilisation, artillery engagements, drone strikes, and cyber activities, fueled by external intelligence and arms supply, raising the nuclear spectre. In the Sahel, both the insurgencies in Niger and Mali, which are driven by climate challenges and poor governance, have attracted Russian and Western intervention, making stabilisation a complex challenge. The conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza involving Iranian and Yemeni surrogates has precipitated humanitarian disasters and undermined important trade lanes such as the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb Strait, showing the global resonance of regional wars.

Erosion of Multilateralism. Multilateral bodies such as the United Nations are finding it hard to operate under the current geopolitical tensions. The Security Council dynamics have disallowed rapid reactions in the Gaza and Ukraine crises, demonstrating the shortcomings of consensus-driven governance. When older methods lose potency, smaller configurations like AUKUS, the Quad, and the India-France-UAE trilateral are starting to prove themselves as workable options. Yet, these selective alignments further disintegrate global governance, and it becomes difficult to address interconnected challenges like climate change, conflicts, and economic instability.

Economic Warfare and Sanctions. Economic instruments like sanctions, currency intervention, export controls, and supply chain dislocation have become a staple in geopolitical competition. The Russia-Ukraine conflict revealed Europe’s energy vulnerabilities, with gas supply cutbacks fueling inflation. Middle East conflicts, particularly in Gaza, have resulted in oil price spikes and increases in global inflation. The weaponisation of currency, including China’s and Russia’s departures from the dollar, further polarises the world economy. These trends highlight the importance of multiple economic partners and robust supply chains to mitigate the effects of economic warfare.

 

Learnings from 2025 Conflicts

Speed of Escalation and Hybrid Threats. Conflicts in 2025 build rapidly from grey-zone operations—like cyber attacks and disinformation—to physical military responses, in some cases within days. The conflict in Ukraine and the India-Pakistan crisis demonstrate how hybrid threats involving drones, cyber operations, and disinformation raise the stakes, particularly in regions with nuclear powers. Non-state actors add to the complexity of accountability and response, making integrated defence planning critical to manage multi-domain threats.

Civil-Military Tech Convergence. The swift transition of commercial technologies to military applications has altered the face of war. Ukraine’s exploitation of low-cost, commercially procured drones against Russian forces underscores the need for adaptability as opposed to quantities. Likewise, drone strikes between India and Pakistan in 2025 underscore the need for hypersonic technology, AI-enabled targeting, and premium cybersecurity in multi-domain warfare. Such developments necessitate defence architectures prioritising smooth collaboration between civilian and military realms and fast-paced innovation.

Information Domain as a Decisive Battlefield. Shaping narratives and combating disinformation is important for winning strategically. Ukraine’s success in moulding world opinion using social media and open-source intel is a blueprint for successful information operations. In Gaza, the application of sophisticated technologies has minimised casualties among civilians and preserved the support of allies, exemplifying the necessity of an interdisciplinary strategy of information and combat operations to shape legitimacy and diplomatic results.

Logistics Under Fire. Global conflicts have exposed vulnerabilities in supply chains, with specific attacks on fuel depots, rail infrastructures, and electronic inventory breaking operations. Ukraine’s distributed logistics model, depending on diverse supply routes, has served its military operations against sanctions and blockades. This indicates the necessity of resilient, distributed logistics systems for maintaining operational continuity under adverse conditions.

Electronic Warfare and Counter-Drone Operations. Electronic warfare and counter-drone technologies have become a must. In Ukraine, jamming and signal interference tactics have nullified Russian drone activities. Urban combat in Gaza highlights the need for dependable communication in urban centers. Nations must invest in convergent electronic warfare, counter-drone, and cybersecurity competencies to counter emerging threats in sophisticated electronic environments.

Humanitarian and Ethical Considerations. Minimising mistakes among non-combatants is essential. The Gaza and Ukrainian conflicts underscore the importance of precision technologies and moral principles. Allowing force size variations, modernisation, and preparedness demands adaptive forces that can reform toward humanitarian and operational demands quickly. Morality in war is more closely associated with success in strategy since killing civilians might erode legitimacy and result in global sanctions.

Preparing for Peer-to-Peer Conflicts. Analysis based on US-China wargaming and India-Pakistan interactions emphasises the need for enhanced air and missile defences against hypersonic and mass drone threats. US Government Accountability Office reports indicate optimal practices for overcoming these challenges, including AI-based detection and modular defence systems. India’s swift introduction of Akash-NG and S-400 systems indicates a priority for countering peer country threats.

 

Defence Modernisation Trends

Acceleration of AI-Driven Command & Control.  The inculcation of AI in command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems is advancing rapidly. Real-time targeting, predictive analytics, and cross-domain integration are enriching decision-making in high-intensity conflicts. India’s AI roadmap for 2025-27 prioritises surveillance, cyber defence, and autonomous systems, in line with AI-driven warfare global trends.

Unmanned Systems Proliferation. The expansion and diversity of unmanned systems—drones, unmanned underwater vehicles, and loitering munitions—are developing at a fast pace. Ukraine’s utilisation of cheap drones against more powerful forces proves the utility of swarm tactics and artificial intelligence technology. Countries are emphasising mass production, redundancy, and flexibility in distributed operations to engage numerically superior adversaries.

Resilient Communications and Quantum-Encrypted Networks. Secure jam-resistant communication networks are vital with increasing electronic warfare threats. Quantum encryption holds out a potential answer to counter cyber intrusions. India’s focus on indigenous cybersecurity development is in sync with international pushes towards robust command-and-control networks and maintaining operational continuity in the midst of war.

Integrated Air & Missile Defence Enhancements. Developments in defending against hypersonic missiles and swarms of drones are essential. AI-based radar platforms, modular interceptors, and networked sensors enable faster reaction times. India, combining Akash-NG with Russian S-400 systems, along with practices that the Government Accountability Office has proposed, demonstrates a layered defence against a range of airborne threats.

Distributed and Modular Force Structures. Greater, fixed sizes of units are being supplanted by smaller, networked ones, which can be rapidly redeployed. Modular force structures allow flexible organisation of tasks, and theatre commands facilitate joint operations. India’s initiative of local defence manufacturing and theatre-level integration is in tune with a worldwide trend towards technology-enabled, agile military forces.

Rapid Production & Fielding Through Modular Manufacturing. Accelerating research and development to deployment is imperative in the quest for staying competitive. Industry 5.0 converges AI, advanced robots, and human-machine interaction to enable modular manufacturing. India’s Production-Linked Incentive programs seek scalable manufacturing of drones and AI systems, tracking global initiatives toward quick, flexible manufacturing.

 

Conclusion

The 2025 geopolitical trends, fueled by rivalry between several powers, resource depletion, and hybrid warfare, have transformed global security. Ukraine, Gaza, and Kashmir conflicts display the velocity of escalation, the role of information control, and the requirement of robust logistics and communications. Defence modernisation is progressing at a fast pace, with systems that embrace AI, unmanned systems, and modular forces taking the forefront. States have to focus on agility, convergence of technologies, and morality to combat the complexity of contemporary threats. With the global system continuing to break apart, the 2025 lessons reinforce the importance of flexible, robust, and creative defence approaches towards guaranteed security in a world that is uncertain.

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

 

2001
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

 

References:-

  1. Al-Jabari, M., & Khalidi, R. (2025). Proxy Warfare in the Middle East: Iran, Yemen, and the Red Sea Crisis. Middle East Policy Council.
  2. Apps, P. (2025, June 27). From India-Pakistan to Iran and Ukraine, a new era of escalation. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com
  3. Binnendijk, H., & Gompert, D. C. (2024). The Future of Warfare: Hybrid Threats and the New Geopolitical Reality. RAND Corporation.
  4. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). (2025). The Future of Hybrid Warfare.
  5. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). (2025). Unmanned Systems and Swarm Tactics: Lessons from Ukraine and Beyond.
  6. European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS). (2025). Resource Competition and Geopolitical Flashpoints: Energy, Water, and Rare Earths.
  7. EY Global. (2024, December). Top 10 Geopolitical Risks in 2025: Geostrategic Outlook.
  8. Indian Ministry of Defence. (2025). Defence Modernisation Roadmap 2025-27: AI, Drones, and Theatre Commands. Government of India.
  9. IJCRT. (2025). Comparing Hybrid Warfare Strategies Inside The Ukraine Conflict.
  10. Kapur, S. P., & Ganguly, S. (2025). India-Pakistan Tensions in 2025: Escalation and Nuclear Risks. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
  11. NATO Defence College. (2025). Hybrid Warfare and the Information Domain: Lessons from Ukraine. NDC Research Paper.
  12. Operation Sindoor demonstrates India’s indigenous defence technological strength. (2025). The Times of India.
  13. S&P Global. (2025, February). Top Geopolitical Risks of 2025. S&P Global Market Insights.
  14. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). (2025). SIPRI Yearbook 2025: Armaments, Disarmament, and International Security. Oxford University Press.
  15. UNIDIR. (2025, July). Artificial Intelligence in the Military Domain and Its Implications.
  16. Wellington Management. (2025, February). Geopolitics in 2025: Risks, Opportunities, and Deepening Uncertainties.
  17. India’s new warfare: Drones, data, and the defence race that can’t wait. (2025, June). Economic Times.
  18. Narratives Under Fire: Information Warfare Lessons from… (2025, July 31). Small Wars Journal.

Posted on

717: EVOLUTION OF INDIA’S DEFENCE PREPAREDNESS AND THE PATH TO TRUE SELF-RELIANCE

 

Presented my Paper at the Economic Times-sponsored “Aerospace and Defence Manufacturing Summit 2025”

on 06 Aug 25.

 

India’s defence preparedness has undergone a transformative journey, evolving from a reliance on imports to a robust push for indigenous development under the Aatmanirbhar Bharat initiative. This transformation, driven by strategic vision and policy reforms, has been exemplified by platforms like the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). However, achieving genuine self-reliance requires not just assembling equipment but building deep capabilities in design, systems integration, and advanced materials. This article explores India’s defence evolution, the role of indigenous platforms, and the critical building blocks, industrial strategies, collaborative ecosystems, technological leadership, and talent development needed to ensure sustained preparedness and global competitiveness.

 

Evolution of India’s Defence Preparedness

Post-Independence to 1990s: Heavy Import Reliance. In the decades following independence, India’s defence capabilities were heavily dependent on foreign suppliers, primarily the Soviet Union/Russia. Aircraft like the MiG-21, tanks such as the T-72, and submarines sourced from these partners ensured operational readiness. However, this reliance exposed vulnerabilities, including inconsistent supply chains for spares, limited technological autonomy, and exposure to geopolitical pressures. The lack of indigenous capabilities meant that India was often at the mercy of external suppliers, which impacted its long-term strategic flexibility.

 1990s to Early 2010s: Shift to Indigenous Development. The 1990s marked a pivotal shift toward self-reliance, with investments in research and development through organisations like the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), and Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL). Key programs, including the LCA Tejas, Arjun Main Battle Tank (MBT), Akash missile system, and INSAS rifle, were initiated to reduce import dependency. While these programs faced significant challenges—such as delays, cost overruns, and technological hurdles—they laid the foundation for indigenous defence manufacturing. The Tejas program, conceptualised in the 1980s, began to take shape as a symbol of India’s ambitions, despite early setbacks in development and production.

2015 Onwards: Strategic Autonomy and Aatmanirbhar Bharat. Since 2015, India’s defence strategy has aligned with the Aatmanirbhar Bharat initiative, emphasising indigenous design, development, and production. Programs like the Tejas Mk1A, Arjun Mk1A, Dhanush/ATAGS artillery, and Ballistic Missile Defence system reflect a maturing ecosystem. The government has actively promoted private sector and MSME participation, reducing import dependency from approximately 70% in the early 2000s to around 50% today. Policies such as Defence Corridors, the Strategic Partnership Model, and Positive Indigenisation Lists have incentivised local manufacturing. Additionally, the integration of emerging technologies—unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), artificial intelligence (AI), cyber defence, and space assets—has modernised India’s strategic doctrine to address both conventional and non-traditional threats.

Current Focus. India’s defence strategy now centers on creating an ecosystem for self-reliance, technological leadership, and rapid innovation. The focus is on building capabilities to counter evolving threats, including border tensions, cyber warfare, and space-based challenges. Indigenous platforms, such as the Tejas, coupled with policy reforms, are driving this transformation; however, gaps in production timelines, supply chain robustness, and the adoption of cutting-edge technology remain critical challenges.

 

Tejas and the Rise of Indigenous Platforms

The Tejas LCA, a 4.5-generation fighter, represents a cornerstone of India’s indigenous defence capabilities. Evolving from a 1980s concept to the advanced Tejas Mk1A, it incorporates cutting-edge avionics, the Uttam Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, and modern weaponry. The Indian Air Force’s (IAF) commitment to procure 240 units underscores confidence in the platform. Tejas symbolises advancements in avionics, flight control systems, and composite materials, showcasing India’s growing expertise in aerospace engineering.

Beyond Tejas, other platforms highlight India’s progress:-

    • Arjun Tank. A domestically developed MBT with improved variants like the Arjun Mk1A.
    • Pinaka Rocket System. A multi-barrel rocket launcher enhances artillery capabilities.
    • Dhruv Helicopter. A versatile utility helicopter for diverse operational roles.
    • BrahMos and Akash Missiles. Precision strike and air defence systems with global recognition.
    • INS Vikrant. India’s first indigenous aircraft carrier is demonstrating naval engineering prowess.

The “Make in India” and Aatmanirbhar Bharat initiatives have bolstered these achievements by fostering local supply chains, private sector involvement, and export potential. However, challenges such as delayed production, supply chain vulnerabilities, and gaps in advanced systems integration persist, necessitating accelerated efforts to meet global standards.

 

Building Blocks for Deep Self-Reliance

Genuine self-reliance in defence requires more than assembling equipment; it demands mastery over design, systems integration, and advanced materials. The following building blocks are critical:-

    • R&D Investment. Increased funding for DRDO, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), and private-sector R&D is essential for developing technologies like stealth, AI, and hypersonics. Public-private partnerships can bridge the gap between laboratory research and battlefield deployment.
    • Advanced Materials Expertise. India must develop domestic capabilities in composites, titanium alloys, rare earths, and electronics. Investments in material science research and industrial-scale production facilities are crucial for reducing import reliance.
    • Systems Integration. Expertise in integrating complex systems—such as sensors, weapons, and communication networks—is vital. Collaboration between Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs), private firms, and global Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) can facilitate knowledge transfer.
    • IP and Design Ownership. Developing internationally recognised Indian technologies ensures design autonomy and reduces dependence on foreign intellectual property rights.
    • Robust Testing Infrastructure. Establishing state-of-the-art facilities for rapid validation of platforms will accelerate deployment and ensure reliability.
    • Innovation Ecosystem. Fostering startups and public-private partnerships in AI, avionics, and propulsion systems will drive innovation and competitiveness.
    • Skilled Workforce. Specialised training programs through academia-industry partnerships are essential to build a talent pool proficient in advanced defence technologies.
    • Policy and Vision. A long-term vision, consistent policy support, incentives, and export-oriented production are critical to sustaining self-reliance.

 

Scaling The Industry for Sustained Preparedness

Achieving scale in defence production involves more than numbers—it requires consistent supply chains, high-quality spares, and system-level readiness. Indian industry must take the following steps:

    • Robust Supply Chains. Develop tiered supplier networks with MSMEs to ensure component availability and redundancy. Localisation efforts can reduce import dependence.
    • Quality Assurance. Implement global-standard quality control systems, such as AS9100 certification, and establish robust audit mechanisms to ensure consistency and reliability.
    • Scalable Production. Invest in modular manufacturing facilities and automation to enable flexible scaling and production. Expanding production lines, such as HAL’s Tejas facility, is crucial to meeting volume demands.
    • Digital Integration. Adopt Industry 4.0 technologies, such as IoT, AI, and digital twins, for real-time supply chain management and predictive maintenance.
    • Public-Private Synergy. Encourage private players, such as Tata, L&T, and Mahindra, to co-invest with DPSUs in production infrastructure. Partnerships with the armed forces can align production with demand.
    • Strategic Partnerships. Form joint ventures with global leaders to facilitate technology transfer and process excellence, thereby enhancing production capabilities.
    • Government Support. Faster clearances, tax incentives, and long-term contracts are essential to sustain momentum. Clear targets for indigenous procurement under Make-in-India initiatives will drive accountability.

 

Collaborative Ecosystem for Innovation

Unlocking the innovation potential of India’s defence manufacturing sector requires a cohesive ecosystem involving DPSUs, private manufacturers, MSMEs, and startups. Key elements include:-

    • Collaborative Framework. Platforms like the Innovations for Defence Excellence (iDEX) should be scaled to enable co-development and co-ownership of intellectual property.
    • Clear Role Demarcation. DPSUs should focus on strategic systems, private players on innovation, and MSMEs on specialised components to optimise contributions.
    • Innovation Hubs. Defence innovation clusters near industrial and academic centers (e.g., Bengaluru, Hyderabad) can drive R&D, prototyping, and testing.
    • Technology Transfer. Joint ventures with global OEMs can facilitate knowledge transfer while ensuring Indian firms retain critical expertise.
    • Policy Support. Simplified procurement processes, timely payments to MSMEs, and tax incentives for R&D will encourage participation. Defence corridors can streamline production.
    • Knowledge and Data Sharing. Secure platforms for sharing design and production data will enhance integration and collaboration, ultimately improving the overall workflow. Regular workshops and technology meets can foster collaboration.
    • Shared Infrastructure. Access to shared testing, certification, and validation facilities will reduce duplication and expedite time-to-market.
    • Open Innovation. Funding and mentoring startups and academia through open innovation challenges will drive breakthroughs.
    • Trust and Transparency. Transparent procurement policies and predictable orders will encourage private sector investment and risk-taking.

 

Leading in Cutting-Edge Technologies

 To remain future-ready, India must transition from adopting technologies to leading their development. This is particularly critical in aerospace and defence, where disruptive technologies such as AI, unmanned systems, hypersonics, quantum computing, and directed-energy weapons are reshaping warfare. Key strategies include:-

    • Leadership in Disruptive Technologies. Prioritise R&D in next-generation technologies and integrate them into programs like the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).
    • Indigenous Capability Development. Develop standards and patents in semiconductors, encrypted communications, and radar for technological sovereignty.
    • Global Partnerships. Collaborate with allies like the US, Israel, and France for co-development while retaining IP rights.
    • Agile Procurement and Doctrine. Reform procurement to rapidly adopt emerging technologies, drawing inspiration from global models like DARPA. Adaptable doctrines will align with technological advancements.
    • Future-Proof Infrastructure. Develop testing and simulation facilities for emerging domains, such as space and cyber warfare.
    • Support for Deep-Tech Startups. Promote dual-use and export-oriented technologies through funding and mentorship.
    • Talent Retention. Attract and retain talent with competitive incentives and global exposure.
    • Continuous Feedback Loop. Close collaboration between defence forces and industry will ensure technological responses align with operational needs.
    • Strategic Foresight. Proactive investment and policy agility will position India as a technology leader by 2035.

 

Building a Robust Talent Pipeline

 A strong defence system requires skilled professionals—from aerospace engineers to machinists and systems designers. Building a robust talent pipeline involves:-

    • Curriculum Alignment. Universities, such as IITs and NITs, should offer specialised programs in aerospace, materials science, and emerging technologies, aligned with industry needs through partnerships with DRDO, HAL, and private firms.
    • Practical Training. Industry-led internships, apprenticeships, and on-the-job training in MSMEs and startups will bridge the gap between theory and practice, providing a valuable connection between academic knowledge and real-world applications.
    • Centres of Excellence. Academia-industry-government collaboration can establish defence-focused research and skills development centres to drive innovation and talent development.
    • Dedicated Skilling Institutes. Training centers under ITIs and the National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) should focus on advanced manufacturing, CNC machining, 3D printing, and avionics.
    • Faculty and Trainer Upskilling. Regular programs will ensure educators stay updated with industry advancements.
    • Industry-Led Initiatives. Private firms and DPSUs should fund university research chairs and provide hands-on training to foster practical expertise.
    • Government Support. Scholarships, STEM programs, and grants will incentivise collaboration. A national mission to train 100,000 defence professionals by 2030 can drive scale.
    • Global Exposure. Exchange programs with leading international defence institutes will upskill talent.
    • Reskilling Workforce. Programs in advanced manufacturing, AI, and cybersecurity will keep the existing workforce relevant and up-to-date.
    • Tripartite Collaboration. A coordinated framework of academia, industry, and government will ensure a steady supply of world-class talent.

 

Conclusion

India’s defence preparedness has evolved significantly, from dependence on imports to a robust push for self-reliance, exemplified by platforms like the Tejas. Achieving genuine self-reliance requires deep capabilities in design, systems integration, and advanced materials, supported by scalable production, collaborative ecosystems, and technological leadership. A robust talent pipeline, driven by synergy among academia, industry, and government, is critical to sustaining this momentum. By addressing challenges in production timelines, supply chain robustness, and technology adoption, India can not only meet its defence needs but also emerge as a global leader in defence innovation by 2035.

 

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

2001
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

References:-

 

  1. Bitzinger, R. A. (2020). India’s Defence Industrial Base: Opportunities and Challenges. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
  1. DRDO. (2023). Annual Report 2022-23. Defence Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence, Government of India.
  1. Government of India. (2020). Aatmanirbhar Bharat: Self-Reliant India Mission. Ministry of Defence, Government of India.
  1. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. (2024). Tejas Light Combat Aircraft: Technical Specifications and Development Timeline. HAL Official Website.
  1. Ministry of Defence. (2022). Defence Production and Export Promotion Policy (DPEPP) 2020. Government of India.
  1. Mishra, A. (2021). India’s Defence Manufacturing: The Road to Self-Reliance. Observer Research Foundation.
  1. Pant, H. V., & Bommakanti, K. (2022). India’s National Security: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities. Routledge India.
  1. Press Information Bureau. (2023). Aatmanirbhar Bharat in Defence: Achievements and Roadmap. Ministry of Defence, Government of India.
  1. Singh, A. (2019). India’s Defence Modernisation: Challenges and Prospects. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.
  1. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). (2024). Trends in Global Arms Transfers, 2023. SIPRI Database.
English हिंदी