The rapidly evolving nature of warfare necessitates an equally responsive acquisition procedure. The frequent reliance on Emergency Procurements (EPs) highlights gaps that ideally should not arise if the existing system were sufficiently robust to maintain operational readiness. While EPs serve an immediate need, their ad hoc nature limits their contribution to long-term capability building. In contrast, the Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) is designed not only to ensure sustained preparedness but also to promote the development of indigenous defence infrastructure.
Col Ashwani Sharma, Founder T4
Despite several revisions since its first iteration (DPP 2002), India’s defence procurement process has consistently drawn criticism for being slow, rigid, and ill-suited to meet the dynamic demands of modern warfare. While the country aspires to build a self-reliant and technologically advanced military and the current procedure (DAP 2020) in vogue reflects that urgency, the acquisition system remains entangled in bureaucracy, outdated methods, and an overemphasis on compliance over capability. To ensure that the Indian Armed Forces are equipped to respond to both conventional and emerging threats, it is imperative to reimagine the defence procurement process as agile, responsive, and innovation-friendly.
At the heart of India’s DPPs/DAP lies a procurement structure that has traditionally been risk-averse and excessively procedural. The Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP), now known as the Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) since 2020, has undergone multiple iterations since its inception, each intended to streamline and improve the process. However, despite these changes, the time taken to translate a requirement from conception to induction remains unacceptably long at times leading to irrelevance of the product acquired. Complex trials and evaluation procedures, multiple layers of approval, and rigid adherence to formal guidelines (including QRs) often delay acquisitions, forcing the defence services to either compromise operational readiness or rely on emergency purchases, a recent phenomenon since Galwan. MRCA, VSHORADS, FICV project are examples where the process failed after a number of years, millions of dollars and unending efforts….the list is long.
This slow pace is in direct contrast to the evolving character of warfare. In today’s era of hybrid warfare, cyber threats, unmanned systems, and rapid technological advances, procurement must be quick, flexible, and open to innovation. Countries like the United States and Israel have embraced models that favour agility with dedicated units like the Defence Innovation Unit (DIU) or mechanisms that allow for rapid fielding of new technologies. India, too, must consider similar structural innovations to enable timely acquisitions without sacrificing transparency or accountability.
One of the tenets of reform should be a shift in focus from procedural correctness to operational effectiveness. Rather than treating procurement as an administrative process, it should be seen as a operations enabler. This implies more autonomy to service headquarters, faster decision-making through empowered committees, and enhanced accountability based on performance rather than mere adherence to process. There is also a need to trust the services’ judgement more allowing them to define what they need based on operational experience rather than being forced to retrofit needs into pre-approved templates.
Feature Requirement Vs Qualitative Requirement. In this context, the traditional approach of defining a detailed Qualitative Requirement (QR) for each acquisition deserves reconsideration. QRs, while useful in ensuring clarity and uniformity, often become straitjackets. They are typically formulated with such specificity that they inadvertently exclude newer, potentially superior technologies that do not tick every box. QRs can also get outdated as by the time a QR is finalised and a product procured, the technology landscape may already have shifted, rendering the acquisition partially obsolete.
Instead, the defence services and the MoD should explore the concept of feature requirements. Unlike rigid QRs, feature-based specifications will emphasise desired outcomes or capabilities without prescribing exact technical solutions. This approach encourages innovation, broadens the field of contenders, and allows vendors to propose creative solutions that may exceed the original expectations. Feature requirements are particularly valuable when dealing with emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, or drone swarms, where the pace of advancement outstrips conventional procurement cycles.
Adopting a feature-based model also opens the door to greater participation by Indian start-ups and MSMEs, who may have viable solutions but struggle to navigate the QR-based system. This aligns well with the Atmanirbhar Bharat initiative, which seeks to bolster indigenous defence production and reduce dependency on foreign vendors. By creating room for innovation and iterative development, the Ministry of Defence can foster a more vibrant domestic defence ecosystem.
Field Trials and Evaluation. Another area ripe for reform is the structure of trials and evaluations. Currently, this process is time-consuming and risk-averse, often biased towards legacy systems or known entities. A more layered approach that includes technology demonstrators, pilot projects, and modular induction can shorten timelines while allowing room for adaptation. For instance, a limited-scale induction followed by operational feedback can help refine future requirements and scale up procurement more confidently.
Digital Tools. Finally, greater use of digital tools and data analytics can bring much-needed transparency and efficiency to the procurement process. Digital dashboards, AI-based risk assessments, and automated project tracking can reduce human error and improve accountability, while also providing policymakers with real-time insights into procurement progress.
To conclude – India’s defence procurement system must evolve to reflect the speed and complexity of modern warfare. An adaptive, agile approach that prioritises capability over compliance, embraces feature-based specifications, and nurtures innovation will not only enhance military readiness but also contribute to national strategic autonomy. Reform, in this domain, is not just desirable, it is imperative.
Login
We need to change with times. The technology is changing fast and Indian Defence procurement is still persisting with old procurement system. The author has brought out very relevant issues.
Thank you Gen Jagga. The DAP is currently under revision. Hopefully we will see positive and practical changes.
We are prisoners to procedures, prisoners to finance, and the user is left to fight to provide for the soldier on ground. Flexibility is the key with the user to define the requirement as well as the timelines.
Col Kuber, Modern Warfare will force us out of this attitude, hopefully
It is so heartening to read such an important issues being discussed and brought out by the editor. The sensitivity and the significance of back stage preparedness before going for any expedition/ action needs to taken very seriously without anymore delay.
In addition to all the gray areas brought out by the editor, I would like to add the need to monitor projects under Atmanirbhar Bharat and TOT deals for both for quality and timely commission. Even after having flexibility wherein companies are using majority of foreign parts, equipments and components, yet failing to deliver as per GSQR and the stipulated timelines which may prove detrimental in case country is forced to go on war.
Thank you, Chinmay, for your comments and suggestions. I am sure things will improve.
Very interesting.
New Def Acquisition procedure needs to be evolved for
1) Triggering and sustaining long term R & D investment by Industry
2) To procure new tech products in ‘weeks’ not months( nor years). Albeit in limited small quantities( MoQs)
3) Adopt the ‘Mark 1’ concept. To begin using a ‘ just workable’ product. This will allow the industry to continue, improve to Mark 2, and so on.
4) Many countries that we have sold to have adopted a T1 concept. They select the best. Then ask for a commercial. And negotiate. No L1, no T1-L1, etc.
Ofcourse, there is no issue of ‘single Vendor’
5. Explorative Technology Product’* To explore fast emerging even fleeting technologies, to encourage industry to invest in R & D, and to inspire bigger industry to adopt start-ups or fund them, there is scope of a category called ‘ Explorative Technology Product’ which is NOT GSQR based, but instead on ” Agile SQR “. Even PSQR is so right that it defeats the very purpose of the concept of PSQR.
6. To address the issue of Single Vendor, one more avenue may be – Split quantities into 70-30, for L1 and L2. If it is a single vendor, then reserve the 30% and contract only 70%. Next, issue another tender for the 30%.
But, at least the procurement scheme will not be foreclosed due to a single vendor.
7. Price Discovery in SV or RSV case. 1) If within AoN cost, then Cost negotiation should not be long-drawn. It must conclude within 3 months or 5 meetings, whichever is earlier. 2) if the offer price is more than 10% of AoN, only then, the cost negotiation should occur. Instead of an endless, long-drawn negotiation spanning 11 months, there should be a provision to reduce the quantity if CFA is unsatisfied with the cost offer despite 5 meetings.
Brig Amul Asthana, veteran