Posted by admin
Col Ashwani Sharma (retd)
A few days ago, the Chief of Defence Staff made an unusually direct and important appeal to India’s defence industry. He urged Indian companies to be more patriotic, more innovative, and more conscious that they are performing a national duty, not merely chasing quarterly profits. His words carry significance not just because of who he is, but because of the moment India finds itself in, which is a moment where the country is attempting more seriously than ever before to build an indigenous defence industrial base.
For over a decade now, the Government has maintained a consistent policy push towards indigenising military technologies and platforms. From strategic systems to armoured vehicles, from small arms to C4ISR architecture, the aim is to strengthen national military capability, reduce external dependencies and build a resilient industrial–military ecosystem. But indigenisation cannot just remain a slogan. It is a complex transformation that requires alignment between political leadership, the armed forces, industry, academia and the R&D establishment.
And this is precisely where the CDS’s message hits home.
Why Indian Industry Follows instead of Leading. One of the more uncomfortable truths about India’s defence ecosystem is that our industry tends to produce “more of the same.” Instead of pioneering original concepts or breakthrough technologies, the dominant pattern has been to chase technologies already developed by more advanced militaries which implies systems designed abroad, refined abroad, and often outdated by the time they are replicated here. If the trend continues, this will ensure one thing – that India will always be catching up, never leading.
When the technology curve moves rapidly, AI-enabled warfare, directed energy systems, autonomous swarms, space-based ISR etc will imply that any lag of even five years becomes a full generational handicap. If Indian industry confines itself to incremental improvements or derivative designs, the armed forces will remain permanently behind the curve, forced to borrow concepts rather than define them.
Yet the irony is that today’s technological revolution offers India a chance to skip an entire generation- to leapfrog rather than follow. Autonomous systems, drones, robotics, advanced materials, AI-driven command systems… these fields are new enough that no country has fully mastered them. It is, therefore, an opportunity that India has to shape the battlefield of the future rather than adapt to it after others do.
The Army Chief’s Vision for Modernisation
Incidentally, last week, while delivering the Cavalry Memorial Address during the Mechanised Forces Symposium, General Upendra Dwivedi, the Chief of the Army Staff, laid out an ambitious and futuristic modernisation plan. His vision emphasised next-generation armoured platforms, seamless manned–unmanned teaming, stronger battlefield networks, and indigenous solutions tailored to the Indian operational environment.
For such a plan to fructify, the R&D ecosystem and the domestic defence industry will have to measure up to the scale and ambition of the Army’s expectations. The Chief’s address reinforced the same message as the CDS- India cannot depend on incrementalism any longer. The Services are ready to move forward; the real question is whether industry is ready to move with them.
The Misunderstood ‘User’. A popular narrative in industry circles is that the armed forces “do not know what they want,” or that their requirements are too detailed, too shifting, or too ambitious. But this criticism oversimplifies reality. The truth is this – the military tailors its requirements to what industry can actually deliver.
If the industry’s technological ceiling is low, the Services naturally adjust expectations downward. This gets accentuated by the need to have at least more than one vendor/OEM in the race. When requirements become aspirational, the military is quickly accused of “asking for the moon.”
In contrast, advanced militaries benefit enormously from industries that push them forward.
In the United States, companies such as Palantir, Lockheed Martin, Anduril and SpaceX etc present the military with technologies that redefine what is possible. The military does not always invent the future, it often responds to what industry has created.
This is the missing piece in India’s ecosystem.
The armed forces cannot demand technologies that industry has no intention of developing. Meanwhile, industry waits for the Services to specify every technical detail, creating a loop that produces replication instead of innovation. The result thus is predictable- an acquisition system stuck in the cycle of catching up rather than leading.
An Opportunity India Must Not Miss. India’s geopolitical environment demands that the country moves faster and more boldly. A two (and half) front threat, contested borders, rapid Chinese military modernisation, and the global shift toward multi-domain warfare all require a defence industrial base that is nimble, ambitious, and future-oriented. The ongoing revolution in warfare which includes drones, AI, precision fires, robotics, sensor fusion, loitering munitions is disruptive, not incremental.
But seizing that advantage requires a change in mindset. Industry must stop waiting for the Services to define the future, and start helping create it. This is what the CDS meant when he spoke of patriotism—not sentimentality, but a deeper responsibility to the nation’s security and technological sovereignty.
Civil-Military-Industry Partnership. If India wants to break out of its perpetual chase for last-generation technology, the following are essential:-
The goal should be an ecosystem wherein (i) the military is not just a buyer, (ii) industry is not just a supplier, and (iii) R&D is not just an academic exercise. All the three must become co-creators of India’s military technological future.
Conclusion. India stands at a rare inflection point. The global technological landscape is shifting so rapidly that even established military powers are struggling to keep pace. This disruption gives India a chance to innovate rather than imitate, lead rather than follow. For that to happen, the Indian defence industry must embrace the spirit behind the CDS’s words, not as criticism, but as a challenge. A challenge to think boldly, take risks, and recognise that national security is not merely a market – it’s a mission.
If India chooses to get ahead of the curve rather than chase it, this could indeed be the decade in which our defence industry finally comes into its own.
Col Ashwani Sharma (Retd), Editor, ‘South Asia Defence & Strategic Review’ is a founding member of T4 – the Tech Think Tank, which delivered a thought-provoking presentation on Technology and Warfare during the Mechanised Forces Symposium.
Login
Brig Ashis Bhattacharya
Great article.
Deserves a full treatment in your next magazine.
Especially like this one -“The goal should be an ecosystem wherein (i) the military is not just a buyer, (ii) industry is not just a supplier, and (iii) R&D is not just an academic exercise. All three must become co-creators of India’s military technological future.”
Thank you Ashis. That is indeed the crux.
Ak
Dear Ash,
Excellent and very timely article. You have articulated the core challenge well — India cannot remain in “catch-up mode” when the global mil-tech cycle is moving at exponential speed. The call for a mindset shift is absolutely valid.
A few additional reflections to complement your argument:
1. Historical depth matters.
The US, Europe and the former USSR have built defence-industrial ecosystems over more than a century, essentially from WW-I onward, developing technologies sequentially — engines, artillery, armour, energetics, electronics and propulsion. Even today, they depend on global supply chains for critical sub-systems. India is attempting in one generation what others built over several, reinforcing your point that we must be more deliberate, focused and time-bound.
2. Government risk-capital remains limited.
While Make-I offers government funding on paper, most real movement is under NCNC/Make-II, where industry bears the entire development cost. The earlier lack of segmentation pushed multiple companies to pursue every project, resulting in cash burn. Segmentation is now emerging, but meaningful government risk-sharing is still essential.
3. Procurement timelines impose heavy opportunity costs.
ATAGS is a clear example — nearly 12 years from project initiation to bulk CCS approval, while Armenia has already placed two rounds of orders. WhAP has undergone a decade of evaluations without a major Indian Army induction, even as TASL has set up a production line in Morocco. These illustrate that our processes still reward caution more than time-to-field.
4. Budgets must align with capability plans.
India’s defence budget is increasing, but unless multi-year allocations are matched to realistic procurement timelines and priority R&D areas, ambitions in autonomy, sensor fusion, energetics, unmanned systems and advanced artillery will remain underfunded.
5. Start-ups need serious interventions to scale.
India’s start-up energy is genuine, but the ecosystem is still prototype-heavy and production-light. Scale-up capital, testing facilities, certification pathways, assured small-batch orders, and structured milestone-based government funding remain the biggest gaps. Without intervention, many deep-tech start-ups will plateau before they reach production maturity.
6. India’s private sector has demonstrated strong outcomes despite a late start.
This is an important positive that reinforces your message. Some clear examples:
– ATAGS gun system (Kalyani/DRDO) achieving world-class performance parameters.
– L&T delivering K9 Vajra ahead of schedule and becoming a dependable artillery, naval and missile-subsystem integrator.
– Tata Advanced Systems winning global credibility with aerospace assemblies for Boeing, Airbus and Lockheed, and now exporting WhAP to Morocco.
– Adani/PLR producing modern small arms that have found acceptance domestically and internationally.
– Data Patterns, Paras, Tonbo, ideaForge and others emerging as serious players in radars, avionics, EO/IR, and UAVs.
These successes show that, despite starting late and operating under legacy constraints, Indian private industry has proven capability, agility and global competitiveness. With the right policy structures, their contribution could multiply several-fold by 2047.
7. Where India can genuinely leapfrog.
Your theme of “getting ahead” becomes even stronger when linked to specific areas:
autonomous swarming, directed-energy weapons, smart artillery (precision fuzes, ramjet rounds), quantum-secure battlefield comms, unmanned naval systems, and high-performance energetics. These are realistic leapfrog domains.
Overall, a superb and very relevant article — your central thesis is absolutely correct. These additional dimensions only strengthen the case for a bold, time-bound transformation in India’s defence-industrial mindset.
Looking forward to more such insightful articles from your pen.
Well articulated sir. However, staying with the comparison with Armed forces /industry of maj mil powers, which you touch upon, what your article is silent about is the need for govt to invest a large chunk into R & D by pvt industry. In the context of an investment into innovations for the future It would be pertinent to mention that for the D & A segment of industry, govt is the only customer.
Sanjeev, Thanks for your very detailed comments. You have in fact, added to many unanswered questions which are related, but not covered in the article. Procedural and budget-related issues are central to the issues covered by me, and by you too.
Beyond that, I feel that the industry needs to do some heavy lifting as the GoI has made the scale tilt heavily in favour of the domestic industry during the last decade. Bottom lines will always matter, and rightly so, but some of the big ones and some of the start ups ( as in the space domain) must innovate and come up with some stateof the art techs which give India the edge, rather than chase after the West all the time.
Once again, your detailed commets are much appreciated. I hope the GoI reads them too 🙂
Ravi, I have stated that the Govt needs to invest, both in terms of money and HR. Brig Bhattacharya’s comment above is also very relevant and relates to a part of your suggestion.
Excellent article bringing out the real ground situation. Many industries do not have a designated team or fund for innovation. However they are ready to offer solutions in collaboration with foreign partners. A suitable tweaking of the policy is required to accommodate such initiatives. Otherwise, leapfrogging into an innovative solution without the background capabilities is always problem.
Thank you Mr Benjamin. Your suggestion to tweak the policy is imperative.