Context

• India's defence sector is at a crucial crossroads, balancing indigenous production with strategic foreign partnerships.
• The Indian Armed Forces have long relied on Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs), and this dependence has deepened under the Aatmanirbhar Bharat campaign.
• However, the Indian Air Force (IAF) faces a significant challenge in maintaining its operational strength due to the slow production rate of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL).
• Therefore, it is important to critically examine the state of India’s defence procurement, the implications of U.S. strategic partnerships, and the necessity of safeguarding India’s strategic autonomy.

India’s Defence Imports and Indigenous Efforts

• India remains the world’s second-largest arms importer, as reported by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
• While there has been a 9.3% reduction in imports from 2015–2019, high-cost and technologically sophisticated weapon systems continue to be sourced from abroad.
• Despite this, the IAF is investing heavily in indigenous fighter jets like the Tejas Mk1A, Tejas Mk2, and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).
• However, these aircraft rely on American-made engines, making India’s operational capabilities partially dependent on U.S. strategic decisions.
• Given that Russia supplies 36% of India’s arms, questions arise regarding India’s ability to diversify its supply chain while maintaining technological superiority.

U.S.-India Defence Partnership and Comparisons with Other Defence Partnerships

• U.S.-India Defence Partnership
  • India's evolving defence relationship with the U.S. is a double-edged sword.
  • While bilateral agreements such as the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) have promised cutting-edge technology transfer, their long-term impact remains uncertain.
  • The unpredictability of U.S. foreign policy, particularly under transactional administrations, raises concerns about the reliability of such arrangements.
  • The notion of "partnership" in India-U.S. defence ties must be scrutinised. As per Professor Anna Simons' perspective, a true partnership is based on "mutual indispensability."
  • The key question remains: Is India indispensable to U.S. strategic interests?
  • Unlike NATO allies or historical U.S. partners, India’s role in Washington’s geopolitical calculus remains fluid, making dependency a risk rather than an advantage.
• Comparisons with Other Defence Partnerships
  • India’s strategic relationships with Russia, Israel, and France offer alternative models of cooperation.
  • Unlike the U.S., Russia has been a consistent supplier, providing crucial defence equipment, including the Sukhoi Su-30 fighters and S-400 missile systems.
  • Similarly, Israel has contributed significantly to India’s missile defence and surveillance capabilities, while France remains a reliable partner through deals like the Rafale fighter jets.
  • India must evaluate whether its defence relationships are built on long-term political indispensability or short-term transactional exchanges.
  • The example of the U.S.-Pakistan alliance, which collapsed when Islamabad lost its strategic value, serves as a cautionary tale for India’s approach to defence partnerships.

The Necessity of Safeguarding India’s Strategic Autonomy

• Diversification of Defence Sources
  • India’s current defence procurement heavily relies on both indigenous production and foreign imports.
  • Historically, the country has depended on countries like Russia for advanced weapon systems, but the increasing collaboration with the U.S. in areas such as fighter jets and surveillance technology has created a potential for over-dependence.
  • To ensure strategic autonomy, India must diversify its sources of defence equipment.
  • While India has made significant strides with the development of the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), it must continue to build up its indigenous defence manufacturing capacity.
• Technology Transfer and Domestic Innovation
  • A cornerstone of ensuring strategic autonomy is fostering technology transfer and encouraging domestic defence innovation.
  • In its current partnerships, especially with the U.S., India has focused on acquiring sophisticated technologies like engines for aircraft (e.g., the GE F414 engine for the Tejas Mk2).
  • However, technology transfer must go beyond simple purchase agreements; it should include know-how, intellectual property rights (IPRs), and the ability to locally manufacture and upgrade defence systems.
  • India needs to invest in defence research and development (R&D) and enhance collaboration between the private sector and DPSUs.
  • With the active participation of Indian universities, research institutions, and private firms, India can move closer to self-reliance.
• Strengthening Indigenous Defence Capabilities
  • Ensuring strategic autonomy also involves ramping up the development of indigenous defence platforms that meet India’s unique security requirements.
  • This includes not only aircraft like the Tejas and AMCA, but also systems such as advanced missile defence technologies, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and cyber warfare capabilities.
  • India should focus on the entire spectrum of defence needs, ranging from tactical short-range weapons to long-range strategic deterrence systems.
  • By doing so, India can mitigate the risk of being vulnerable to changes in global defence supply chains or political shifts in other countries.
• Adapting to Geopolitical Shifts
  • A major aspect of strategic autonomy is the ability to navigate geopolitical uncertainties.
  • India’s defence needs cannot be dictated solely by short-term political alignments or international agreements.
  • For instance, U. S.-India defence ties, although promising, are susceptible to the vagaries of U.S. domestic politics.
  • A change in leadership or policy, as seen under the Trump administration, could lead to a shift in priorities, leaving India exposed to abrupt policy reversals or unanticipated supply chain disruptions.
  • Therefore, India must actively engage in multi-alignment, maintaining strong defence relationships with multiple global powers, such as Russia, Israel, and France, while simultaneously strengthening its domestic capabilities.
• Strategic Defence Planning and Self-Sufficiency
  • By prioritising self-sufficiency in areas such as defence logistics, supply chains, and maintenance of weapon systems, India can reduce its vulnerability to external disruptions.
  • Ensuring that the Indian Armed Forces have the capability to maintain and upgrade their equipment domestically will minimise dependence on foreign contractors for critical repairs and updates.
  • This long-term focus on self-sufficiency will bolster India’s strategic position in both regional and global security architectures.
• Securing National Interests Against Policy Reversals
  • India must also ensure that its national security interests are protected against sudden shifts in global power dynamics.
  • For instance, the U.S. has a history of recalibrating its foreign policies based on its national interests.
  • India should adopt policies that create buffers against any abrupt policy reversals, particularly in areas related to defence supplies.
  • This could involve stockpiling critical components, developing multiple sources for key defence technologies, and creating contingency plans for potential supply chain disruptions.

Conclusion

• India’s defence procurement strategy must strike a balance between indigenization and strategic partnerships.
• While foreign alliances, particularly with the U.S., offer technological advantages, India must be cautious to avoid over-reliance.
• By focusing on self-sufficiency and negotiating partnerships that enhance its strategic leverage, India can secure its defence future without compromising its autonomy.