Defence Indigenisation – Future Policy And Path Forward
Before we take on this topic for discussion we need to first concur that indigenisation in defence equipment is a must. The following facts should hopefully prove the point: –
A country of the size of India should not be a major importer of defence hardware as it is a huge financial drain and restricts our ability to pursue a dominant role in world polity.
It denies us that opportunity to use this industry as an important engine of national economic growth.
Dependence on foreign hardware will leave us vulnerable to external manipulation of even our foreign policy.
We will never be able to reach global superpower status.
Let us therefore proceed on the assumption that the need for a vigorous indigenisation drive in defence technology is not a topic of debate any more. The dissatisfactory state of this concept therefore lies in the varied and faulty perception of different stake holders in the march towards its fulfilment. The DRDO has been battered and bruised by many for showing tardy and patchy progress in this effort towards indigenisation where they hold the position of the primary stakeholder. The present government has in all earnestness, in the initial three years in power, undertaken several policy measures such as ‘make in India’ initiative to further the cause. However, the extended periods of not having a full -time minister to handle this most important portfolio is not only baffling but also most certainly detrimental to attending to the needs of indigenisation in defence.
INS Kolkata and INS Delhi alongside at Porbandar " data-medium-file="https://i1.wp.com/www.defencenewsindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/INS_Kolkata_and_INS_Delhi_alongside_at_Porbandar.jpg?fit=300%2C196" data-large-file="https://i1.wp.com/www.defencenewsindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/INS_Kolkata_and_INS_Delhi_alongside_at_Porbandar.jpg?fit=1024%2C667" class="size-full wp-image-14329" src="https://i1.wp.com/www.defencenewsindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/INS_Kolkata_and_INS_Delhi_alongside_at_Porbandar.jpg?resize=1060%2C691" alt="INS Kolkata and INS Delhi alongside at Porbandar" srcset="https://i1.wp.com/www.defencenewsindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/INS_Kolkata_and_INS_Delhi_alongside_at_Porbandar.jpg?w=1200 1200w, https://i1.wp.com/www.defencenewsindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/INS_Kolkata_and_INS_Delhi_alongside_at_Porbandar.jpg?resize=300%2C196 300w, https://i1.wp.com/www.defencenewsindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/INS_Kolkata_and_INS_Delhi_alongside_at_Porbandar.jpg?resize=768%2C500 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1060px) 100vw, 1060px" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: inherit; line-height: inherit; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; max-width: 100%; height: auto !important;" width="572" height="373">
INS Kolkata and INS Delhi alongside at PorbandarINS Kolkata and INS Delhi alongside at Porbandar
The progress of indigenisation has been sloppy in India because of a very mundane perspective of almost all related issues such as revision of war doctrines, understanding of defence technologies and what technology is available in India. It requires that planners and decision makers at the highest level take a long- term view after careful analysis of potential war scenarios in the future, say 30 years later. It requires these planners -to quote Khalil Gibran, to take a view like ‘…. the mountain to the climber is clearer from the plain’. The path to self-sufficiency requires a consistent long-term approach. Currently what is happening is a series of disjointed efforts with immediate objectives in mind. Arguments such as ‘the need to maintain force levels’ have been put forward, which may have their own merits, but has definitely resulted in fire-fighting purchases out of our limited resources, thereby stymieing indigenisation and self-sufficiency efforts.
There is a definitive short coming in the present capability of both our private and public-sector undertakings to make the required world class tanks, aircraft, guns and warships of different categories. The real question that should be bothering our long-term planners is if we are eternally going to get stuck in the vortex of playing ‘catch up’ in technologies related to these conventional weapon systems. How long will such weapon systems be relevant in future war scenarios? If we do envisage a point in time, say thirty years down the road, when these conventional weapons will be no more relevant as the front runners in any battlefield, then should we not be planning and designing those weapons of the future which would then be relevant? In other words, will there be a means of leap frogging and by passing the need to reinvent the wheel in developing the technologies that are currently not available to us from developed countries in the conventional weapons, in spite of all our governments efforts in promoting schemes like Make in India, 100% FDI in defence industries etc.
The answer to this probably lies in truly understanding one particular time immemorial principle of war doctrine development. This is the desire to increase stand-off engagement capability of the adversary. This has been the guiding principle from the days of usage of the simple sword and spear to the latest missiles that the world has seen. Today greater stand-off attack capability requires greater situational awareness in real time. This is true right from monitoring infiltration on a border by a few terrorists to monitoring tank movements, air attacks and fleet movement.
An illustration of this principle is the recent news of the development of the hyperspectral satellite by ISRO. The details of the area of observation, resolution and all-weather operation capability of this technology was not available in the article for obvious reasons. From the tactical and doctrine point of view if this is going to be the future of intelligence gathering then would it result in a major shift in war doctrines? Would the days of strategies of deep thrusts into enemy territory with the latest tanks become a thing of the past? Would the concept of air attacks using a group of aircraft with the latest stealth technology be rendered redundant? Would we have the capability to monitor 200 kms on either side of the border from space and be completely aware of all military equipment activity in the area? If this is the future development of war doctrines then we would have effectively leap frogged and by passed our current limitations of developing the latest technologies for these conventional weapons. The costly nuisance of monitoring cross-border infiltration will be much simplified. The emphasis would therefore shift to monitoring from space technology to developing the right kind of missiles for the right neutralisation job to real time communication and command and control systems to take effective action on the intelligence gathered. In all these areas, the country does seem to have the necessary home-grown technologies in the relevant fields.
In conclusion, the need of the hour in our path to self-sufficiency in defence technology seems to be to take a more long- term view, be sure about the development of relevant future war doctrines, concentrate on indigenous technology areas where we are also word leaders, get the other stake holders like research establishments, universities, private and public-sector production agencies to work as one well-orchestrated team to achieve the goal of self- sufficiency in defence needs.
The author is a retired Naval Air Engineering Officer who has worked for over 18 years in defence aviation industry post retirement with Indian and foreign companies. He has been involved in Indigenisation both in service and in private industry in the development of airborne avionics and aircraft health monitoring systems.
