N4S: This article shows how indigenous tech in Operation Sindoor helped neutralise threats while signalling India’s growing self-reliance. Using the operation as an anchor, it analyses the full supply chain, key reforms since Independence, systemic challenges, and what India must do next to become a defence manufacturing powerhouse. UPSC usually doesn’t ask straight questions like “What is Make in India in defence?” Instead, it frames analytical questions like the one in GS Paper 3 (2020) on security threats and the role of forces—testing your ability to link defence capabilities, policy, and geopolitical threats. Aspirants often falter by mugging schemes without connecting them to real operations, institutional structures, or the larger strategy. This article helps fill that gap. It offers layered understanding—from Operation Sindoor’s field-level tech usage to the Defence Acquisition Procedure 2020—backed with examples and committee insights.

PYQ ANCHORING

GS 3: Analyze internal security threats and transborder crimes along Myanmar, Ban gladesh and Pakistan borders including Line of Control (LoC). Also discuss the role played by various security forces in this regard. [2020]

MICROTHEME: Security Forces and their Mandates

Operation Sindoor marked a defining moment for Make in India, demonstrating India’s precision strike capabilities powered by homegrown defence technologies. This operation was a powerful proof of concept for the Make in India and Atmanirbhar Bharat initiatives.But how far has India truly come in closing the technological gaps in defence? What structural changes are still needed to ensure that indigenous innovation becomes the backbone of our military strength? And can India balance rapid modernization with strategic self-reliance to emerge as a global defence powerhouse?

Operation Sindoor: A Defining Moment for Atmanirbhar Bharat in Defence

Operation Sindoor was more than a military success—it was a powerful demonstration of India’s growing self-reliance in defence. This operation showcased how the vision of Atmanirbhar Bharat is transforming the nation’s defence capabilities by the following ways:

1. Indigenous Air Defence Systems: Shielding the Nation: Indian-developed systems like the Akash Surface-to-Air Missile and the SAMAR Air Defence System played a pivotal role in neutralizing over 600 hostile drones and missiles during the operation. These systems, developed by Indian public and private sector entities, proved their effectiveness in real combat scenarios, underscoring India’s capability to produce advanced defence technologies domestically.

2. Precision Strikes with Indigenous Drones: Private sector companies such as Tata Advanced Systems and Paras Defence supplied loitering munitions and swarm drones that were instrumental in executing precise strikes on terrorist infrastructure. These platforms, developed under the ‘Make in India’ initiative, enabled India to conduct operations with minimal collateral damage, highlighting the strategic advantage of homegrown technology.

3. Government Initiatives Fueling Innovation: Programs like iDEX (Innovations for Defence Excellence) and SRIJAN have been instrumental in fostering innovation within the private sector. These initiatives provided the necessary support and incentives for companies to develop and deploy indigenous solutions, accelerating India’s journey towards defence self-reliance.

4. Validation of ‘Made-in-India’ Weaponry: The successful deployment of indigenous weapons during Operation Sindoor has validated their reliability and effectiveness. This success not only boosts domestic confidence but also enhances India’s reputation as a global hub for defence manufacturing.

5. Strategic Integration Across Forces: The seamless integration of indigenous technologies across the Army, Navy, and Air Force during the operation demonstrated the strategic advantage of a unified, self-reliant defence ecosystem. This integration ensures coordinated responses and enhances operational efficiency.

6. Boosting Defence Exports: Operation Sindoor has paved the way for increased defence exports. The successful use of indigenous equipment has positioned India as a reliable supplier of advanced military technologies, with defence exports reaching ₹23,000 crore in FY25 and projected to touch ₹50,000 crore by 2029.

India’s Defence Industry Ecosystem

Component	Key Stakeholders/Entities	Role in the Supply Chain
1. Government Bodies & Policymakers	– Ministry of Defence (MoD) – Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) – Dept. of Defence Production (DDP)	Policy formulation, procurement approvals, funding, and regulation
2. Public Sector Units (PSUs)	– HAL, BEL, BEML, MDL, GRSE, GSL, etc. – Corporatised Ordnance Factories	System integration and manufacturing of major platforms (aircraft, tanks, ships, electronics)
3. R&D Institutions	– DRDO and its labs – Academic partnerships (IITs, NITs) – iDEX	Indigenous research, technology development, incubation of startups and innovation
4. Private Sector Companies	– Tata Advanced Systems, L&T Defence, Mahindra Defence, Adani Defence	Design, production, and technology partnerships for defence systems and components
5. MSMEs & Startups	– Small and Medium Enterprises across India – Funded under iDEX and Make in India schemes	Precision manufacturing, sub-component supply, electronics, and rapid innovation
6. Foreign OEMs & Partners	– Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, Rafael, etc.	Technology transfer, joint ventures, FDI, and fulfilling offset obligations
7. Regulatory & Quality Agencies	– Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) – Licensing Authorities	Quality testing, standardisation, regulatory compliance for defence production
8. Armed Forces (End-Users)	– Indian Army – Indian Navy – Indian Air Force	Requirement specification, field trials, operational feedback for continuous improvement and deployment readiness

India’s Defence Indigenisation: Evolution Over the Years

1. Post-Independence Phase (1947–1980s): Import Dependence with State-Led Production

After 1947, India relied heavily on imports to meet its defence needs.
The government established defence public sector undertakings (DPSUs) like HAL (1940), BEL (1954), BEML, and DRDO (1958) to kickstart indigenous production.
Focus remained on license production (e.g., MiG-21 from USSR) rather than original design.
The military-civilian research disconnect and lack of private sector involvement slowed innovation.

2. The Self-Reliance Push (1980s–1990s): Limited Technological Gains

Indigenous projects like the Light Combat Aircraft (Tejas) and Arjun tank were launched, but saw major delays.
Import dependence continued, particularly for high-tech equipment.
The Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) was introduced in 1992 to formalise acquisitions but still favoured foreign vendors.

3. Opening Up & Strategic Partnerships (2000s–2010s): Private Sector Enters

Post-Kargil Review Committee, India recognised the need for self-sufficiency in critical systems.
The 2001 policy opened defence production to the private sector and allowed 26% FDI (now up to 74% under automatic route).
Defence offsets were introduced in 2005 to encourage local production.
However, execution lagged due to bureaucratic hurdles and lack of synergy.

4. Make in India & Beyond (2014 onwards): Reforms, Modernisation, and Innovation

Under the ‘Make in India’ initiative, defence became a focus sector.
Policy measures included:
- Creation of Defence Corridors in UP and Tamil Nadu.
- Launch of Innovations for Defence Excellence (iDEX) to support startups and MSMEs.
- Negative import list (now Positive Indigenisation List) of defence items to boost local procurement.
- Push for DRDO–private sector collaborations and corporatisation of Ordnance Factory Board (OFB).
Flagship projects like INS Vikrant, Tejas Mk1A, Dhanush artillery, and AK-203 (with Russian collaboration) symbolise indigenisation progress.

5. Present & Emerging Trends

India is now among the top 25 arms exporters, with key exports to Southeast Asia and Africa.
The Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) 2020 promotes indigenous content across categories.
Stronger emphasis on dual-use technologies, AI in defence, cyber warfare tools, and space militarisation.The aim is to transform India from the world’s largest arms importer to a global hub of defence manufacturing.

Challenges of defence indigenisation//MAINS

Each stakeholder in the defence indigenisation chain faces specific pain points—from policy bottlenecks to technological dependence, funding gaps, and trust issues between the military and manufacturers. These must be systematically addressed to achieve true Atmanirbharta in defence.

Component	Challenges	Example
1. Government Bodies & Policymakers	Bureaucratic delays in approvals, frequent policy changes, and slow implementation of procurement reforms.	Despite multiple reforms, procurement under the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) often sees long delays—e.g., the Rafale deal took over a decade to finalise.
2. Public Sector Units (PSUs)	Low productivity, limited innovation, and over-dependence on DRDO/IPR transfers. Slow to adopt modern production systems.	HAL delayed the delivery of Tejas Mk-1, impacting Air Force induction timelines and operational preparedness.
3. R&D Institutions (DRDO & others)	Time and cost overruns, limited coordination with users, and weak integration with industry.	DRDO’s Arjun Tank project took over 30 years, and was only partially accepted by the Army due to performance and logistical concerns.
4. Private Sector Companies	Limited access to defence contracts, technology, and design IP. Often lack level-playing field vis-à-vis PSUs.	L&T and Tata have developed major naval platforms, but frequently lose major contracts to shipyards like MDL due to preferential treatment.
5. MSMEs & Startups	Lack of working capital, complex compliance norms, and delays in payment from DPSUs.	Many MSMEs supplying parts to BEL or HAL face delays of over 6–12 months in payments, affecting sustainability.
6. Foreign OEMs & Partners	Reluctance to transfer core technologies, offset implementation delays, and strategic trust issues.	Several foreign OEMs fulfill offset obligations via services or non-critical components; core tech transfer often avoided (e.g., no engine tech with Rafale).
7. Regulatory & Quality Agencies	Cumbersome quality assurance, lack of automation, and inconsistent standards across labs and factories.	DGQA processes often delay final product acceptance; Indian Army has complained about long wait times in artillery trials.
8. Armed Forces (End Users)	Changing specifications, lack of alignment with R&D timelines, and preference for proven imports.	The Army’s frequent upgrades to requirements delayed Future Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV) development despite years of DRDO effort.

Systemic Challenges

1. Technology & Capability Gaps

Still Dependent on Imports: Even today, over one-third of our defence buys come from abroad due to a lack of domestic high-tech capability.
Slow Innovation in R&D: Barely 4% of the defence budget goes into research. This holds back growth in key areas like AI, hypersonic tech, and quantum systems.

2. Delays & Inefficiencies

Bureaucratic Red Tape: The procurement process is slow and clunky—equipment approvals take time, affecting how fast our forces modernize.
Indigenous Projects Take Too Long: Homegrown defence projects like the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) have taken decades, leaving gaps in capability.

3. Ecosystem Imbalance

Public Sector Dominance: PSUs still dominate; private players face limited access and contribute only around 21% to total production.
Weak Public–Private Collaboration: There’s little synergy between state-run units and private defence manufacturers.

4. Global & Strategic Setbacks

Struggles in Exporting Arms: While exports are improving, India still finds it hard to compete globally with giants like the US and Russia.
Cyber & EW Gaps: India lacks cutting-edge capabilities in cybersecurity and electronic warfare, making its systems vulnerable.

5. Strategic & Policy Hurdles

No Fully Integrated Defence Strategy: The Army, Navy, and Air Force still don’t work closely enough—joint commands are delayed.
Internal Security Takes Focus Away: Resources often get pulled toward handling terrorism and insurgency, slowing defence modernization.
Indigenisation Policy Gaps: Despite mandates, real localisation is tricky—supply chains are global, and it’s hard to measure true ‘Made in India’ content.

Way Forward

Boost Indigenous Tech: Invest more in R&D and support startups to develop advanced defence technologies like AMCA, hypersonics, and AI systems.
Simplify Procurement: Speed up and digitize procurement, prioritize “Buy Indian,” and ease export approvals to grow domestic industry and global sales.
Enhance Collaboration: Promote strong partnerships between public sector units, private companies, and academia for faster innovation.
Build Skills & Infrastructure: Develop specialised defence training and upgrade manufacturing with advanced technologies and Defence Industrial Corridors.
Strengthen Cybersecurity: Create a dedicated Cyber Command and use AI to defend against modern digital threats.
Integrate Forces & Policies: Implement joint theatre commands and ensure consistent policies and funding for strategic growth and readiness.

#BACK2BASICS: Key Committees Shaping Defence Indigenisation in India: A Chronological Overview

Here’s a list of 8 important committees on defence indigenisation in India, arranged chronologically:

Year	Committee Name	Purpose / Focus
1959	Sinha Committee	Early focus on defence production and self-reliance
1998	Kalam Committee	Strengthening indigenous R&D and reducing import dependence
2004	Naresh Chandra Task Force	Reforming DRDO and DPSUs; enhancing private sector participation
2007	Subrahmanyam Committee	Defence production and technology acquisition
2016	Shekatkar Committee	Enhancing defence procurement efficiency and budget optimization
2017	Shyam Saran Committee	Promoting ‘Make in India’ in defence and boosting R&D
2018	Kalyani Committee	Encouraging private sector in defence production
2020	Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) Reforms	Indigenous content mandates and procurement process reforms

Major Defence Indigenisation Reforms in India //PRELIMS

Year	Reform/Policy	Description & Impact
Before 2000	Procurement Process Overview	Before 2000, India’s defence procurement was largely import-dependent, with minimal emphasis on indigenous manufacturing. The process was slow, bureaucratic, and focused mainly on acquiring ready-made foreign equipment. Indigenous industry played a marginal role, and there was little policy push to promote domestic capabilities or private sector participation. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) handled most R&D but faced challenges in timely delivery and commercialization.
2001	Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) 2001	Introduced for the first time, this procedure categorized procurement into “Buy Indian,” “Buy and Make (Indian),” and “Buy (Global).” It aimed to prioritize indigenous manufacturing, encourage technology transfer, and create a structured framework for acquisitions. This marked the first policy-level recognition of the importance of self-reliance.
2007	Defence Production Policy	This policy explicitly focused on increasing the indigenous content in defence products. It aimed to build domestic production capacity, reduce imports, and foster R&D collaboration between public and private sectors. However, implementation was slow, and private sector involvement remained limited.
2016	Make in India Defence Initiative	Launched as part of the broader Make in India campaign, this initiative specifically targeted defence manufacturing. It encouraged private sector participation, startups, and MSMEs, and promoted innovation through frameworks like Innovations for Defence Excellence (iDEX). The policy also sought to reduce import dependence and boost exports.
2017	DPP Revision 2017	The Defence Procurement Procedure was revised to give even greater priority to indigenous products. It simplified approval processes, provided preference to Indian vendors, and introduced better mechanisms for offset management (where foreign suppliers invest in India). These reforms helped speed up procurement and incentivize domestic manufacturing.
2018	Defence Production and Export Promotion Policy (DPEPP) 2018	DPEPP set ambitious targets to increase indigenous defence production to 70% and double defence exports to $5 billion by 2025. It aimed to create a robust defence industrial ecosystem, boost private sector and MSME involvement, and promote exports through government support and export incentives.
2019	Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan (Self-Reliant India Mission)	Announced amid rising global uncertainties, this mission placed self-reliance at the core of India’s defence strategy. It focused on reducing import dependency, easing technology transfers, boosting indigenous R&D, and creating a globally competitive defence manufacturing base. Several measures to fast-track approvals and enhance funding for innovation were introduced.
2020	Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) 2020	The updated acquisition procedure further streamlined procurement processes, expanded categories of indigenous procurement, and improved transparency. It also emphasized empowering startups and MSMEs by simplifying participation rules, aiming to make defence manufacturing more inclusive and innovation-driven.
2021	Defence Production and Export Promotion Policy (DPEPP) 2.0	Building on the 2018 policy, DPEPP 2.0 reinforced incentives for defence manufacturing and exports. It focused on deepening technology development, fostering innovation ecosystems, and promoting global partnerships. The policy stressed research collaboration, increased funding for innovation, and set higher export targets.

Summary:

Before 2000: Defence procurement was import-heavy, bureaucratic, and limited to public sector dominance, with minimal private sector involvement.

Since 2001: India has progressively reformed its defence policies to promote indigenous production, ease procurement, foster private sector participation, and build a globally competitive defence ecosystem. Initiatives like Make in India, Atmanirbhar Bharat, and Defence Production Policies have been key milestones in reducing import dependency and boosting defence exports.

SMASH MAINS MOCK DROP

Operation Sindoor marks a shift from defence dependence to indigenous dominance. In this context, critically examine India’s progress in defence indigenisation. What are the structural challenges that still hinder self-reliance in defence manufacturing?