Atmanirbharta in defence: It’s not as simple as it seems

Why in the News

The Defence Minister has set out a vision to “design in India, develop in India, manufacture in India” for military equipment. Yet full indigenisation is the costliest way to acquire a weapon, so real atmanirbharta lies in controlling the few technologies that decide a platform’s edge.

What is atmanirbharta in defence, and why does India pursue it?

1. What it is: Atmanirbharta (self-reliance) means designing, developing, testing and building weapons at home. It is like a household growing all its own food instead of buying any.
2. Import dependence: India was the world’s fifth largest defence spender last year and the second largest arms importer, behind only war hit Ukraine.
3. Strategic autonomy argument: A rising power must build its own arsenal to escape pressure from foreign governments and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), the firms that design and sell weapons.
4. The takeaway: A nationalistic public backs self-reliance and brands critics as arms industry agents, so its cost is rarely questioned.

What has the self-reliance push delivered so far?

1. Slogans: “Make in India” was coined in 2014, followed by “Vocal for Local” and Atmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India) in 2020.
2. Production: Ministry of Defence figures show indigenous defence and aerospace production roughly quadrupled since 2014.
3. Exports: Defence exports reached a record Rs 38,434 crore last year.
4. Hidden import content: The Tejas fighter, Navy warships and many Army missiles are not fully Indian, since much of their cost buys foreign subsystems.

Why is full self-reliance the costliest route?

1. Cost hierarchy in defence acquisition: Acquisition methods rise in cost and time in a fixed order:
   • Lease, for only as long as needed, is cheapest and fastest;
   • Buy off the shelf costs more;
   • Licensed production, buying the technology and building a factory at home, costs more still;
   • Atmanirbharta, designing from scratch, costs the most.
2. High cost of autarky: Developing every element raises cost unacceptably, so even leading defence economies avoid total autarky (complete self-sufficiency).
3. Control the core, buy the rest: Top weapon makers keep key technologies in house and source other subsystems from established leaders.
4. Ejection seats: Even top makers buy ejection seats from British firm Martin-Baker, which supplies over half the world’s combat aircraft. Eg. Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II.

What should India control, and how?

1. Flight control software: The Tejas is built inherently unstable, which makes it agile. Quadruplex fly-by-wire software steers it by electronic signals over four backup channels.
2. Indigenous flight software: That software, built for the first Tejas, is being upgraded to control the Tejas Mark 2 and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), India’s planned fifth generation fighter.
3. Project management: The key skill is deciding which systems a platform needs, where to source them, what to build and when to close a project.
4. Supply chain leverage: Buying abroad gives foreign suppliers leverage. If Indian firms become key subcontractors in global supply chains, an embargo on India hurts OEMs too.

Challenges

1. Induction delays: Indigenous platforms slip for years before reaching the forces, leaving capability gaps. Eg. The Arjun tank and INS Vishal.
2. Weak programme management: Projects lack a process to identify core technologies early and close failing lines of work.
3. Commodity dependence: Home built weapons do not remove leverage over a middle power that imports critical commodities such as oil.

Way Forward

1. Core technology list: Name each platform’s essential technologies at the start of development and buy mature subsystems globally.
2. Programme management cadre: Build project skills in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the services, with authority to close failing projects.
3. Supplier integration: Make Indian firms suppliers to global weapon makers, so an embargo also costs the supplier.

Conclusion

India’s self-reliance drive has succeeded on volume, but volume is not control of critical technology. Whether future programmes name and own their core technologies from the start will decide if atmanirbharta buys capability or only cost.

Key numbers

1. Indigenous production base: Rs 46,000 crore (2014).
2. Defence exports base: Rs 600 crore (2014).
3. Export target: Rs 50,000 crore by 2028-29 (Defence Minister).
4. Martin-Baker share: 50 to 55 percent of world combat aircraft.
5. GE F414 technology transfer: about 80 percent.

Government initiatives for defence indigenisation

1. Positive indigenisation lists: Ministry of Defence lists of items to be bought only from Indian sources after set timelines; they crossed 5,500 items by early 2025.
2. GE F414 engine co-production: Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) will build this engine in India with most technology transferred, to power the Tejas Mark 2.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026] Consider the following statements about Mission Sudarshan Chakra of India: 1. It aims to enhance India’s air defence, ballistic missile defence and aerial offensive capabilities. 2. Designed to enhance rapid, precise, and powerful defence responses, reinforcing India’s strategic autonomy. 3. One of the aims is to cover all public places of India by an expanded nationwide security shield by 2035. (a) 1, 2 and 3 (b) 1 and 2 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1 only Answer: A”