India’s Quest for Strategic Autonomy: Defense Modernisation, Technology Sovereignty and Geopolitical Challenges

Introduction

The final session of the conference brought together senior defence and security experts to debate India’s strategic autonomy, the need for technology sovereignty and the broader geopolitical shifts shaping the country’s security outlook.

Power Transition and Global Alignments

• The world is in a power‑transition phase: a historic hegemon (the United States) is being challenged by rising powers, chiefly China and a resurgent Russia.
• The Ukraine war exemplifies how great‑power rivalry can spill into regional conflicts.
• Western institutions created after 1945 (Bretton Woods, IMF, World Bank) continue to lock many developing economies, especially in Africa, into a neo‑colonial extractive model.

Critical Technology and Defence‑Industrial Ecosystem

• Strategic autonomy hinges on control over four pillars: cyber, space, quantum and hypersonics.
• Dependence on foreign suppliers for engines, sensors, AI‑driven decision‑support systems and missile components creates strategic vulnerability.
• India’s “Atma‑Bharat”/“Make‑in‑India” drive aims to shift from licensed production to genuine technology sovereignty.
• Key gaps identified:
• Indigenous jet‑engine capability (GTRE‑Rolls‑Royce project stalled).
• Limited domestic AI, hypersonic and cyber‑defence R&D.
• Heavy reliance on imported critical components despite a record‑high defence export figure of $2.6 bn.

Panel Insights

AVM Anil Gulani (Aerospace Studies)

• Defence is not a "guns‑vs‑butter" trade‑off but a guns‑and‑butter necessity for development.
• India must focus on core platforms (air‑frames, engines) and mission‑mode accountability within DRDO.
• Successful collaborations (BrahMos missile with Russia, MR‑SAM with Israel) show the value of selective partnerships.

Dr. Ruhi (IPCS)

• Emerging technologies create a decision‑dilemma: rapid capability gains via foreign AI vs. slower, sovereign development that may leave short‑term gaps.
• The goal is to maximise options, not to force a binary choice between foreign dependence and indigenous lag.

General Badoroki (Defence Forces)

• India faces a two‑front threat (China in the north, Pakistan in the west) plus non‑state actors, requiring readiness for five generations of warfare – from trench to nuclear.
• Emphasis on infantry strength, rapid‑response capability, and a production base that can sustain both short, high‑intensity conflicts and protracted wars.
• Defence spending is being channelled (75 % to public sector, 25 % to private) to create jobs and a multiplier effect of ~2.5 ×.

Nitin Gok (Journalist)

• While export numbers rise, critical items remain import‑dependent; the industry must boost R&D investment and private‑sector participation.

Maheshwaran (Policy Analyst)

• Four security priorities:
• Strong conventional forces with domestic capability.
• Credible nuclear deterrent.
• Strategic partnerships without formal alliances.
• Mastery of cyber, space, quantum, hypersonics.
• Historical neglect of technology sovereignty has left India chasing licences rather than owning IP.
• A 30‑year roadmap is essential; current plans (e.g., 30‑year submarine programme) suffer from fragmented execution.

Admiral Chawan (Navy)

• Successful models: Atomic Energy and ISRO achieved near‑self‑reliance through a mix of internal development and selective foreign collaboration.
• Defence must emulate this dual approach: acquire design knowledge where possible, while accepting limited production‑level technology transfer.

Challenges and Recommendations

• Continuity & Consistency: Long‑term strategies are fragmented; defence modernisation plans keep getting extended (15‑year → 30‑year → 45‑year).
• R&D Funding Gap: India spends ~0.7 % of GDP on R&D, far below China (2‑3 %) and the US (≈3 %). Private sector contribution is minimal.
• Technology Diffusion: License production should be leveraged as a stepping‑stone to reverse‑engineering and indigenous design.
• Whole‑of‑Government Approach: Better coordination between MOD, MEA, industry and academia; stronger role for the armed forces in shaping R&D agendas.
• Strategic Partnerships: Continue selective collaborations (Russia, France, Israel) while avoiding over‑reliance on any single supplier.

Way Forward

1. Define Critical Technologies (engines, AI, hypersonics, quantum) and set measurable acquisition targets (e.g., 60‑70 % sovereignty within a decade).
2. Create a Dedicated Sovereignty Agency with budgetary autonomy to oversee technology transfer, reverse‑engineering and indigenous design.
3. Incentivise Private R&D through tax credits, public‑private joint ventures and defence‑focused incubators.
4. Adopt a 30‑Year Defence Roadmap aligned with national security priorities and regularly audited for progress.
5. Strengthen Human Capital – expand aerospace, AI and materials science programmes in universities and defence labs.

Conclusion

India’s strategic autonomy hinges on achieving genuine technology sovereignty. Without a coherent, long‑term plan and robust investment in indigenous R&D, the nation remains vulnerable to external pressure and supply‑chain shocks. A balanced mix of selective partnerships, focused domestic capability building and a disciplined 30‑year roadmap will be essential to transform India into a resilient, self‑reliant security power.

India can secure true strategic autonomy only by building sustained, indigenous capability in critical defence technologies and by aligning a long‑term, well‑funded roadmap with its broader geopolitical goals.