India’s 2025 Defence Reforms focus on strategic deterrence, joint warfare integration, and Atmanirbharata in defence. Key priorities include modernizing military technology, empowering theatre commands, and fostering private-sector defence innovation. Swift execution, policy stability, and increased investment are essential for India’s security, global military leadership, and future-ready armed forces.
India’s national security landscape is undergoing a pivotal transformation, with 2025 designated as the Year of Defence Reforms. This signals a decisive push towards modernizing military structures, integrating cutting-edge technologies, and strengthening strategic deterrence. Just as the 1991 economic liberalization reshaped India’s financial future, these reforms are set to redefine India’s military and security apparatus, ensuring self-reliance and global strategic competitiveness. The three primary focus areas of this transformation are:-
(a) Re-establishing Strategic Deterrence – Enhancing air, space, cyber, and hypersonic warfare capabilities to counter growing threats, particularly from China. With China’s rapid military modernization and AI-driven warfare infrastructure, India must increase defence spending to at least 3.5% of GDP and invest in next-generation deterrent technologies to maintain strategic balance.
(b) Implementing True Jointmanship – Strengthening theatre commands, ensuring full integration of the Army, Navy, and Air Force into a cohesive warfighting unit. The Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) must be empowered with operational authority, ensuring interoperability, streamlined military decision-making, and greater coordination between armed forces and technology experts.
(c) Achieving Atmanirbharata in Defence – Accelerating indigenous defence production by breaking the monopoly of defence PSUs and empowering the private sector to play a leading role. Reforming the L1 procurement model, providing direct defence contracts to startups, and fostering a national security innovation ecosystem will drive self-reliance in military technology and weapon systems.
Beyond military restructuring, economic policy and national security must be aligned, recognizing defence as a public good requiring sustained investment. Defence reforms should transition from a monopsony model (government as sole buyer) to a competitive system, where private companies drive R&D and global defence exports. The success of these reforms will depend on bold leadership, swift execution, and unwavering commitment from all stakeholders:-
(a) For the Armed Forces – Embracing full-scale modernization and joint warfare strategies.
(b) For the Government – Implementing policy stability, accelerating procurement reforms, and boosting defence budgets.
(c) For the Private Sector – Stepping up in defence manufacturing, R&D, and technological innovation.
India’s global military standing will be determined by the choices made today. This is not the time for incrementalism—it is a moment for transformation. If executed decisively, these reforms will fortify national security, position India as a global military power, and ensure a technologically superior armed forces for decades to come.
Defence Reforms and National Security: 2025 – The Year of Transformation
Introduction
India’s national security framework is undergoing a critical transformation, necessitating comprehensive and strategic reforms. Just as the economic liberalization of 1991 reshaped India’s financial landscape, an equally decisive shift is now required in the defence sector. The government’s declaration of 2025 as the Year of Defence Reforms highlights its firm commitment to accelerating these changes. A significant milestone in this journey was the establishment of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and the Department of Military Affairs (DMA)—a move initially met with skepticism. Many questioned the need for such a powerful CDS, but the government remained resolute, implementing a structure that, in many ways, surpasses even the U.S. Goldwater-Nichols Act. This marked the beginning of defence modernization.
Since then, India has undergone substantial strategic shifts, from the Balakot airstrikes to the Kailash Range operations, which have reshaped our military posture. Infrastructure enhancements along the Line of Control (LoC) and increased troop deployment have fortified national defence. The reforms planned for 2025 signify a renewed push towards a self-reliant and technologically advanced military, reinforcing India’s security preparedness for emerging threats. Implementing these reforms, however, is no easy task. National security restructuring demands decisive leadership, accountability, and proactive participation at every level. Rather than waiting for directives, key defence organizations—DRDO, CDS, Service Chiefs, and the Defence Secretary—must take responsibility for driving this transformation. India’s brightest minds occupy these roles, and they must lead this change with conviction. Reform should not be seen as a mere directive but as a strategic necessity for ensuring national security and military superiority.
As history has shown, transformative changes require bold leadership and vision. Many doubted the success of the 1991 economic reforms, yet they fundamentally altered India’s trajectory. Similarly, DPI would happen as DPI happened—a structured, goal-oriented approach will ensure that national security reforms are successfully implemented, propelling India towards defence modernization and self-reliance. If these defence reforms are successfully executed, India will emerge as a formidable global strategic power. However, failure or hesitation in embracing change could have serious consequences. The military gap with China, once a linear challenge, is now growing exponentially. Without proactive measures, India risks losing its strategic advantage in the evolving global security landscape. The time for deliberation is over—these reforms must be executed with clarity, urgency, and determination. The true transformation of India’s defence sector will come through unified action, and if implemented effectively, these changes will define the country’s military strength for decades to come. The magic of reform lies in the collective will to modernize, adapt, and secure India’s future.
Disrupting the Past: A Call for Bold Defence Reforms to Counter China
India’s defence transformation is no longer an option—it is an imperative. The global security environment is evolving rapidly, and India must anticipate change, not just react to it. The government’s declaration of 2025 as the Year of Defence Reforms is a clear signal of its intent to accelerate these changes. However, these reforms must not be incremental or cosmetic—they must disrupt the past and build a future-ready military, aligned with emerging threats and challenges.
China’s military modernization is a wake-up call. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is the personal project of President Xi Jinping, and he has staked much of his leadership legacy on its performance, particularly concerning Taiwan and regional dominance. Unlike traditional leadership approaches, he has personally visited China’s Infantry, Artillery, and Aviation schools, spending days ensuring their strategic readiness. The recent purge of 86 senior PLA generals is not just about corruption—it is a deliberate cleansing of those resisting reforms or unprepared for combat readiness. This is an ideological shift, ensuring absolute loyalty and operational effectiveness.
China’s rapid military advancements are reshaping the global order. Its 400-ship Navy is growing at a pace 200 times faster than the U.S., and the Type 003 Fujian aircraft carrier, a CATOBAR-enabled, 85,000-ton warship, will soon be operational. Additionally, a drone carrier is expected by 2026, along with next-generation J-36 stealth fighters and other unmanned aerial systems. While India has been discussing the Tejas since 1986, fewer than 40 units have been delivered in over four decades. In contrast, China is already producing 5th and 6th-generation combat aircraft at scale, demonstrating a military-industrial momentum that must be countered.
China has also made significant advances in military technology infrastructure. Four years ago, many dismissed its ambitions regarding 5G and AI-driven warfare. However, just two months ago, China successfully deployed a military-hardened 5G high-speed, low-latency communication grid along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), with 10,000 active users, laying the foundation for AI-driven battlefield automation and military robotics. This technology gap must be addressed immediately, as failure to do so will widen the disparity between India and China in next-generation warfare.
India’s national security reality has fundamentally changed. While Pakistan’s influence has diminished, its threat remains, particularly as it deepens military ties with China. Meanwhile, the strategic challenges posed by Bangladesh and Myanmar are growing, necessitating a broader and more aggressive security posture. Additionally, the changing character of warfare, as seen in Ukraine, highlights the urgency of modernizing cyber, space, and maritime warfare capabilities. The Indian Navy must expand beyond its current 40-ship fleet, focusing on submarine dominance, advanced surveillance, and power projection.
This transformation must be fundamental, not incremental. Tinkering with outdated structures will not suffice—we must disrupt the past and build a military that anticipates and creates change, much like China has done. For decades, India’s defence approach was reactive—a threat would emerge, and we would scramble to respond. That mindset must change. India must look beyond the horizon, preemptively build capabilities, and drive innovation-led strategic dominance. The time for complacency is over—this is a call to action. The government’s intent is clear, and it is up to all stakeholders—military leadership, policymakers, and the defence industry—to step up the game. National security is not a periodic concern; it must be a continuous, forward-thinking effort. This is not about one leader or one reform—it is about securing India’s future in an era of unprecedented geopolitical and technological change. The path forward is not to adjust to change but to drive it. This is the moment to reshape India’s defence landscape, accelerate modernization, and establish India as a global military power. The stakes are high, and the choices we make now will define India’s security for decades to come.
Empowering Theatre Commands: The Next Frontier in Defence Reforms
The debate on theatre commands has reached a critical juncture. There are differing opinions—some stakeholders resist change, while others advocate for bold transformation. The question that needs to be asked is: Is theatre command truly a big-ticket reform? The answer is clear—it absolutely is. The establishment of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and the Department of Military Affairs (DMA) was a game changer, but many follow-up initiatives have been lackluster. The joint warfighting structure remains incomplete, and much of what has been done so far has been symbolic rather than transformational. True joint Manship requires more than cosmetic changes. Yes, we have seen officers from other services appointed as ADCs, and while that is a positive step, it does not constitute real integration. The fundamental question remains—what does true jointness mean? The debate over the necessity of powerful theatre commanders mirrors past arguments about the CDS and DMA. Many had opposed the CDS, arguing it was unnecessary, yet today, its significance is undeniable. Similarly, India is now mature enough to entrust theatre commanders with real power, as our generals are professional and well-equipped to handle strategic responsibilities.
Empowerment is key to effectiveness
If India’s National Security Advisor (NSA) had not been empowered, would he have been able to deliver the results he has? The same principle applies to theatre commanders. If they are not empowered, the entire concept of theatre commands will fail. Consider the Western Theatre Commander of China—he oversees not just military operations but also strategic infrastructure like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) across Europe. India’s Eastern Army Commander, similarly, should not just be focused on Myanmar, but on regional threats beyond traditional military boundaries, encompassing diplomatic and strategic dimensions.
Strengthening the Role of the CDS and VCDS
The role of the CDS must be centered on national interest, not service-specific interests. If the CDS prioritizes the interests of one branch over the larger strategic goals, the model fails. Leadership within India’s military structure must move beyond traditional “tribalism” and focus on collective defence objectives.Western military theorists refer to this excessive service loyalty as “tribalism”, and overcoming it is essential for creating a truly joint and integrated force. The question of how theatre commands should function must be driven by strategic realities, not bureaucratic resistance.The CDS must be empowered to focus on high-level strategic objectives. The Vice Chief of Defence Staff (VCDS) should take on day-to-day operational coordination, freeing the CDS to concentrate on future warfare planning and joint operations doctrine. If the VCDS is a four-star general, it strengthens the position of the CDS as the strategic head of India’s military framework, without getting entangled in administrative complexities. Structural hierarchy should enable, not limit, reform. There is debate over whether the CDS should be a five-star officer, but the rank is less important than the authority granted to the position. The U.S. military model is often referenced incorrectly—the chain of command in the American system runs from the theatre commanders to the Secretary of Defense (Raksha Mantri), bypassing the Joint Chiefs of Staff. However, in India’s context, the CDS must be powerful enough to drive reforms and ensure operational efficiency across all three services. Theatre commanders should be actively involved in shaping future leadership. The CDS must have a direct role in the selection of three-star officers, ensuring that jointness and interoperability are embedded at every level of military leadership. These reforms, often termed as second-generation reforms, should have already been implemented but remain stalled due to bureaucratic and inter-service turf battles.The operational mandate of the CDS must be clearly defined. If the CDS is not given an operational mandate, the entire system will collapse. The late General Bipin Rawat often emphasized the need for a strong CDS, and this remains critical to ensuring unified command structures. The misrepresentation of the American system should not be used as an excuse for inaction.
Establishing a Unified ARTAC Command: The Key to True Jointmanship and Future Readiness
The first critical step in modernizing India’s defence structure must be the creation of a unified ARTAC Command because If the armed forces do not think jointly, train jointly, and ideate jointly, then the concept of theatre commands remains ineffective. ARTAC must not only oversee training but also take charge of difficult, innovation-driven work and Futures. It should become the hub for conceptualizing next-generation military doctrines, integrating emerging technologies, and preparing for evolving threats. To ensure operational efficiency, routine training responsibilities should be delegated to three-star generals, allowing theatre commanders to focus on innovation, strategic planning, and warfighting preparedness. Additionally, leadership at premier institutions like the Defence Services Staff College (DSSC) and the National Defence Academy (NDA) must not be dictated by service-specific quotas. These institutions play a pivotal role in shaping multiple generations of military leaders, and their command must be entrusted to the most capable officers, regardless of their branch.Difficult and future-focused work must not be confined to a single service—it must be truly joint and inclusive. ARTAC should drive joint ideation, innovation in warfare concepts, and future military readiness, ensuring the armed forces stay ahead in evolving combat scenarios.For example, a competent Commandant at NDA, over a three-year tenure, directly influences four generations of officers, leaving a lasting legacy on military leadership. These critical leadership positions must be filled based on merit, strategic vision, and a deep understanding of joint warfare doctrines, rather than being assigned through inter-service quotas. The goal must be to prioritize excellence, adaptability, and future readiness in India’s military leadership, ensuring that the armed forces are fully prepared for next-generation warfare.
The Role of the Chairman Joint Chiefs: Strategic Authority vs. Operational Mandate
The notion that the Chairman Joint Chiefs does not matter is a misinterpretation of his strategic authority. In the American system, not a single aircraft carrier or refueler moves out of the theatre without his concurrence. All service chiefs know they must keep him informed. However, he does not hold an operational mandate—and that is by design. The reason is professional and structural, not about weakening his authority. The logic followed in the U.S. system is that the Chairman Joint Chiefs must remain non-partisan, providing objective military advice to the President. If he were to create operational plans, he would own them, defend them, and be unable to offer unbiased guidance. The Americans learned this lesson through their evolution from 1949 onward, particularly from the Iran fiasco, Gulf War I, and Gulf War II. It was during Gulf War II that a brigade commander could call for direct air support from an F-16, reflecting seamless joint integration. India must not simply replicate this model—we must customize it to our own system, adapting lessons without blindly copying.
Lessons from CDMA and the Need for a Permanent Chairman Joint Chiefs
The creation of the CDS and the Department of Military Affairs (DMA) was a game changer, but its follow-up reforms have been slow and incomplete. Today, we have a Permanent Chairman Joint Chiefs, but in its current structure, he lacks operational authority—just as the American Chairman Joint Chiefs did in 1949. The U.S. corrected this over time, adapting to real-world military needs. If India does not empower its Chairman Joint Chiefs with strategic oversight and operational integration, the position risks becoming ceremonial rather than transformative. The true test of military reforms is not in seminars or policy discussions—it is in combat effectiveness on the ground. The fruits of jointmanship must reach the soldier, sailor, and airman in the field. Whether it is fifth-generation fighters, advanced missile systems, or an integrated command structure, reforms must ensure that combat effectiveness is enhanced at every level.
The Necessity of Disruptive Change in Theatre Command Structure
Innovation inherently disrupts the past. If everything is running too smoothly, it means nothing substantial is changing. In every civilian field, from technology to governance, disruption is driving progress—so why should the armed forces remain static? There is pushback against the theorization of theatre commands, just as there was in the United States when Goldwater-Nichols was introduced. Resistance is inevitable, but change must be top-down. At some point, debate must end and implementation must begin. Too much democracy in the military decision-making process can be counterproductive—it leads to endless discussions, delays, and diluted reforms. Once the government declares a policy, it must be enforced without further debate. In India, military appointments and structural changes have typically been made through executive orders. The debate over whether these reforms should be implemented through legislation (like Goldwater-Nichols) or executive order (government fiat) is critical. Historically, India has made major defence changes through government directives, but for a reform as significant as theatre commands, a legal framework could ensure long-term stability and prevent future rollbacks.
What Should the Theatre Command Structure Look Like?
If the government announces theatre commands in 2025, as seems likely based on the Raksha Mantri’s intent, the entire structure of the armed forces will undergo a fundamental shift. This is the biggest reform—the 800-pound gorilla in the room. The new structure should look like this:-
(a) The Prime Minister receives strategic military advice from both the Chairman Joint Chiefs and key advisors.
(b) The Raksha Mantri (Defence Minister) oversees theatre commands and defence policy execution.
(c) Theatre Commanders have operational control over all military assets within their domain.
(d) The Chairman Joint Chiefs retains strategic oversight, ensuring coordination, future readiness, and joint integration.
(e) Strategic Domain Integration – Emerging fields like space, cyber warfare, and electronic warfare must be unified under a single command structure, akin to a Strategic Forces Command.
Does India Need a Pentagon? One common question is **whether India should develop its own version of the Pentagon—a centralized defence headquarters designed to streamline strategic decision-making. However, even the Pentagon is undergoing reform—despite a $975 billion budget, 800 military bases, and 11 aircraft carriers, the U.S. is facing major strategic failures globally.
(a) The solution is not to copy failing models, but to create a uniquely Indian system that integrates economic power, technological leadership, and military strategy.
(b) A better model would be a decentralized but highly agile command system—one that ensures speed in decision-making, real-time strategic adaptation, and full-spectrum warfare capabilities.
(c) The Pentagon is being restructured because it has failed in modern warfare. India must design a 21st-century defence structure that aligns with our unique challenges and strengths.
Defence Innovation, and Economic Efficiency: A Call for Action
A question also arises: Should reform be a consensus-driven process or a top-down directive? The answer is clear. The most senior experts in their respective fields—the Chairman of DRDO, the CDS, and the Service Chiefs—must demonstrate statesmanship. They are the highest authorities in military strategy and technology; if they do not take charge, who will? Reforms require leadership, not resistance. If certain individuals—by conviction or otherwise—refuse to adapt, they should be shown the door. Institutional inertia cannot be allowed to block national progress. The test of any defence reform is not whether it benefits a single service but whether it strengthens national security. For decades, service chiefs have urged DRDO to modernize, calling for next-generation technology. The response has often been delays, bureaucracy, and resistance to change. Today, the push for reform is coming externally, forcing innovation through necessity rather than self-motivation. This must change. India’s defence production ecosystem must move beyond the inefficient monopsony market model, where a single buyer (the government) dictates terms, leading to stagnation and inefficiency. This system has created a comfortable but lazy defence market, where state-run entities continue producing without competitive pressure. Meanwhile, China’s military-industrial complex has evolved into an innovation powerhouse. In 2014, China’s civil manufacturing sector was half the size of the U.S.; by 2022, it had doubled. The Chinese military-industrial ecosystem is now 5-6 times more efficient than its Western counterparts. A striking example is Turkey’s Bayraktar drones. Turkey has emerged as a global drone superpower, generating $2 billion in annual revenue through exports. The outdated argument that defence spending is wasteful must be abandoned—strategic defence industries create economic strength. India’s defence PSUs must be forced to compete in the commercial sector. In China, defence primes generate only 17-20% of their revenue from the PLA—the rest comes from competing in the civilian and international markets. This model drives cost-effectiveness, innovation, and strategic independence.
Saraswati, Lakshmi, and Durga: A Strategic Framework for India’s Defence and Economic Power
A profound perspective states—”Vidya is not just knowledge, Vidya is clarity.” This philosophy should guide India’s approach to national security, technological advancement, and economic growth. Knowledge alone is insufficient—without application, innovation, and commercialization, it remains untapped potential. India must embrace a strategic triad: Saraswati (Knowledge), Lakshmi (Wealth), and Durga (Power). These three forces must work in tandem to shape a competitive defence ecosystem, drive military modernization, and position India as a global leader in security and innovation.
Saraswati: Knowledge and Research as Pillars of National Strength
India has traditionally excelled in Saraswati’s domain—education, research, and intellectual pursuit. However, knowledge without strategic application is ineffective. For instance, India’s ancient institutions like Nalanda were once global centers of learning and innovation. Today, we must revive this spirit, but in the context of modern defence, AI, cyber, and space technologies. A December 24th report on China, published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), has been widely discussed in global defence circles. Yet, India lacks private think tanks with the capability and funding to produce such high-impact research. Why? Because our research institutions are often bureaucratic, underfunded, and treated as retirement centers rather than dynamic, results-driven organizations. For India to truly harness Saraswati, it must:-
(a) Fund independent think tanks that can analyze, forecast, and guide defence policy.
(b) Encourage private-sector collaboration in military research.
(c) Ensure that knowledge flows into actionable defence capabilities. A nation that respects Saraswati must invest in its strategic application. Without this, India will remain a follower rather than a leader in defence innovation.
Lakshmi: Wealth Creation as the Engine of Military Strength
For too long, India has viewed profit with skepticism, a legacy of outdated socialist-era thinking. The belief that making money is unethical has hindered innovation and economic growth, particularly in defence manufacturing. The historical mindset was evident during Prime Minister Nehru’s era, when he reportedly told an Indian industrialist, “We are not here to make a profit.” That mentality led to decades of stagnation, inefficiency, and an economic system that failed to support military modernization. However, China understood this early and built a commercially competitive, innovation-driven military-industrial complex. Today, China’s defence manufacturers generate only 17-20% of their revenue from the PLA—the rest comes from competing in private and international markets. This forces cost efficiency and drives innovation. Meanwhile, India’s defence PSUs remain inefficient, often producing weapons and equipment that cost more than what Pakistan’s ordnance factories turn out. This must change.
(a) The private sector must be actively integrated into defence manufacturing.
(b) State-owned defence firms must compete, not monopolize production.
(c) India must foster an innovation-driven military economy where companies like HAL face competition from private manufacturers. Lakshmi (Wealth) must be respected—not feared. A strong economy and a competitive private sector are integral to national defence.
Durga: Military Power Requires Decisive Reform and Investment
A powerful defence system (Durga) cannot exist without a foundation of Saraswati (Knowledge) and Lakshmi (Wealth). Yet, India’s defence ecosystem remains burdened by bureaucratic inefficiencies, slow decision-making, and outdated procurement models. To transform India’s military strength, we must:
(a) Prioritize strategic deterrence. Nuclear capabilities, AI in Military, cyber warfare, and offensive air power must be strengthened. Iran, despite being under sanctions, has developed asymmetric capabilities that make it a formidable force. India cannot afford to lag.
(b) Invest in maritime dominance. With China expanding its naval footprint in the Indian Ocean, India must rapidly scale its naval assets, including aircraft carriers, submarines, and maritime surveillance capabilities.
(d) Ensure cost-effectiveness in defence procurement. India overspends on certain defence projects while other countries produce similar or superior equipment at lower costs. Procurement processes must be streamlined to reduce waste.
(e) Move beyond incremental reforms. The defence industry needs a complete structural transformation, from theatre command restructuring to private-sector collaboration.
Top Three Defence Reforms: Priorities for India’s National Security and Strategic Strength
India is at a critical juncture where defence reforms are no longer optional but imperative. The economic, technological, and military landscape is rapidly evolving, and to maintain strategic stability, India must reassess its security priorities, realign its military structure, and integrate the private sector into defence development.
(a) Re-establishing Strategic Deterrence
India’s biggest military challenge today is the erosion of deterrence, particularly in the context of an escalating power differential with China. Year after year, China outspends India on defence by nearly $400 billion, leading to an ever-widening technological and military gap. The most critical aspect of deterrence is force projection, particularly in air, cyber, and space warfare. If India faces a major escalation with China today, our air aircrafts will struggle to penetrate China’s electronic warfare/ Air Defence infrastructure, Therefore spending in stealth aircraft is very imperative. The Chief of Air Staff has already hinted at the urgent need for next-generation capabilities—and yet, investments in air superiority, long-range missile systems, and space-based intelligence remain insufficient. India must immediately increase defence spending from the current 2% to at least 3.5% of GDP—not just to buy new equipment, but to develop cutting-edge deterrent capabilities. Strategic deterrence also includes developing dominance in space, cyber, and hypersonic warfare. The reality is future wars will not just be fought on land and sea—they will be fought in electromagnetic domains, in AI-driven battlefields, and through strategic disruption of satellite networks. If deterrence is lost, India will be forced into reactionary conflicts that cost exponentially more in terms of both resources and human lives. Investing in deterrence now prevents war in the future.
(b) Taking Jointmanship to Its Logical Conclusion
The creation of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and the Department of Military Affairs (DMA) was a major breakthrough, but reforms have stalled. Theatre commands have remained only partially realized, with resistance from within the system. Jointmanship must not be left incomplete—the entire military structure must be realigned to function as a cohesive force rather than independent service silos. India’s land-based, air-based, and naval capabilities must be fully integrated into theatre commands that operate with unified strategic objectives rather than service-specific priorities. The CDS must be fully empowered with operational authority, similar to global models, ensuring strategic military planning and execution are seamless across all branches. Jointmanship also extends beyond the armed forces. Today’s military strategy must incorporate technologists, private sector innovators, and geopolitical strategists. India must create a National Security Technology and Innovation Council, where military leaders work alongside AI researchers, cybersecurity experts, and emerging defence technology startups. Strategic minds from outside the military and other domain experts, must be integrated into defence planning. Jointmanship is not just about uniting the three services—it is about creating a national security ecosystem that integrates all forms of strategic thinking and technological expertise.
(c) Achieving True Atmanirbharata in Defence
India has made significant progress in building indigenous defence capabilities, but this remains incomplete without deep private-sector involvement. The monopoly of defence PSUs must be broken – India cannot afford a system where innovation is stifled by bureaucracy and inefficiency. The private sector must be treated as an equal partner in defence production, rather than a secondary player. Leading defence startups and emerging tech firms must receive direct contracts to accelerate indigenous capability building. A key step is reforming the L1 (lowest bidder) procurement model. Today, private firms are locked out of defence contracts because the system prioritizes cost over quality. No major global defence company operates on a “lowest bidder wins” model—quality and strategic capability must take precedence. Atmanirbharata also requires a complete restructuring of R&D investment in India.The United States spends $975 billion on scientific R&D annually—$700 billion of which comes from the private sector. In contrast, India’s private sector investment in R&D remains minimal, and it relies heavily on government fund
Beyond Reforms: The Role of Economic Policy in National Security
Economic strategy and national security must be interconnected. National security cannot be an afterthought in economic planning—it must be a central pillar of statecraft. Budgetary allocation for defence must be integrated into long-term economic planning, rather than treated as a burden. India must transition from a monopsony defence market (where the government is the sole buyer) to a competitive ecosystem where private firms can sell to global markets. An economic mindset shift is required—national security is not just a military concern; it is a public good that requires continuous investment. As Chanakya emphasized, “From the strength of the treasury, the army is born.” Economic growth and military strength must be cultivated together, not separately.
Conclusion: A Defining Moment for India’s Defence Transformation
India stands at a crossroads where bold defence reforms are no longer an option, but an imperative. The declaration of 2025 as the Year of Defence Reforms signals the government’s commitment to accelerating change, but the success of these reforms will depend on swift execution, decisive leadership, and strategic foresight. The three key priorities—re-establishing strategic deterrence, implementing true jointmanship, and achieving atmanirbharata in defence—will define India’s military preparedness, technological edge, and strategic autonomy in the years to come. This transformation must go beyond incremental adjustments; it demands a complete overhaul of how India approaches national security, innovation, and military modernization. National security is not just a military concern—it is a fundamental pillar of economic and strategic statecraft. Economic growth and military strength must be developed in tandem, with a clear commitment to investing in future-ready defence technologies, empowering the private sector, and integrating civilian expertise into security planning. The choices made today will shape India’s security, military dominance, and geopolitical influence for decades to come. Reforms must be bold, swift, and irreversible—ensuring that India not only secures its borders but emerges as a global leader in defence and security.The time for debate is over—this is the moment for decisive action. The road to peace is built on strength, and India’s future will be defined by its ability to transform its defence ecosystem now.A Call to Action, For the Armed Forces: Fully commit to joint warfare strategies, modernization, and future-ready capabilities, For the Government: Fast-track procurement reforms, increase defence investment, and ensure policy stability, For the Private Sector: Step up in R&D, defence manufacturing, and technological innovation to support self-reliance.
