India’s defence procurement system today stands at the intersection of urgency and autonomy.
As the Indian Army faces an increasingly complex security environment from high-altitude standoffs in the Himalayas to hybrid threats across its borders, the question of whether to “buy global” or “make in India” has become more than a policy slogan.
It defines the country’s operational readiness, technological sovereignty, and industrial resilience.
While “Atmanirbhar Bharat” has become the guiding vision, procurement realities show that balancing speed of acquisition with the long-term goal of self-reliance remains a delicate act. The Army’s approach, therefore, is increasingly pragmatic: focusing on capability first, ideology second.
Delays and the Price of Bureaucracy
India’s procurement system is notoriously slow. The average defence acquisition from Acceptance of Necessity (AoN) to contract signing can take five to seven years. This bureaucratic lag not only affects readiness but also inflates costs and obsolescence risks.
For example, the Advanced Towed Artillery Gun System (ATAGS), a flagship Make in India project, has undergone years of trials and design refinements since its inception in 2013. Despite successful tests, its first regiment is expected to be inducted only by February 2027.
While the ATAGS showcases India’s engineering capability, the long gestation period underscores the systemic inertia in procurement approvals, quality assurance cycles, and coordination between user and developer.
Contrast this with emergency imports during crises, such as artillery shells or small arms from global vendors, which are often finalised in weeks. Yet, such quick fixes come with dependencies that undercut the very notion of strategic autonomy.
AK-203: A Case Study in Balancing Speed and Localisation
The AK-203 rifle project at Korwa, Amethi — a joint venture between the Ordnance Factory Board (now Advanced Weapons and Equipment India Limited) and Russia’s Kalashnikov Concern — reflects both the potential and pitfalls of localisation.
Around 48,000 rifles have been delivered to the Army so far, but the project’s original promise of 100% localisation by end-2025 remains a work in progress.
Delays in technology transfer (ToT), tooling setup, and component indigenisation have slowed progress. However, once full-scale production is achieved, it could serve as a template for co-development models that blend global design with Indian manufacture.
The lesson here is clear: indigenisation must be pursued with operational timelines in mind. Soldiers cannot wait indefinitely for bureaucrats to clear paperwork, nor can the country afford perpetual import dependence.
Technology Transfer: The Broken Bridge
One of the enduring challenges in India’s defence procurement is the ineffectiveness of technology transfer clauses. In many “Buy and Make” cases, the transfer is limited to assembly and maintenance, with critical technologies remaining off-limits.
This perpetuates dependence on foreign vendors for spares and upgrades, as seen in the Su-30MKI or T-90 tank ecosystems.
The Ministry of Defence’s Strategic Partnership model was designed to address this by encouraging joint ventures that go beyond screwdriver assembly. Yet, progress has been uneven.
Without genuine absorption of know-how and design rights, India risks creating a manufacturing base that produces without innovating.
Private Sector and iDEX: Seeds of Innovation
If state-run PSUs remain the backbone, private industry is becoming the muscle of India’s new defence ecosystem. The Innovations for Defence Excellence (iDEX) initiative has catalysed this shift by funding start-ups and MSMEs with promising technologies.
Start-ups like Siliconia Technologies, Artemon, and Tonbo Imaging have developed AI-based surveillance systems, lightweight drones, and electro-optical sensors, solutions that are already finding acceptance in the Army’s field trials. Their agility contrasts sharply with PSU’s sluggishness, showing that innovation thrives in competition.
The private sector’s growing credibility also compels the Army to adopt a hybrid procurement philosophy: leverage indigenous innovation for future readiness while using global systems to plug immediate gaps.
The Soldier’s View: Reliability Over Rhetoric
Feedback from the field often cuts through policy posturing. Soldiers value reliability, ergonomics, and maintainability above all else — whether the weapon is imported or indigenous. The debate, therefore, is not ideological but operational.
For instance, troops who used imported SIG-716 rifles in Eastern Ladakh appreciated their performance in extreme cold, while also acknowledging the AK-203’s simpler maintenance profile. Similarly, domestically developed systems like ATAGS and Dhanush are praised for firepower but still face teething issues in weight and mobility.
This feedback loop is vital. Procurement decisions that ignore user experience risk equipping the Army with politically correct but tactically unsuitable equipment.
From Procurement to Preparedness
Reforms are gradually addressing these systemic bottlenecks. The Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) 2020 introduced faster decision cycles and a push for indigenous design. The Make-III category now allows for private manufacturing of non-critical equipment, freeing up PSU capacity.
Yet, true transformation will require predictable funding, empowered project management units, and consistent user-developer dialogue. The Army’s aim is not to reject imports or glorify indigenisation, but to ensure that soldiers get what they need, when they need it.
Capability First, Ideology Later
India’s quest for defence self-reliance must be grounded in pragmatism. “Buy Global” ensures readiness today; “Make in India” ensures sovereignty tomorrow. The real art lies in synchronising both, enabling India to fight with what it has while building what it needs.
For the Indian Army, the debate is settled: capability is the only ideology that matters.