Delays and cost overruns in India’s defence projects are not just bureaucratic setbacks. They point to a structural flaw in the country’s acquisition architecture — the near-total absence of accountability across the chain of command.
Despite the policy push under Make in India, Atmanirbhar Bharat, and Innovations for Defence Excellence (iDEX), the defence procurement process remains anchored in procedure rather than performance. The Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP), meant to streamline buying, has become a rulebook for compliance rather than delivery.
A system where no one is answerable
India’s acquisition network is a tangle of ministries, directorates, public sector undertakings (PSUs), and testing agencies. Each has a defined role, but none bears full responsibility when timelines collapse. The result is a culture where success is measured by paperwork completed, not equipment delivered.
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has repeatedly found that over 60% of major defence capital projects face delays between one and seven years. Yet few of these lapses result in disciplinary or procedural consequences.
State-run defence manufacturers, shielded from commercial pressure, often miss delivery schedules with little fallout. A CAG review of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) found repeated delays in aircraft production and upgrades, including the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas and Sukhoi-30 projects.
Private companies, though nimble and capable, face steep barriers — restrictive eligibility criteria, unpredictable orders, and prolonged approvals. The imbalance protects underperforming PSUs while sidelining efficient private producers. The result is a persistent output gap and a distorted ecosystem.
The bottleneck no one talks about
Quality assurance and testing — essential steps in defence acquisition — have become bottlenecks of their own. The Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA) and allied certification agencies work in silos, often out of sync with user requirements or production schedules.
In one example, the Dhanush artillery gun faced years of delay due to redundant and overlapping trials, even after it had met user expectations. Internationally, systems such as the US Defense Acquisition model and the UK’s Smart Acquisition framework link testing, certification, and manufacturing in real time — reducing friction and enforcing accountability.
In India, by contrast, the process remains sequential and fragmented. The Indian Army, the primary end user, is often drawn into the loop too late, its feedback diluted through committees or deferred to user trials. By then, cost and design rigidity make course corrections nearly impossible.
Embedding the Army earlier in the design phase, as a co-developer rather than a late-stage evaluator, could prevent waste and improve readiness. The Ministry of Defence’s Integrated Capability Development Plan (ICDP) was meant to do this, but its rollout remains uneven.
Reforming the system’s DNA
True reform will require accountability to be built into every layer of procurement — not added later through audits. Each stage, from the initial Acceptance of Necessity (AoN) to final delivery, must have clear ownership and measurable benchmarks.
Publicly accessible timelines, performance-linked incentives for PSUs, penalties for delays, and integrated programme offices that include the military, scientists, and industry could help shift the system from a process-driven to an outcome-driven model.
India’s defence preparedness depends not only on what it builds, but how responsibly it builds it. Without accountability built into the system’s DNA, the cycle of delay and dependency will persist — eroding both operational readiness and credibility.