SOURCE: AFI
India is reportedly in talks with the United States for potential licensing and local production of the Stryker Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) and Javelin Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGMs). While these acquisitions may seem like steps toward modernizing India’s defense forces, they have raised eyebrows among defense experts and industry insiders. Many are questioning the urgency with which the Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) is pursuing these deals, despite the availability of local alternatives, leading to concerns about the growing influence of the American defense establishment on India’s procurement policies.
Indian defense experts are perplexed by the MoD’s preference for U.S. weapon systems that some claim are overpriced and technologically outdated. Ranesh Rajan, a defense analyst, voiced his concerns to idrw.org, stating, “India is buying yesteryear tech for tomorrow’s price.” Rajan, along with others in the defense sector, is puzzled as to why India is opting for imported solutions like the Stryker APC and Javelin ATGM when indigenous options are available, both more cost-effective and designed with Indian terrain and operational needs in mind.
The potential acquisition of the Sig Sauer SIG716 rifles, another American procurement, has also drawn criticism. Several experts have raised concerns about the weapon’s inflated price tag, especially when Indian manufacturers can produce similar or superior systems at a fraction of the cost.
India’s defense sector has seen significant growth in recent years, with both public and private players investing heavily in the research, development, and production of military equipment. From Tata Motors to Larsen & Toubro (L&T) and Bharat Forge, Indian companies are increasingly capable of producing world-class armored vehicles, ATGMs, and other defense systems. Furthermore, Defense Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has made strides in developing advanced indigenous systems that are both cost-effective and customized for Indian conditions.
For instance, India’s Nag ATGM is a locally-developed anti-tank missile with capabilities that rival foreign systems, while the Kalyani M4 is an Indian-manufactured armored vehicle, capable of performing many of the roles for which the Stryker is designed. Despite the availability of these indigenous options, the Indian government’s decision to pursue American deals has raised questions about whether domestic manufacturers are being given a fair opportunity to meet the country’s defense needs.
The growing number of high-profile defense deals between India and the U.S., including purchases like the Apache and Chinook helicopters, P-8I Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, and more recently, discussions around the F-414 jet engine for India’s Tejas fighter jets, signal a strategic alignment between the two countries. However, many experts argue that the increasing reliance on American technology comes at the cost of India’s goal of self-reliance in defense.
The Modi government has long championed the Make in India initiative, emphasizing the importance of building a robust domestic defense industry. Yet, the rush to finalize big-ticket purchases from the U.S. has raised concerns that the government’s actions may not align with its stated policy objectives. The potential licensing and local production of U.S. systems in India, while seemingly beneficial in the short term, may also undermine the growth of the Indian defense sector by diverting attention and resources away from indigenous development.
A critical point raised by experts is whether the Indian military actually needs the systems it is buying. The focus on acquiring systems like APCs and ATGMs, which Indian manufacturers can already produce at a lower cost, has led to concerns that these deals may be more about politics than practical defense needs.
Rajan also pointed out that India’s defense needs go beyond basic ground combat systems like APCs and ATGMs. The Indian military has consistently sought advanced technologies in areas such as cyber warfare, missile defense, and unmanned systems. “It is not clear,” Rajan remarked, “why instead of going for what the Indian military might actually want, we are going for low-tech equipment that the Indian private sector can manufacture.”
A common critique of these acquisitions is the price India is paying. U.S. defense equipment, while often technologically advanced, comes with a hefty price tag, which is significantly higher than similar systems produced locally. With India’s defense budget under pressure, many experts argue that the country can ill afford to spend on foreign-made equipment when cheaper and more effective options are available domestically.
The Sig Sauer SIG716 rifle procurement, for instance, has faced backlash for being an unnecessary and expensive acquisition, when Indian alternatives could have been procured at a lower cost and with better support for local manufacturing.
While strategic defense ties with the U.S. offer India access to advanced technology and enhance interoperability with Western forces, there is growing concern that these deals are being made at the expense of India’s self-reliance goals. The Modi government faces the challenge of balancing the need to strengthen defense ties with the U.S. while fostering the growth of its domestic defense industry.