Hard power, self-reliance underpin strategic autonomy, say experts

India's strategic autonomy hinges on stronger hard power, a scaled-up military-industrial base, and technological self-reliance, panellists said at Business Standard Manthan

India’s continued pursuit of strategic autonomy — defined as the freedom to work out its own policies on the world stage without coercion by great powers — requires a concerted effort to strengthen the country’s hard power, domestic military-industrial base, and technological self-reliance, three panellists — spanning diplomacy, industry, and the armed forces — said at the Business Standard Manthan conclave in New Delhi on Wednesday.

 

A panel discussion, moderated by Satarupa Bhattacharjya, titled Maintaining strategic autonomy, comprised Sujan Chinoy, director-general of the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses; Lieutenant General Deependra Singh Hooda (retd), distinguished fellow at the Delhi Policy Group; and Rajinder Singh Bhatia, chairman of Kalyani Strategic Systems Ltd, a defence subsidiary of Bharat Forge. 

‘Military power is relative’ 

Responding to a question on the importance of hard power, Lieutenant General Hooda said: “If we want India in the future to be considered one of the poles — one of the great powers — and to establish strategic autonomy, we need to build our military capability… that is essential.” 

While economic strength is essential, economic powerhouses such as Germany and Japan are not regarded as great powers because they lack military capability and depend on the United States (US) or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for their security, according to him. 

He also underlined that while the Indian armed forces were consistently assessed by various international organisations that measured (India’s) military capability as the third or fourth highest in the world, and that the country’s possession of nuclear weapons was a key component of its strategic autonomy and helped guard against nuclear blackmail, military power was nonetheless a relative concept. 

“We can’t say that just because we have so many guns, tanks, aircraft and ships, we are a strong power. Military power is always relative to your adversary,” said Hooda, adding: “… our potential adversary is China, which is a strong economic, technological and military power. Therefore, when we talk about building our capability, it has to be to make sure that the gap between India and China in terms of military power does not increase too much”. 

To achieve these goals, he emphasised the need to build a strong defence industrial base, enhance private-sector participation, and improve procurement processes and decision-making. 

“We are the largest importer of arms in the world, and we cannot continue like this … We need a more balanced ecosystem in which defence public-sector undertakings concentrate on strategic systems, while private industry meets the immediate requirements of the military,” he said. 

‘Only a small push needed’ 

Underscoring that the country faces a significant gap in advanced technologies, particularly in critical areas, Bhatia broke the challenge into three parts: Research and development (R&D), innovation, and breakthrough and disruptive technologies. 

“R&D remains a state function and innovation is incremental. We need to place greater emphasis on breakthrough and disruptive technologies to ensure that we can jump the queue in the shortest possible time.” 

Highlighting that Bengaluru alone had around 16,000 startups — with a density higher than that of Israel, often described as the startup nation — Bhatia said there was no shortage of talent, entrepreneurs, or innovators in the country. “All we need is a small push, what we call creating the right kind of sentiment, or what we call the ecosystem…,” he added. 

Stating that India needs both financial strength and technological self-sufficiency, Bhatia pointed to the likelihood of the economy growing to $30 trillion-40 trillion by 2047 as a key enabler. 

“India spends close to $80 billion on defence, which translates into 3.5 per cent — maybe 4 — per cent of global defence expenditure. If we continue to grow at the current pace, by 2047 the projections are that this figure will rise to 10-16 per cent of global defence spending. This means that the military-industrial complex we are talking about today will have to be seven to eight times larger than it is now,” he said, explaining the scale that would need to be achieved. 

Ultimately, Bhatia identified the adoption of a “whole-of-nation approach” and the breaking down of “all silos” as the way out of the present “polycrisis” — the combination of simultaneous and mutually reinforcing crises. 

‘Create national champions’ 

Agreeing that no amount of soft power can substitute for hard power, former ambassador Sujan Chinoy said: “There is no substitute for spending our own money on R&D, because technology doesn’t come cheap, and people make you pay through your nose for it.” 

He also underscored that both the nature of the technology and the stage of its lifecycle at which it was procured were critical considerations. Once acquired, he added, such technology can be leveraged for spiral development. As an example, Chinoy cited ongoing efforts to secure next-generation military aero-engine technology from foreign partners, including France, which could subsequently be adapted to power smaller or larger aircraft, either by derating its thrust or upgrading it to higher performance levels. 

“The bottom line is that there is no strategic autonomy worthy of the name unless you have freedom of choice during war,” Chinoy said, explaining that India had to procure artillery shells from South Africa during the 1999 Kargil war after running short of supplies. 

While calling on the private sector to step up investment, Chinoy said the government, for its part, would also need to create “national champions”. 

He further called for a move away from the practice of awarding defence contracts solely to the lowest bidder (L1), and cautioned against splitting orders among two or more players in certain cases. “Let’s identify niche areas in which certain companies are capable of doing well. Let’s not go about L1 all the time. Let’s also talk about T1 [technologically superior bidder]. People who have the technology should have full order books, because if they don’t have orders, they’re not going to be able to invest any kind of money,” he explained. 

On a cautionary note, he also pointed out that India would remain dependent on the United States for aircraft engines for critical platforms over the next 50 years, as General Electric powers the indigenous Tejas Mark-1, Mark-1A and Mark-2 jets, as well as the first tranche of India’s under-development stealth fighter, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft.