What India can learn from Israel about atmanirbharta in defence

The Print

a day ago

Israel's journey toward defence self-reliance was driven by a combination of existential urgency and a national culture of innovation. When Israel was born, it immediately faced a multi-front military conflict. These wars forged a mindset of necessity-driven invention, unlike India, whose military objectives were shaped by the non-alignment philosophy and a focus on civilian industry.
Yet, despite these restrictions and existential threats, Israel rapidly transformed itself into a defence innovation powerhouse, exporting nearly $15 billion in advanced weaponry in 2024, while India continues to rely heavily on arms imports to meet its needs. Understanding this divergence reveals key lessons on strategy, institutional design, and national resolve, which India must learn to become a global powerhouse.
India and Israel became independent countries less than a year apart — in August 1947 and May 1948, respectively. Almost immediately, both countries had to wage a war to safeguard their sovereignty and territorial integrity due to their inimical neighbours. As independent states, both countries inherited nascent economies, fragile infrastructure, limited heavy industries, and immediate security threats. In fact, Israel was probably in a more critical situation as it faced a UN arms embargo on all parties involved in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, which limited its access to military equipment.
This was particularly so during the Nehruvian years, when the Armed Forces were seen as a necessary evil and priority was given to the development of the civilian industrial sector at the cost of a firm military foundation. Israel, on the other hand, saw military capability as essential to survival. Every war from 1948 through 1967, 1973, and right up to the ongoing conflict in Gaza, has been a catalyst for innovation, with battlefield necessity spurring not only rapid development of weapons systems, but also new tactics, techniques, and procedures.
The urgency to upgrade our defence preparedness has returned to the fore, more so after Operation Sindoor. Limited foreign imports are being considered to plug critical gaps, including the possibility of inducting a foreign-made fifth-generation fighter aircraft. Inaugurating a workshop and exhibition held at the Manekshaw Centre in Delhi on 16 July, Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan said, 'In today's warfare, you can't win with yesterday's weapon system.' It is logical then that tomorrow's wars cannot be fought with weapon systems based on today's technology. We need a transformative change in our systems.
Two contrasting defence sectors
Israel carried out institutional integration of its military, academic, and private industrial capabilities, resulting in a tightly coordinated ecosystem. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) worked in close tandem with universities, startups, and defence firms such as Elbit Systems, Rafael, and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI).
This tri-sector collaboration allowed rapid prototyping, battlefield testing, and iterative refinement. Mandatory conscription ensured military-civilian integration while early support from the Jewish diaspora in terms of funds and know-how also helped. This aspect of a strong civil-military-industry interface has been repeatedly stressed upon by Edward N Luttwak and Eitan Shamir in their book The Art of Military Innovation. The result was world-class systems such as the Iron Dome, Trophy active protection system, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and satellite systems.
By contrast, India's defence sector remained largely insulated. Dominated by public-sector entities like DRDO, HAL, and OFB, it followed bureaucratic, slow-moving processes with limited commercial incentives or accountability. Weak feedback loops between users (the military) and designers (DRDO), along with little to no synergy between academia, industry, and the military, further hindered progress. Most importantly, procurement must transition from least-cost (L1) models to highest-performance (T1) evaluations. Emphasising metrics such as lifecycle cost, operational performance, and indigenisation will incentivise innovation and discourage a process-over-product mindset. The L1 system has been the bane of our procurement, encouraging companies to give the bare minimum to win contracts. Except for the Armed Forces, no stakeholder truly has skin in the game.
Israel's export success in defence is also a reflection of its strategic necessity. With a small domestic market incapable of sustaining mature industries, Israel pursued exports aggressively. In 2024, Israeli defence exports hit a record $14.8 billion, with 48 per cent comprising rockets, missiles, and air defence systems. These sales — to Europe and other friendly countries — not only validated Israeli technology but also funded future R&D. India, despite its large Armed Forces, has lacked a similar export essentiality, and its fledgling defence industry has struggled to translate capacity into mass production or compete globally, resulting in continued reliance on imports.
Also read: A letter to Defence Minister, with lessons from American fighter pilot John Boyd: Jaithirth Rao
The real challenge
India has initiated policy reforms aimed at shifting this paradigm. Programmes like Make in India, the Defence Acquisition Procedure 2020, and the Strategic Partnership Model have opened doors for private sector participation in defence, raised FDI limits, and corporatised legacy PSUs. Notably, Reliance Defence's recent partnerships with Germany's Rheinmetall and Diehl Defense to produce advanced ammunition and guided shells domestically mark significant milestones. Similarly, the indigenous helicopter gunship and sniper rifle developments reflect gradual progress. India's defence exports, estimated at Rs 21,083 crore in FY 2023-24, to over 100 countries, underscore a nascent export orientation, though much of it remains aspirational.
Israel's success is an off-shoot of existential necessity, an integrated ecosystem, a culture of innovation, and export-driven development. India must build upon the momentum by deepening private sector involvement, institutional reform, procurement refocus, and nurturing human capital, to genuinely realise Atmanirbharta in defence. This requires bold structural transformation, sustained political support, and clear strategic direction, with an emphasis on defence preparedness. In this context, it would be worthwhile to recollect what French President Emmanuel Macron said in his speech on the eve of Bastille Day 2025: 'To be free in this world, you must be feared. To be feared, you must be powerful.'
India's challenge is not of capability, but of unity and resolve. A focused, innovation-driven, user-integrated defence ecosystem is achievable if the government empowers rather than restrains; the military leads rather than watches; and the industry builds rather than waits to be spoon-fed. India has the necessary talent, demand, and environment to build one of the world's best indigenous defence ecosystems. We just have to put it all together.
General Manoj Mukund Naravane PVSM AVSM SM VSM is a retired Indian Army General who served as the 28th Chief of the Army Staff. Views are personal.
(Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)