Akash System, AI Drones, And Why India Can't 'Outsource' Security
Learning From The Past
History presents stark reminders. In 1965, India's military endeavours were significantly hindered by a US arms embargo. In 1991, amidst the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia, despite possessing an abundance of Western armaments, depended wholly on the United States for the protection of its oil fields. In stark contrast, Israel has not only endured but flourished, and through strategic alliances and a steadfast commitment has developed its own capabilities. Therefore, countries that delegate their defence industrial capabilities relinquish control over their strategic destiny. Atmanirbharta, or self-reliance, in defence transcends mere rhetoric.
This strategic realisation is beginning to pay dividends for India. Despite still being the world's second-largest arms importer, accounting for 8.3% of global imports, just behind Ukraine's 8.4% according to SIPRI, India has shifted course since 2014. The focus has moved beyond mere procurement towards co-development, co-production, and indigenous innovation. The aim is no longer just to acquire weapons but to build the capacity to design and produce them domestically. Initiatives such as the Defence Industrial Corridors in Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh, the corporatisation of the Ordnance Factory Board, and the launch of Innovations for Defence Excellence (iDEX) signal a structural push towards developing in-house defence R&D. Successes like the Tejas fighter jet, the DRDO-developed anti-satellite missile (ASAT), and the Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile are no longer isolated achievements, they reflect the emergence of a broader, self-sustaining military-industrial ecosystem. Simultaneously, technology transfer agreements and licensed production under the Strategic Partnership Model are enabling Indian firms to move up the value chain. India is no longer content being a passive buyer, it is steadily becoming a sovereign producer. Atmanirbharta in defence is not a distant goal. It is fast becoming the country's strategic posture.
All That Was Used In Op Sindoor
Operation Sindoor has given us the clearest evidence of how far India has come as far as innovation in defence tech is concerned. The mission, launched in retaliation to the April 2025 Pahalgam terror attack, was conducted entirely without crossing the Line of Control, relying on high-precision, domestically engineered strike and surveillance systems. Among the most crucial was the Akash Surface-to-Air Missile System, which provided short-range protection against incoming aerial threats. Backed by the Akashteer Air Defence Control and Reporting System, Indian forces intercepted all hostile drones and missiles with 100% success, demonstrating real-time net-centric warfare capabilities powered by domestic radar, telemetry, and sensor integration. The Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) served as the backbone of coordination, linking airbases, radar units, and weapon platforms across the services under a single digital command structure.
For offensive capabilities, SkyStriker loitering munitions, manufactured domestically under technology transfer from Israel's Elbit Systems, enabled deep penetration and destruction of enemy radar and missile installations. These AI-enabled kamikaze drones hovered over target zones, identified high-value assets, and struck with zero collateral damage. The Indian Air Force also deployed long-range drones for real-time ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance), while DRDO-developed electronic warfare systems successfully jammed Pakistan's Chinese-supplied radar and missile infrastructure, completing the mission in under 23 minutes, without any loss of Indian assets. Ground forces remained on high alert using a layered defensive posture comprising legacy systems like Pechora and OSA-AK, and new-generation assets like Akash-NG and LLQRM (Low-Level Quick Reaction Missiles). The Indian Army's Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems (C-UAS) grid and shoulder-fired missiles formed the first layer of protection, reinforced by low-level air defence (LLAD) guns and electro-optical tracking systems.
Notably, India's indigenous satellite assets, including those from ISRO, provided 24x7 strategic situational awareness. More than 10 satellites were operational in monitoring India's 7,000-km coastline and the northern theatre during the mission, highlighting the seamless integration of space-based sensors into real-time tactical decision-making. The operation also exposed and neutralised advanced foreign-origin platforms deployed by Pakistan, including PL-15 air-to-air missiles, Turkish-origin UAVs, and Chinese-made quadcopters, all of which were rendered ineffective by India's domestic air defence ecosystem.
A Decade Of Work
Behind the success of Operation Sindoor lies a decade of focused investment in building indigenous capacity. The iDEX platform, Strategic Partnership Model, Defence Industrial Corridors in Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh, and the ban on imported drones in 2021 catalysed the rise of Indian firms in the UAV and defence electronics space. Firms like Alpha Design Technologies, Paras Defence, and Tata Advanced Systems are now core contributors to India's tactical autonomy. India's drone market, projected to reach $11 billion by 2030, is rapidly emerging as a key pillar of national security.
Let The Momentum Remain
To consolidate Operation Sindoor's gains and realise full-spectrum strategic autonomy, India must urgently address key gaps across its defence ecosystem. The most pressing is the development of indigenous jet engines. Despite progress in airframe design, India remains reliant on foreign propulsion systems, which is a critical vulnerability. We still rely on GE engines for Tejas, and deliveries are behind schedule. Reviving the Kaveri engine programme, backed by a National Aero-Engine Mission with global partnerships and IP retention, is imperative.
Equally important is scaling the indigenous drone ecosystem. India must accelerate the development of HALE/MALE drones, autonomous loitering munitions, and AI-powered drone swarms. The CATS Warrior and TAPAS-BH platforms must be supported with robust R&D funding, domestic payload production, and regulatory clarity.
In parallel, India must localise avionics, AESA radars, mission computers, and electronic warfare (EW) suites. Modern warfare is increasingly software-defined, and foreign dependence for these components creates the risk of supply chain disruption or strategic denial. DRDO's Uttam radar and integrated EW systems must be expanded across all military platforms.
On the missile front, India must invest in hypersonic glide vehicles, scramjet propulsion, and advanced seekers. While systems like Agni-V and BrahMos have established deterrence, the next phase requires indigenising guidance, propulsion, and warhead technologies to reduce exposure to sanctions.
Don't Forget Navy
Naval self-reliance is equally essential. India must develop indigenous nuclear propulsion, air-independent systems for submarines, and sonar suites for warships. The strategic shipbuilding base, strengthened by projects like INS Vikrant, needs technological depth and private-sector integration to meet future maritime threats.
Space-based defence infrastructure must be hardened and expanded, especially satellite surveillance, communication, and navigation systems. ISRO's constellation of military satellites proved effective in Operation Sindoor, but micro-satellite swarms, missile early-warning sensors, and secure relay networks are the next frontier.
India must also invest in cyber and AI warfare. A dedicated Defence Cyber Command is needed to build offensive and defensive capabilities, alongside AI tools for battlefield management, autonomous weapons, and predictive logistics.
Finally, defence-grade electronics, semiconductors, embedded systems, and secure microcontrollers must be domestically produced. India's semiconductor mission must explicitly include military applications to secure its electronic backbone.
The next decade will determine whether India merely reduces dependence or truly rewires its defence ecosystem for self-sufficiency. The challenge now is not one of intent but of scale, speed, and strategic discipline. As defence technology becomes increasingly complex, interdisciplinary, and software-defined, India must foster deep integration between research labs, private industry, and operational commands. This will require not just funding or policy reform, but a cultural shift, one that values iterative innovation, tolerates risk, and treats defence R&D as a national strategic asset rather than a budget line.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Wire
2 hours ago
- The Wire
No, Mamdani Isn't ‘Uncivilised' for Eating with his Hands
A recent social media clash between liberals and conservatives surrounding US Congressman Brandon Gill's insult aimed at New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has reignited an old, unresolved question: what does it mean to be 'civilised'? Gill, the youngest Republican representative from Texas, tweeted – with smug confidence – that Americans use forks and spoons because they are 'civilised'. This was in context to a video interview in which Mamdani was seen eating Biryani with his hand. The subtext was loud and clear: eating with one's hands, as many in Asia, Africa, and other 'non-Western' parts of the world do, is somehow primitive or uncultured. But such a view isn't just arrogant – it reeks of historical amnesia and the hangover of colonial thinking. Eating habits aren't a measure of progress; they are shaped by weather, geography, tradition and spiritual philosophy. Treating them as a civilisation test is not only silly – it is a form of cultural bullying. Civilisation is what people make of it To understand how we got here, it is worth pausing to reconsider the word "civilised'. Who decides what counts as civilised, and who gets left out? The sociologist Norbert Elias tried to answer this back in the 1930s. He argued that ideas of "civilised" behaviour are not eternal truths – they change over time, depending on who's in power and what's considered respectable. In medieval Europe, people of all classes, even nobles, used their hands or a knife to eat. Forks came much later, introduced from the East – through trade routes, contact with Islamic cultures and Byzantine influence. At first, they were treated with suspicion. Some even thought them ungodly. Forks didn't become common until the 17th or 18th centuries, and even then, it wasn't about hygiene – it was about class. The fork became a symbol not of advancement, but of status – something the elite could use to show they were different from the poor. If that's what 'civilised' means, then maybe we need to rethink the word. The culture behind eating with hand In large parts of Asia, Africa and the Middle East, eating with hands is not just normal – it's a meaningful act. In Indian traditions, food is seen as sacred, and eating with your hands brings the body and mind closer to it. In Ayurveda, it's believed to help digestion and engage the senses. In Islamic culture, the Prophet Muhammad encouraged eating with the right hand – a gesture of respect and cleanliness. In Ethiopia, meals like injera are shared by hand, symbolising love and community. Across Southeast Asia, in countries like Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, eating with one's hand is tied to custom and comfort. This isn't about being 'undeveloped' but about being connected – to food, to people, to culture. In fact, the industrial dining practices that we now associate with modernity – eating alone, in a hurry, with a metal tool – often feel cold and isolating, by comparison. Still stuck in the Orientalist gaze Brandon Gill's tweet is not a harmless opinion – it fits neatly into a pattern that Edward Said called Orientalism. Said showed how Western powers, especially during colonial times, painted the East as strange, backwards and inferior – not to understand it, but to dominate it. One of the easiest ways to do this was through food. Eating with your hands? That became shorthand for dirty or uncultured. The fork, by contrast, was held up as a badge of civilisation. It's a double standard that persists in the classroom, in pop culture, in airports, and apparently, even in the US Congress. A fork doesn't define civilisation Historian Dipesh Chakrabarty, in his critique of how we treat Europe as the centre of history, reminds us that no single region gets to define what progress looks like for the rest of the world. India had rich traditions around food, hygiene and community dining long before forks appeared in Europe. Ancient texts like the Mahabharata (fictional) describe detailed rituals around meals – handwashing, sitting on the floor, sharing food with guests – all of which were seen as civilised and sacred. In China, chopsticks developed alongside a cuisine that suited them. In the Americas, indigenous societies had their own unique food cultures that didn't need forks or knives. The idea that civilisation requires a fork is laughably narrow, and false. Table manners as tools of control During British rule in India, colonial officers often ridiculed hand-eating. It wasn't just about different habits – it was about asserting power. Indians were told their way was wrong, dirty, uncivilised. Victorian table manners were taught in schools. Cutlery wasn't about convenience; it was about obedience. Anthropologist Franz Boas once said that no culture can be judged by another's standards. What matters is the context. The British weren't sharing etiquette tips – they were using manners as weapons to make Indian subjects feel ashamed of themselves. That's not civilisation – that's domination. Science catches up Today, scientific studies show that eating with your hands can help digestion and encourage mindful eating. Your fingers can sense temperature and texture, making you more aware of what you're consuming. Many nutritionists now suggest that sensory eating helps people feel full sooner and make better food choices. Ironically, the fork – often treated as the ultimate tool of refinement – may make us eat faster and less consciously. So much for being 'civilised'. Food, race and respect In his book The Ethnic Restaurateur, Krishnendu Ray talks about how immigrant food is often loved but the people behind it are not. When Donald Trump cooked and served French fries at McDonald's with his bare hands – to appease to the working class – he was praised. But when Zohran Mamdani, with his brown, working-class hands, touches rice, he is judged, humiliated and called uncivilised. Clearly, there's a double standard at play here. It's not about forks or fingers — it's about power, race, and respect. The same biryani, eaten with a fork, becomes exotic and Instagrammable. Eaten with fingers, however, it becomes a joke. That says more about our prejudices than about the food. What is civilisation, after all? If civilisation means dignity, compassion, curiosity and openness to other ways of life, then eating with a fork or your fingers does not make one more or less civilised. And if using a fork were the gold standard, then Donald Trump, a man who eats KFC with silverware in a gold-plated room, would top the chart. But given his other track record: mocking a disabled reporter, inciting a violent mob, cutting off aid to Ukraine during wartime, demeaning women and minorities regularly – is that civilisation? As former UN under-secretary-general and Congress leader Shashi Tharoor recently pointed out – though he stopped short of actually calling the him uncivilised – that he does not consider the Trump the most uncivilised president he has ever encountered. 'I was going to say uncivilised, but I thought that might not be polite,' he said in an interview, adding, 'I had the great honour of meeting four or five American presidents … these are people of a certain class, a certain distinction. But there was a certain political heft, statesman‑like gravitas and intellectual quality that I find woefully lacking in this gentleman.' Trump even had the Resolute Desk 'temporarily' removed from the Oval Office, reportedly because a child wiped their nose on it. A few days later, he humiliated the Ukrainian president in public while delaying crucial aid. If this is what civilisation looks like, maybe we need to start asking different questions. Brandon Gill, who idolises Trump, should consider this: the real threat to civilisation isn't a man eating rice with his fingers. It's a world where cruelty is called strength and ignorance is passed off as pride. A truly civilised person is one who stands up for human dignity, the marginalised sections of society, and the underprivileged nations of the world – not the one who targets them with a capitalist, business-driven mindset. Civility has nothing to do with what's on your plate or how you eat – it's about how you use the power you hold. And real power demands restraint, empathy and respect – not angry outbursts in one of the most important rooms in the world. Abhijay A is policy analyst and independent researcher specialising in international relations, public policy and global diplomacy.
India.com
3 hours ago
- India.com
Donald Trump says
Donald Trump says "didn't make any progress at all" with Putin during… Washington, DC: US President Donald Trump on Thursday (local time) said that in his recent phone call with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, he had made 'no progress at all' on efforts to end the conflict in Ukraine. Speaking to reporters on Thursday (US local time), Trump stated that over their phone call he and Putin discussed a lot of things, including Iran and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. 'We had a call. It was a pretty long call. We talked about a lot of things including Iran and we also talked about, as you know, the war with Ukraine. I'm not happy about that,' Trump said. Asked whether any progress was made on potential deal to end the conflict in Ukraine , Trump responded, 'No. I didn't make any progress with him today at all.' During their telephonic conversation, Putin made it clear that Russia will 'not back down' on its goal of 'eliminating' the root cause of the war in Ukraine, Al Jazeera reported. 'Russia will not back down,' Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters after Putin's call with Trump. However, he added that Putin expressed 'readiness' to 'seek a political and negotiated solution to the conflict. 'Putin emphasised that Russia seeks to achieve its goals in Ukraine and remove the 'root causes' of the conflict, Ushakov said. The 'root cause' here refers to Ukraine's push to join NATO, following which Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 to prevent Kyiv from joining the US-centric Trump-Putin phone call between two leaders came a day after the US paused promised weapon deliveries to Kyiv, including air defence missiles and precision-guided artillery, Al Jazeera reported. On June 27, Putin said Russia will no longer engage in 'one-sided' games with the West, RT reported. He made these remarks while addressing a press conference on the sidelines of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) summit in Minsk. According to RT, Putin said that Western nations have repeatedly betrayed Russia by not honouring their promises regarding NATO expansion and resolving the Ukraine conflict. He emphasised that NATO is using alleged Russian 'aggressiveness' to justify plans to increase defence spending to 5 per cent of member states' GDP and bolster military presence in Europe.' They [the West] are turning everything upside down,' Putin said. 'No one is saying a word about how we've come up to the Russian special military operation,' he continued, asserting that the Ukraine conflict's origins date back decades, when Moscow was 'blatantly lied to' about NATO's intentions. 'What followed was one expansion wave after another,' he added. Putin said Russia's repeated security concerns regarding NATO's activities were ignored by the West. He said, 'Isn't it aggressive behaviour? That is precisely aggressive behaviour, which the West does not want to pay attention to.' The Russian President also accused Western nations of supporting separatist and terrorist movements as long as they targeted Russia.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
3 hours ago
- First Post
Brics bigger than G7: Expansion boosts global clout but Trump, China pose challenge
Brics has expanded from initial four to eleven members and has sought a greater say in the world's affairs in recent years, but the group has faced a challenge to its relevance from US President Donald Trump's direct threats and attempts by China to turn the group into an anti-West bloc to take on the United States. read more Over the past two decades, Brics has evolved from a forum of four emerging economies to a group of 11 nations that its supporters say is ushering true multilateralism in the world. Critics, however, say that the bloc is just a Chinese tool to unseat the United States to become the world's foremost superpower. The idea of Brics emerged in 2001 when then-Goldman Sachs Chief Economist Jim O'Neill argued that Brazil, Russia, India, and China had the potential to reshape the global economic landscape by 2050 due to their large populations, rapid economic growth, rising global influence, and rapid upward social mobility. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In 2006, the four countries came together to form Bric — South Africa joined in 2010. With the expansion in 2024, the group has 11 members. Brics has positioned itself as a non-Western alternative for supporting economic growth and cooperation. Even though the group's influence has risen, challenges have also risen and the group now finds itself as a critical juncture. Brics is bigger than G7 but faces tough challenges In 2015, Brics launched New Development Bank (NDB) to fund infrastructure and development projects in developing countries. With initiatives like the NDB and the Russia-led grain exchange, and collaboration in other areas of emerging technologies and economies, Brics has positioned itself as an alternative to Western-dominated financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. But, even as Brics continues to attract new members, the group is far from replacing IMF or World Bank and stares at formidable challenges — both internally and externally. Internally, the very purpose of Brics is under question as China has sought to become the leader of the group and turn it into an anti-Western bloc. Russia has supported China to the hilt in this quest. The two countries are already part of an anti-Western alliance also comprising Iran and North Korea (the so-called CRINK bloc) and want to make Brics an extension of that bloc — while the CRINK bloc clashes with the West militarily, Brics takes on the West economically. Externally, Brics has faced strong opposition from US President Donald Trump, who has dubbed any move by the group to dethrone the US Dollar as a red line. He has threatened Brics members with 100 per cent tariffs if they move towards a Brics currency or dedollarisation. With such challenges that put the very basis of the group in question, Brics stands as a unique blend of opportunities, aspirations, and challenges, and India as a founding member and a competitor of China has its own share of challenges. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD A non-Western group or an anti-Western group? India has gone to great lengths to explain to the West that Brics is not an anti-Western group and that it supplements Western institutions like the IMF and World Bank and does not seek to replace them. But China and Russia continue to push the group as an anti-Western bloc. Brics is definitely a China-dominated group as China is the largest economy and contributes to 40 per cent of the bloc's gross domestic product. Moreover, NBD is headquartered in Shanghai even as five initial members —Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa— are equal shareholders of the bank. The presence of ironclad partners Russia and China (and Iran as well) in Brics further adds to the anti-Western impression of the bloc. However, India's presence in the group and, more importantly, its status as a founding member counterbalances the China-Russia influence. India has so far prevented the bloc from turning into an anti-Western bloc. In March, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar dismissed fears of Brics trying to replace the US Dollar. Instead, India considers the strength of the US Dollar essential for global stability, said Jaishankar. 'I don't think there's any policy on our part to replace the dollar. As I said, at the end of the day, the dollar as the reserve currency is the source of international economic stability. And right now, what we want in the world is more economic stability, not less,' said Jaishankar. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India has also used its status as an equal shareholder at NDB to prevent the bank from turning into an extension of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). As China is not just working to dethrone the United States, but is also looking forward to suppress India's rise, India's continued presence and assertion of its role as a founding member in Brics is a must. Anushka Saxena, a China researcher at the Takshashila Institution, previously told Firstpost that India's involvement in Brics and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is a must to ensure these institutions work for stated purposes and not become China's tools. 'In Brics, India's priorities lie in making sure that principled guidelines are laid out to set benchmarks for membership, in creating space for consensus-building against the possibility of China's influence-peddling, and in attempting to retain the image and brand value of Brics as a community of developing market economies demanding more voice in global governance,' she said Saxena. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'Similarly, in the SCO, India's role as a disruptor is vital. If China and Russia continue to propagate the idea that these groupings are anti-West, India's presence becomes necessary to maintain the balance and act as a bridge with the West,' Saxena further said.
