Mr. Rahul Wankhede, Research Analyst, Defence Economics and Industry Centre, spoke on “Atmanirbharta in Defence: Integrating National Security with Development” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 5 January 2026. The presentation was based on his paper for the Field Marshal Manekshaw Essay Competition (2025) organised by the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), for which he was awarded the first prize in October 2025. Dr. S. Samuel C. Rajiv, Research Fellow, moderated the meeting. Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA and the scholars of the Institute participated in the discussion.

Executive Summary

Detailed Report The presentation examines the relationship between defence and development, arguing that the traditional framing as competing priorities is flawed. Atmanirbharta in Defence offers a framework to view defence spending as developmental investment. While recent reforms have strengthened India’s defence industrial base through institutional changes and policy support, structural constraints including technology dependence, execution gaps, and resource competition persist. Success requires sustained R&D investment, skilled human resources, and committed political-military leadership.

Detailed Report

Mr. Rahul Wankhede commenced his presentation by addressing the conceptual framework surrounding the relationship between defence and development in India. He argued that the debate framing these two sectors as competing priorities is analytically flawed and historically misleading. Contrary to the persistent belief that they are mutually exclusive, he posited that investments in defence capabilities can generate significant industrial growth, technological innovation, and economic resilience. Globally, defence investment has often served as a catalyst for industrialisation and technological advancement. Within this context, the concept of self-reliance, most recently articulated through Atmanirbharta in Defence, offers a new framework to view defence spending as a developmental investment rather than non-productive consumption.

The Speaker traced the historical roots of the perceived dichotomy between defence and development. In the post-independence era, policy naturally prioritised economic and social reconstruction over military expansion. Consequently, defence expenditure was viewed largely as non-productive consumption rather than economic investment. The maintenance of large standing forces and domestic weapons production were seen as diverting scarce resources from critical sectors, and the developmental deficits made this trade-off appear legitimate at the time. This resulted in a persistent belief that defence growth necessarily constrained development. The speaker highlighted the shift in thinking by contrasting the National Development Council’s 1962 statement, which urged that the Emergency should not affect development schemes, with Prime Minister Nehru’s speech that signalled a nuanced position by acknowledging development as a vital input to defence.

Mr. Wankhede noted that self-reliance is not a new idea but a policy continuity India has pursued since the 1950s, primarily through state-led institutions. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs) enabled capability creation but operated largely within a protected ecosystem. Flagship programmes such as the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP) and the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft built significant design competence but lacked production depth. There were technology spillovers without a sustained industrial multiplier effect. The outcome was partial autonomy, with continued dependence on critical subsystems and technologies.

The Speaker elaborated on how recent initiatives attempt to bridge the gap. The ‘Make in India’ initiative (2014) expanded manufacturing capacity across 14 sectors, with defence being both a beneficiary and a driver. Subsequently, Atmanirbhar Bharat reframed self-reliance around technology control and supply-chain security. Defence manufacturing has become a strategic anchor due to its high-tech demands, skill requirements, and spillover effects.

In terms of innovation and research support, Atmanirbharta in Defence has restructured defence R&D from closed laboratories to an open innovation ecosystem. Reforms such as Innovations for Defence Excellence (iDEX) and the Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) have institutionalised the participation of start-ups and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs). The focus has shifted from technology import to problem-driven indigenous solutions, with armed services launching parallel innovation challenges to align user needs with developers.

Regarding structural reforms and policy support, defence procurement policy has been redesigned to privilege domestic value addition. The government has released Positive Indigenisation Lists covering over 4,000 items. The DAP-2020 mandates minimum indigenous content across most acquisition categories. Crucially, budgetary signals reinforced this intent, with approximately 75 per cent of the capital acquisition budget ring-fenced for domestic procurement, along with windows created for MSMEs and start-ups.

The Speaker highlighted the strengthening of India’s defence industrial base, noting a transition from a DPSU-dominated model to a multi-actor industrial ecosystem. There has been a significant expansion of licensed private defence firms and MSMEs across the supply chain. The private sector now plays a decisive role, contributing to approximately 60 per cent of defence exports, although its share in production stands at roughly 23 per cent. Defence industrial corridors in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have enabled geographic clustering and scale, with state governments becoming active stakeholders in defence manufacturing.

Mr. Wankhede presented data indicating an upward trajectory. The Uttar Pradesh Defence Corridor has attracted investments worth Rs. 37,721 crore, while the Tamil Nadu Defence Corridor has attracted Rs. 28,702 crore. The iDEX initiative has engaged 662 start-ups and MSMEs, with 520 contracts signed. Under Mission Raksha Gyan Shakti, 6,888 Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) have been filed. Currently, there are over 900 registered defence start-ups in the country.

Despite progress, the Speaker identified structural constraints. Long gestation cycles delay economic and operational returns from defence investments. Policy announcements often outpace execution, particularly in contracting, testing, and induction phases. The defence sector competes with multiple other sectors for political attention and industrial resources. Continued dependence on foreign-controlled critical technologies limits true strategic autonomy. The industry remains fragmented, with few firms capable of systems integration and scale. Institutional silos between users, developers, and producers continue to slow decision-making. Furthermore, defence production and exports remain shaped by geopolitics, sanctions, and technology controls.

Mr. Wankhede concluded his presentation with several recommendations. He called for time-bound acquisition, especially for iDEX and low-to-medium complexity systems. He suggested levelling the procurement playing field between DPSUs and private industry through transparent cost, risk, and order-allocation rules. There is a need to establish defence-literate financial institutions capable of revaluating long-gestation, high-risk technologies. He emphasised institutionalising failure tolerance through phased development, spiral induction, and assured follow-on orders. Reforms must be driven by sustained top-level political and military leadership rather than episodic policy announcements. Finally, he advocated for actively promoting civil–military technology spillovers to maximise developmental returns from defence investment.

In conclusion, the Speaker traced the evolution of thought from Nehru’s view of development as an input to defence, to Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s 2025 articulation that investments in defence drive economic growth and technological progress, and Prime Minister Modi’s view of defence self-reliance as strategic leverage. He asserted that India now recognises the reverse logic: defence investment itself drives growth, innovation, and resilience.

Director General’s Remarks

Following the presentation, Director General Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy was requested to offer his comments. Amb. Chinoy observed that countries globally are increasing their defence expenditures and India should aim to enhance defence spending significantly given emerging threats and the current era of unilateralism. He emphasised linking defence spending to the overall GDP growth trajectory. Amb. Chinoy stated that while defence manufacturing and Atmanirbhar Bharat are positive developments, Research and Development (R&D) remains critical. He pointed out that the country spends only about 0.67 per cent on R&D overall, which should ideally increase to 2.5–3 per cent. He raised a crucial question regarding the scaling and availability of human resources for excellence in defence manufacturing. He stressed the need for higher education to focus on high-end technologies and for skilled trainers. Finally, citing examples of countries with robust R&D ecosystems like China, Russia, and Japan that conduct R&D in their own languages, he suggested that India should consider conducting R&D in Indian languages to improve comprehension and innovation.

Q&A Session

Dr. Samuel Rajiv provided the historical context regarding defence expenditure trends. Defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP peaked at 4.2 per cent in 1987 following tensions with China and stood at over 4 per cent in 1963 after the 1962 war, while currently it is around 2 per cent. He noted that while the political leadership recognised defence claims on the budget as paramount, they have also consistently emphasised the need for ensuring adequate funds for addressing development priorities.

The discussion that followed centred on persistent structural challenges hampering indigenisation efforts. A key issue highlighted was the failure of technology transfer despite allowing 100 per cent foreign investment, contrasting unfavourably with China’s approach of compelling technology sharing. Questions related to challenges of indigenisation, with examples of platforms such as Tapas, Rustom 1, Kaveri engines, and HTT40. The discussion emphasised that defence and development, while conceptually complementary, require careful fund allocation aligned with national aspirations and secured environments. Scholars stressed the need for structural reforms, enhanced STEM education, and strengthening domestic manufacturing capabilities including critical inputs like machinery and tooling. The Speaker acknowledged that Atmanirbharta requires sustained R&D investment, skilled human resources, political leadership commitment without bureaucratic restraints, and resolution of persistent challenges in technology transfer, raw material access, and commercialisation for private sector participation.

The Report was prepared by Mr. Aadhvick Pal, Intern, Defence Economics and Industry Centre, MP-IDSA, New Delhi.