India’s Military Modernisation Problem: No Strategic Cohesion

                 

In a bold display of progress, China recently unveiled two advanced fighter aircraft—likely sixth-generation prototypes—leaving global observers stunned. The announcement reignited a long-standing question: why is China swiftly advancing its defence technology while India continues to grapple with delays?

Take Indian airpower as an example. Despite considerable effort, the Tejas Mk-1A has still not entered active squadron service. The Tejas Mk-2 remains theoretical, and the much-anticipated AMCA fifth-generation fighter feels increasingly uncertain. Even international procurements have been painfully slow, such as the two-decade-long hunt for multirole fighters.

This stagnation raises alarms about India’s readiness in an increasingly hostile regional environment. Though experts propose reforms like boosting budgets, restructuring defence organisations, and simplifying procurement, these tactical solutions cannot replace a missing strategic foundation.

At the core of the issue lies the absence of a unified national defence vision—a strategic framework that can guide modernisation efforts cohesively and purposefully. Without it, isolated fixes lead to fragmented results.

India’s defence planning must adopt systems thinking—a mindset that sees national security as a network of interconnected components, each influencing the other. Improving just one area, like aircraft numbers, won’t strengthen security unless it's coordinated with logistics, command infrastructure, and support systems.

For instance, buying more fighter jets won’t suffice if the country lacks enough AWACS aircraft, refuelling tankers, hardened shelters, or robust air defence networks. Without these, even the most advanced fighters remain vulnerable and underutilised.

True military capability comes from synergy. Each defence asset must reinforce the others within a wider operational system. Strategy, in this context, isn’t about having more assets—it’s about aligning them under a deliberate plan that serves long-term national objectives.

India must move past platform-based thinking and focus on designing a force that meets real-world security demands. A historical example can be drawn from Finland during the Cold War. Faced with a dominant Soviet Union, Finland built a smart strategy that used geography, decentralised defence, and a well-trained reserve to deter threats—without provoking conflict.

Similarly, India needs strategy-driven reforms, not headline-grabbing acquisitions. Without alignment, India’s military remains a collection of parts, not a cohesive whole.

This lack of cohesion is evident. The Army abandoned a key soldier networking project to buy rifles. The Navy insists on expanding its aircraft carrier fleet despite limited strategic use in past wars. The Air Force, though better funded than Pakistan’s, struggled with interoperability during the 2019 Balakot standoff—tragically downing one of its own helicopters.

The defence industry reflects the same fragmentation. The Tejas jet project started with promise but was delayed by the absence of foundational technologies. The Arjun tank grew too complex, overdesigned, and incompatible with logistics infrastructure.

Each of these cases highlights a shared failure: disconnected priorities among research agencies, manufacturers, and military services. Without joint planning and a common goal, the system wastes resources and time.

Meanwhile, China shows what strategic clarity can accomplish. Instead of matching adversaries numerically, China focused on asymmetric capabilities—long-range missiles, cyber warfare, and integrated A2/AD systems. Their tunnel networks and cyber command structure illustrate how strategy can outpace brute force.

China’s approach treats war as system warfare—not just about platforms, but how they operate together. By focusing on objectives and tailoring their military posture to regional goals, China has built resilience and influence.

India should take note. The solution to the IAF’s fighter shortfall isn’t just to buy more jets. Instead, it must rethink doctrine, explore asymmetric tools, and build infrastructure that enhances overall warfighting capability.

The urge to mimic foreign militaries has often misled India. Success depends on tailoring reforms to local challenges, not copying other countries. Modernisation must serve a national vision, not just fill inventory gaps.

Defence transformation begins with key questions: What are India’s core security goals? What kind of global influence does it seek? And what threats does it truly face?

Without answers, the military remains a disconnected mix of systems. With clarity and coordination, it can become a formidable, modern force that reflects India’s ambitions and values.

Written by Defence Expert