The statement "Make in India or Break in Battle?" is a perfect summary of India's current defense dilemma.

While the "Make in India" initiative has made significant strides in boosting indigenous production, the slow pace of key projects and persistent technological gaps could "break" the Indian military in a modern, high-intensity conflict.

India has moved from being a top importer to a major domestic producer, but it's not yet a self-reliant powerhouse.

The "Make in India" Successes-

The Indian government's push for defense indigenization has yielded measurable successes.

• Increased Production and Exports: India's defense production reached a record ₹1.27 lakh crore in FY 2023-24, with a goal of ₹3 lakh crore by 2029-30. It has also transitioned from being a negligible exporter to a significant one, with exports rising to ₹23,622 crore in FY 2024-25. This shows a growing, albeit nascent, industrial base.

• Key Indigenous Platforms: Several indigenous projects have been successful. The commissioning of INS Vikrant, India's first indigenously designed and built aircraft carrier, is a monumental achievement. Similarly, the BrahMos cruise missile, developed with Russia, and the LCA Tejas fighter jet are prime examples of India's growing capability.

• Reduced Import Dependency: The government has published "Positive Indigenisation Lists" which ban the import of over 5,500 items, forcing the armed forces to procure from domestic manufacturers. The share of defense equipment manufactured domestically has reached 65%, a significant shift from a past where 65-70% was imported.

The "Break in Battle" Risks-

Despite these successes, India's defense establishment is not a well-oiled machine. A number of systemic issues pose a serious risk to its operational readiness.

• Slow Pace of Key Projects: While the "Make in India" initiative has delivered some major platforms, many critical projects are either stalled or running years behind schedule. The indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a fifth-generation fighter, and the Project 75I program to build new conventional submarines have both faced significant delays. These delays create critical gaps in the armed forces' capabilities, as old platforms retire faster than new ones can replace them.

• Technological Gaps: India still lacks indigenous capabilities in key areas like jet engines and advanced avionics. The LCA Tejas, for example, is powered by a US-made engine. This dependence on foreign technology makes the Indian military vulnerable to supply chain disruptions and sanctions in times of conflict.

• Inadequate R&D and Private Sector Involvement: India's public sector, particularly its Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), has been criticized for being slow and unaccountable. The private sector, while growing, still contributes only about 21% to total defense production. A lack of a level playing field between the public and private sectors, coupled with bureaucratic hurdles, discourages greater private investment and innovation.

In conclusion, India's push for self-reliance is a necessary long-term strategy, but it is not without risks. The slow pace of indigenous projects and the persistent technological gaps mean that for the foreseeable future, India will continue to operate a mixed fleet of foreign and domestically-made platforms. This could create a "break in battle" if India is forced into a high-intensity, multi-front conflict before its domestic defense industry can fully mature.