In Defence of industry

ETHICS IN INDIGENISATION IS IMPORTANT BUT JUST BLAMING MANUFACTURERS IS UNFAIR

- SHYAMAL MAJUMDAR

INDIA'S PUSH TOWARDS self-reliance in defence has gathered undeniable momentum over the past decade.

Procurement policies have been reoriented, private sector participation is rising, and the defence export pipeline is finally beginning to look credible. Yet, a pointed caution by the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) recently serves as a timely reminder: inflated or misleading claims of “indigenisation” by defence manufacturers—public and private—can set back the very mission they claim to advance.

At the heart of self-reliance in defence lies a simple expectation: India must genuinely reduce technological dependence, not merely repackage imported components. When companies exaggerate the extent of local content, or pass off assembled systems as indigenous products, it weakens trust between the armed forces, industry, and policymakers. Worse, it distorts procurement decisions, misallocates taxpayer resources, and discourages true technological innovation.

The CDS’s warning signals a growing concern that indigenisation is sometimes turning into a branding exercise rather than an engineering one. When firms tweak designs superficially, replace minor subsystems, or rely on foreign intellectual property (IP) while calling the end product “Made in India”, they may tick policy boxes—but they do little to build national capability.

For India’s defence ecosystem to mature, ethical transparency around what is genuinely indigenous is indispensable. Defence manufacturers must embrace rigorous disclosure standards—clearly stating the origin of components, the depth of local design, and the degree of technological ownership. A culture of honest reporting will enable fair competition, better procurement evaluation, and targeted policy support for companies investing in real R&D rather than cosmetic localisation.