In 2008, an Indian Army Major pursuing his master’s in technology at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi told a professor about how Indian soldiers were weighed down by the nearly 20 kilograms of steel plates they had to wear as part of their protective gear. They were so heavy that soldiers often threw them off during hot pursuit.
That sparked a research journey at IIT Delhi that led to the development of Abhed (advanced ballistics for high energy defeat), a world-class bullet-resistant jacket designed for Indian conditions.
In 2024, IIT Delhi signed technology transfer agreements with three Indian companies for manufacturing and supplying these jackets to the armed forces — a rare example of how the military, academia, and industry can function as an integrated ecosystem. It is a case study in synergy, where the triad exceeded the shifting technical requirements for something as complex as a multi-shot, high-energy ballistic plate.
A collaborative platform
But why does such collaboration not happen more often? After all, the infrastructure already exists: The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) established the DRDO Industry Academia-Centres of Excellence (DIA-CoEs) in 2022 to address critical gaps in India’s defence research ecosystem, where academia, industry, and the DRDO would converge to innovate and translate research into deployable technologies.
There are 15 DIA-CoEs across IITs, the Indian Institute of Science, and central universities — hubs that drive collaborative research and indigenisation across 82 priority technology areas, focusing on critical and futuristic defence capabilities.
U Jeya Santhi, director, IIT Delhi’s DIA-CoE, said, “We translate the armed forces’ technical requirements into research projects. DRDO gives us the concepts, and we circulate them internally for proposals with clear objectives, deliverables, costs and timelines.” Santhi said that the DIA-CoE has taken up 61 projects to date, of which 39 have already been completed. About a dozen more projects are in the pipeline, she added.
The DRDO has given close to ₹400 crore to IIT Delhi to fund these projects, and the DIA-CoE “has already developed around 13 advanced technologies”, she said. These include Abhed and specialised soldier clothing for extreme weather, capable of withstanding -60° Celsius wind chill, as well as extreme heat, which has already been transferred to the industry.
“Once a project reaches a certain maturity, we bring industry on board,” she said. “Industry has the engineering capability of manufacturing and rapidly converting prototypes into deployable products.”
Together, these breakthroughs reflect how academia and the DRDO can push technology to the prototype stage and how industry makes them battlefield-ready. But India’s defence innovation ecosystem continues to grapple with persistent gaps like seamless handovers and stronger integration, testing, and real-world induction.
Abhed showed that India has the resources to solve problems. But system-wide consistency to make such synergy routine rather than accidental remains missing.
“The system is doing its job, but it can be much better,” an IIT professor familiar with India’s defence innovation ecosystem said on the condition of anonymity. There was a persistent gap between user demands and what technology can realistically deliver within existing timelines and budgets. This, the professor said, continues to slow down the job of translating research into field-ready capability.
“In the US, the army, navy, and air force directly fund academia, covering everything from fundamental research to futuristic technologies. Here, if one group is working on a problem, the question immediately becomes, ‘Why fund another?’”
The professor cited regulatory hurdles too: Startups only receive a “pass” or “fail” for trial outcomes, with no structured evaluation to guide improvement. For instance, the Army wants drones that can fly 20 to 50 kilometres, but civilian rules do not allow flights beyond 300 metres. “Where, then, do Indian companies test long-range systems?”
These gaps from fragmented research to restrictive testing regulations highlight a system where innovation exists in pockets, struggling to translate into scalable and battle-ready capability.
Manindra Agrawal, director, IIT Kanpur, highlighted similar concerns, saying that India is still some distance away from achieving full synergy between the armed forces, industry, and academia. He proposed “a seamless system” where the services identify requirements, academia drives research, and industry converts it into deployable systems.
Although progress was made through emerging collaborative models in the last two to three years, Agrawal emphasised the importance of parallel channels of cooperation. “Some problem statements are best addressed by academia working with industry directly, without going through the DRDO lab route,” he said.
An integrated, mission-level development architecture was absent, according to Agrawal. “If a major product is needed in three years, we must identify all five or six technologies required, assign them to different partners, and track them holistically.” No single body currently monitors the entire product pipeline or coordinates improvements for subcomponents, he added.
He said India’s single most pressing challenge was its heavy dependence on foreign components. “Right now, almost every critical component is being imported — from sensors, engines, batteries, motors, communication equipment, to payloads, and
high-definition cameras. This is not good at all. We must develop our own supply chain for these technologies.”
This gap in structured coordination directly impacts the country’s ability to rapidly field critical capabilities, leaving it at risk of lagging in a fast-evolving strategic environment against adversaries.
Talking about the challenge of retaining high-quality research talent given traditional long-term research models often struggle to match industry salaries, Agrawal pushed for the establishment of Section 8 (not-for-profit) companies within campuses, which can pay competitive salaries at par with industry and attract the best young minds.
A second priority, he said, is significantly higher funding accompanied by stronger institutional commitment, particularly for long-term research. Many core technologies still lie outside India’s control, and developing them demands “substantial funding and two to three years of gestation”.
Modest investments
In India’s 2025-26 defence budget, the allocation for the DRDO was raised to ₹26,816.82 crore, up by 12.41 per cent from ₹23,855.61 crore the previous year. Of this, ₹14,923.82 crore has been earmarked for capital expenditure and ongoing research and development (R&D) projects, signalling a continued push to strengthen India’s indigenous research ecosystem.
Even with this, the scale of investment remains modest when placed against global benchmarks. The United States (US) Department of Defense’s 2024–25 budget for R&D testing and evaluation stood at nearly $148 billion, covering basic research, applied science, emerging technologies, and advanced prototyping.
By contrast, India still operates largely on government-driven R&D; even with the higher outlay, DRDO’s budget remains around $3.2 billion, and investment by private Indian defence firms is usually negligible. This is unlike countries such as Israel, South Korea, and the US, where private industry frequently outpaces government spending in research.
Even with a slight increase in defence spending on R&D, India is spending only about 0.65 per cent of its gross domestic product compared with a global average of 2 per cent, said Lieutenant General Deependra Singh Hooda (retired), cofounder of the New Delhi-based think-tank Council for Strategic and Defense Research. “If you don’t invest in R&D, where will cutting-edge technology come from?”
Hooda pointed out that India’s most crucial strategic challenge is China, which is far ahead economically, technologically, and militarily, adding: “To achieve credible deterrence, the armed forces need indigenous platforms and the rapid induction of advanced technologies.”
He said that India’s preferred L1 system of procurement, where the job is awarded to the lowest bidder, may work for routine items, but not for high-tech platforms where only one vendor might meet the technical requirements. He warned against companies passing off imported systems as homegrown:
“Some companies white-label foreign products — buying from China and passing them off as Indian.” This is dangerous in defence technologies, considering the adversary can control such equipment in a conflict situation.
According to Hooda, the armed forces need a clear technology usage strategy and should seek capabilities and advanced platforms rather than a model in a laboratory. “You can’t just buy drones, you need a drone strategy that defines what types, what ranges, and for what roles.” He said that a seamless, mission-driven approach across the military, industry, and academia was essential for rapid capability development and operational readiness.
On long induction cycles undermining operational readiness, Hooda said: “It takes five to six years to induct new equipment into the military. In high-technology domains, the product you finally receive after six years is already outdated.”
There was also a disconnect between testing and procurement. “Troops on the ground can validate systems, but the purchasing authority lies elsewhere. Even good products are not guaranteed procurement,” he said.
Brigadier Rahul K Bhonsle (retired), who now leads a private strategic consultancy focusing on the Indo-Pacific region, raised similar concerns. He said that the armed forces must move from transactional engagement to deep backward integration with top research institutions for meaningful defence innovation.
This gap hinders the shift from prototypes to deployable systems, particularly in emergency procurements. “In crunch times like Operation Sindoor, you need systems that can be replenished immediately. Foreign vendors operate on commercial logic, not national priority,” he said, underlining why true indigenisation requires domestic control over components and not just assembly.
Bhonsle also stressed the value of field evaluation trials, the final filter before technologies reach the battlefield: “Failure under combat conditions can cost lives.”
The challenges of prolonged induction cycles, disconnect between testing and procurement, and the risks posed by outdated technology underscore a broader systemic issue in India’s defence innovation ecosystem.
Dependency syndrome
But while academia and the DRDO are pushing prototypes forward, the larger industrial ecosystem continues to suffer from deeper systemic weaknesses, as outlined in a recent KPMG report.
The report, titled India’s Defence Industrial Sector Vision 2047, highlighted how India still depends on foreign suppliers for areas such as advanced fighter jets, engines, precision-guided munitions, and advanced electronic warfare systems, due to gaps in materials, electronics, and sensor technologies. It recommended increased financial support for R&D, leveraging incentive schemes, classifying defence manufacturing as a priority sector, and giving tax breaks and better access to capital to the private sector. Defence R&D must rise to 10 per cent of the total defence expenditure by 2032, with private industry contributing around 3 per cent of their revenues.
A key challenge facing India’s defence industry is the lack of a clear and consistent demand signal from the armed forces. Businesses struggle to plan production and invest in R&D without assured orders. The L1 system further discourages innovation, as high-tech solutions often come with higher costs that are not adequately valued. Long procurement cycles create uncertainty and delay, making it difficult for businesses to operate efficiently and respond proactively to defence requirements.
Experts said India’s defence industrial sector can realise its full strategic and export potential only if these challenges are addressed in a holistic manner.
Systemic bottlenecks are a problem. Commander Gautam Nanda (retired), partner, government and public sector at EY India, said that manufacturers, including private players, are ready to invest in R&D when demand is assured with well-defined requirements and structured technology-transfer pathways. He added that India’s innovation potential can be improved by creating a dedicated nodal agency — one that could bring together the armed forces, academia, and manufacturers on a common platform. Such an institution would not only streamline decision-making but also channel the strengths of each stakeholder towards clearly defined national objectives.
Speaking at the Delhi Defence Dialogue in November, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh had called for similar synergy between
“soldier-scientist-startup-strategist”, so that these stakeholders could become technology creators. But behind that lies a sobering truth: India’s defence innovation ecosystem is still searching for cohesion.
The deeper question is not whether India can innovate, but why such collaboration appears only in times of crisis. According to experts, India’s next leap in defence innovation will depend on whether fragmented efforts by different stakeholders can finally operate as one system rather than in silos.
