The BJP-Modi government, two corporate giants (Ambani and Adani), a fractured political opposition, and increasingly transactional international alliances present India with a dangerously concentrated nexus of power. This situation is particularly evident in our defense procurement, as seen in the deal for the Apache AH-64E helicopter with the U.S., which has been sold as a boon yet left grounded due to shifting U.S. priorities.
This article delves into the systemic risks of overdependence—politically, economically, and militarily—and underscores the crucial need to establish resilient, autonomous institutions that can steer India’s destiny amid external turbulence. Strategic autonomy is not just a concept but a necessity for our nation’s future.
Three Pillars—with No Strategic Alternatives
The Modi–BJP Dominance
Narendra Modi’s political juggernaut has centralized authority in a manner unprecedented since India’s founding. Even coalition configurations orbit his leadership, ensuring contested voices remain marginalized. Such personalism diminishes institutional robustness and weakens democratic checks.
Corporate Titans: Ambani & Adani
Reliance and Adani have extended their influence beyond boardrooms. Holding significant stakes in infrastructure, energy, telecom, and, significantly, media, these conglomerates shape market narratives and subtly influence governance.
Their dominance in the Nifty-50 sparks valid concerns of monopoly and unequal capital access. Media acquisitions by these conglomerates pose a direct threat to editorial independence.
Together with a one-party political structure, this tripartite axis consolidates power in ways that risk systemic imbalance and erosion of democracy.
The Risks of Concentration
Institutional Consolidation
A healthy democracy relies on robust institutions—such as media, regulatory bodies, and the judiciary—not on loyalty to individuals. SEBI, which oversees market fairness, now faces pressure from conglomerates. Such capture undermines investor trust and public faith.
Broken Military Promises
National pride is no substitute for operational readiness
Costly delays have plagued the HAL Tejas program—first contracted at ₹5,989 crore, renegotiated to ₹6,542 crore—and only recently saw engines delivered for trials.
Apache AH-64E helicopters, intended as cutting-edge air attack support for the Army’s Western Command, remain grounded. Inscribed with readiness, the delay underscores the risks of relying on external suppliers.
Optical Diplomacy vs Strategic Substance
Photos of friendly summits or military announcements are not strategic policy. They seduce public perception but can mask failures in capability, coordination, and delivery—and the Apache saga underscores that danger.
The Apache Saga: When Ally Turns Buyer
Sold, Promised- but Not Delivered
In 2020, India signed a $600 million contract for six AH-64E Apache helicopters—a prized addition for desert warfare. Expectations were clear: three by mid-2024 and three soon after. Instead, delivery kept shifting—from June 2024 to December 2024, the nation never received a single helicopter. Now, with no fresh timeline, our 451 Aviation Squadron in Jodhpur remains dormant three years later.
The U.S. DoD deemed the Apaches “old” and decided to phase them out due to concerns over vulnerability and the push toward unmanned and next-generation platforms.
“Combat Edge” Withdrawn
Lt Gen Joseph Ryan of the U.S. Army stated that even the most upgraded Apaches are “on the cusp” of losing combat relevance. Their retirement, transition to next-gen aircraft, and the U.S. pivot to drone systems render India’s investment chillingly transactional.
Logistical Limbo and Strategic Risk
Indian pilots and ground crew have trained diligently since March 2024. Bases are operational. However, six promised Apaches remain grounded overseas. This is not supply chain fouling—it has calculated sidelining, and it leaves us vulnerable precisely when strategic readiness matters most.
The Danger of Transactional Dependency
The Player-Helper Dynamic
In global geopolitics, strategic partners treat each other as equals—buyers are not kept waiting, especially during times of tension. The Apache debacle suggests that we were viewed merely as a customer, not a co-defender—an intellectual paradigm gap.
The Foundation of Strategic Autonomy
Dependence without leverage undermines deterrence. When defense readiness hinges on another’s production pipeline—or their strategic whims—we remain at the mercy of unforeseen schedules. This jeopardizes not only tactics but also policy credibility.
Cumulative Costs
When Apaches remain grounded, pipeline delays for Tejas engines happen in parallel. This is not a coincidence: it is symptomatic of misplaced trust in foreign systems—with multiple domestic programs suffering from dependencies beyond India’s control.
Corrective Measures for True Sovereignty
Defence Procurement Reimagined
- India must demand precision in procurement contracts
- Iron-clad delivery timelines, autonomy over critical components, and enforced penalties for failure.
- Licensing terms allow in-country production and reparability.
- Strategic engagement to deepen collaboration does not dictate unilateral procurement.
Revolution in Indigenous Development
Boosting DRDO, HAL, and private R&D partners must be a strategic priority. The Light Combat Helicopter (LCH) “Prachand” exemplifies India’s success in producing a helicopter tailored for Indian conditions—high altitude, hot/desert weather, and counter-insurgency (COIN) roles—now fielded operationally. Expand collaborations with private players in drones, guided weaponry, and avionics.
Multisource International Relationship
- No single ally should hold a monopoly over supply: –
- Diversify defense ties—Israel, France, Russia, Japan—to maintain supply range and reduce bargaining disadvantages.
- Avoid strategic lock-in that elevates vulnerability during international policy shifts.
Internal, Not External, Resilience
- Secure supply chain autonomy for all platforms:
- Prioritise domestic manufacturing of key subsystems, including engines, avionics, and weapons.
- Foster competition and enable a self-reliant defense industrial base, elevating jobs and innovation.
Beyond Defence: The Broader Strategy
The Apache deal is but one case demonstrating systemic overreliance that bleeds across governance:
Politically, opposition parties must unify behind governance platforms rather than allow personality-driven conflicts to prevail.
Economically, Regulatory walls must prevent the concentration of 2A and ensure fair market entry.
Media. Newsrooms must reclaim independence, free from conglomerate dominance.
Diplomatically. Power comes through strategic value—not costly optics.
India’s future depends on systemic robustness—decentralized, diverse, and durable—not on centralized influence reinforced through optics or outcomes.
Conclusion
India finds itself at a pivotal juncture. We can continue to pool power among the BJP/Modi axis and two conglomerates, relying on foreign suppliers whose motivations may shift faster than the contracts themselves. Alternatively, we can opt for a healthier alternative: a democracy strengthened by robust institutions, independent accountability, diversified industrial and strategic ties, and a defense ecosystem that prioritizes autonomy over temporary assurances.
The Apache helicopter case is not an exception—it is a lesson. A reminder that in modern geopolitics, allies can shift policy, priorities, and production overnight. If our security rests upon such shaky ground, we compromise more than weapons—we compromise our sovereignty.
Let us pivot from transactional defense deals to transformational resilience. From concentrated power to pluralistic democracy. From spectacle to strategy. For a nation aspiring not just for momentary wins but for enduring security, equity, and autonomy.