India faces a moment where modern warfare, pressure on global supply chains, and tightening geopolitical ties demand faster, more targeted, and more ambitious innovation. The battlefield shifts toward technologies spanning civilian and military domains, from hypersonics and quantum systems to AI and advanced materials. These technologies develop more quickly than traditional cycles can handle. Meanwhile, China has shortened its research and industrial timelines by integrating civilian and military resources, leveraging global partnerships to strengthen its position, and encouraging universities to collaborate directly with defence firms.
India cannot and should not imitate that model. However, India also cannot afford slow pipelines in an era where each year of delay widens the gap that might take a decade to close. A middle path is possible. India can promote greater speed and independence through a combination of strict regulatory controls, innovative global partnerships, targeted funding, industrial coordination, and a stronger domestic research ecosystem. Southeast Asia and Russia, in particular, offer opportunities for collaboration that enhance India’s capabilities while avoiding the pitfalls faced by countries like the United Kingdom, whose universities are now under scrutiny for inadvertently supporting China’s defence modernisation.
India’s pursuit of a fast, secure, and self-reliant technology base is urgent due to current geopolitical and technological challenges. This article explains why India needs a new approach, what can be learned from Britain’s experience with China’s People’s Liberation Army research ecosystem, and how India can develop a quick, secure, and independent technology foundation. The goal is to create a rational plan for accelerating indigenous research timelines while leveraging regional strengths with both speed and caution.
Why India Needs a New Model
India’s scientific ecosystem is growing, yet its timelines for research, design, testing, and deployment still fall short of strategic needs, risking a widening technological gap: lengthy approval cycles, fragmented industry coordination, and slow transition from lab to market hinder technological maturity. The Make in India and Atmanirbhar Bharat initiatives have bolstered domestic manufacturing and defence production. However, achieving self-sufficiency in critical technologies requires more: faster innovation supported by controlled international cooperation.
Future battlespaces will be shaped more by the speed of sensor-to-shooter loops, the maturity of autonomous systems, and the resilience of communication and computing networks than by troop size. Precision-strike systems, long-range weapons, and secure electronics will define the pace of conflict. Control over materials, microchips, propulsion technologies, and secure hardware will determine strategic independence. India must develop the ability to design, test, and deploy such technologies within shorter cycles.
China has accomplished this by mobilising universities, state enterprises, startups, and foreign partnerships. India should respond with its own strategy, one that protects democratic principles and national security while adopting new approaches to reduce research and development timelines.
Lessons from the British Experience with China
The United Kingdom’s interactions with Chinese defence-linked institutions offer important lessons for India. At least 23 British universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, maintain collaborations with Chinese institutions connected to the PLA. These partnerships involve naval systems, hypersonic research, AI, blockchain, sensors, and advanced materials. Some universities even host joint laboratories with Chinese conglomerates whose technologies support defence and surveillance platforms. Much of this collaboration stems from the belief that academic openness results in shared benefits.
Security agencies later warned that British research might be be contributing to Chinese military capabilities. Dual-use research aimed at civilian applications often ended up being used in military projects. Once data, prototypes, or technical know-how entered foreign systems, there was no reliable way to control their final use. University vetting procedures were not suited for the scale and speed of modern dual-use research.
India can avoid the pitfalls the UK has faced by establishing strong safeguards. The British experience shows that openness without proper due diligence, clear rules, and partner vetting can lead to long-term vulnerabilities. Therefore, India must develop thorough screening processes that verify not only what is shared but also with whom and why, to protect its strategic interests.
The Southeast Asian Opportunity
India has built a strong diplomatic, military, and educational presence across Southeast Asia and Russia, where universities and research centers are rapidly expanding. Countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thailand are heavily investing in advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity, materials science, renewable energy, and electronics, which directly support India’s strategic goal of securing supply chains and boosting technological resilience. Highlighting these regional strengths can help policymakers see the clear advantages of deepening collaboration.
India’s current engagement model emphasises scholarships, scientific exchange, and capability development. This approach is already safer than the Western model, which often prioritises open research without proper security checks. As Southeast Asian and Russian research systems advance, India can strengthen collaboration while safeguarding sensitive capabilities.
Partnerships can focus on AI for public safety, disaster management, and logistics, or on cybersecurity tools that do not involve classified networks. They can include advanced materials with civilian applications, semiconductor packaging, and testing infrastructure. Cooperation in these areas promotes learning while maintaining control over sensitive military technologies.
How India Can Build a Secure, Fast, and Self-Sufficient Technology Base
India should adopt a tiered partnership model. Trusted partners include institutions in Southeast Asia, Russia, Europe, and East Asia with strong compliance frameworks. Conditional partners are institutions that can collaborate only in civilian areas under strict contracts. Restricted partners are those connected to foreign militaries or companies with opaque practices. This classification provides clarity and reduces risk.
Enforce compliance and export control rules more strictly. India has a regulatory framework for dual-use technology, but many universities lack awareness or do not apply consistent screening. Every international project should include risk assessments, export control reviews, and binding clauses on IP and data protection. Oversight must be mandatory, and audits should be conducted regularly.
To accelerate technological progress, India should adopt a tiered partnership model and establish mission-led programs similar to DARPA. Funding high-risk, high-reward projects with flexible contracting and milestone-based grants will create momentum. Grouping universities, startups, and defence labs around specific goals-such as hypersonic subsystems, secure microelectronics, or quantum encryption-will directly support India’s strategic aim of faster, self-reliant innovation.
At this point, the India–US Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (iCET) offers a valuable reality check. It was established to foster cooperation on semiconductors, defense innovation, space systems, and advanced computing. Expectations were high, positioning iCET as a pathway to joint development and production. However, progress has been slow. American caution around export controls and sensitive technologies restricts what can be shared, and India’s bureaucratic procedures cause additional delays. iCET remains promising but has produced limited results. This demonstrates why India cannot rely solely on any one strategic approach. Instead, it must build independent capabilities while maintaining diverse, realistic partnerships that deliver tangible outcomes.
Public-private innovation pipelines are essential. Defence labs alone cannot meet deadlines. India needs innovation testbeds, defence incubators, fabrication clusters, and joint appointments between academia and industry. Industry should receive incentives to collaborate with universities, and universities should have direct access to real problems and datasets.
India also needs a strong domestic capacity in semiconductors and advanced materials. Strategic autonomy depends on controlling chips, materials, rare earth substitutes, and specialised electronics. This includes domestic fabricating of specific chips, expanding packaging and testing collaborations, and coordinating materials research. Collaboration with Taiwan, Japan, and select ASEAN partners can strengthen these efforts.
How Collaboration with Southeast Asia and Russia Fits into the Picture
Working with Southeast Asian and Russian institutions offers clear benefits. Collaboration speeds up progress by boosting India’s access to skilled researchers and advanced facilities. It enhances regional stability by strengthening deterrence and lowering external pressures. It also improves cost efficiency by reducing India’s financial burden with shared infrastructure and joint research funding, while opening new markets.
The key is to keep sensitive technologies within secure channels while utilising external partnerships to boost capacity where risks are minimal and benefits are maximised. Collaboration becomes a force multiplier instead of a vulnerability.
Funding Models that Support Safe and Fast Dual-Use Research
India can enhance research results by adopting best practices from international funding models. Strategic government grants can focus on dual-use technologies while requiring risk assessments and compliance checks. Innovation funds that combine government and industry resources can support rapid prototyping and testing. Auditing and reporting systems embedded in grant cycles can ensure consistent oversight.
International coordination with trusted partners ensures that security standards stay aligned and that shared projects meet precise expectations. This creates a dependable framework for joint research without compromising national interests.
Pathways to Build a Secure Collaborative Ecosystem
India can launch pilot partnerships focused on safe sectors such as AI for disaster management, energy systems, health technologies, or climate solutions. Each partnership should begin with a thorough vetting of institutions. Transparent governance structures must be in place—rules for data, IP, and technology handling should be clear from the start. Compliance audits should be conducted every 6 to 12 months. Researchers should be trained in export control regulations. Trusted partner networks can help identify institutions that meet India’s standards.
Each of these steps promotes responsible habits and reduces the burden on any one institution. Over time, they build a culture where collaboration and security mutually reinforce each other.
Conclusion
India cannot sustain research and development cycles at the slower pace of previous decades. It must accelerate timelines and secure vital technologies. The British experience with China shows the risks of engaging in academic collaboration without safeguards. The slow progress of iCET highlights the dangers of relying on a single strategic partner. Therefore, India should build a diverse and resilient research ecosystem rooted in domestic strengths and supported by carefully chosen global collaborations.
Southeast Asia and Russia offer a promising space for such engagement. With strict oversight, careful planning, and a clear strategic purpose, India can leverage regional partnerships to promote innovation without losing control. A disciplined collaboration model, supported by bold mission-led research initiatives and robust public-private pipelines, will help India gain the autonomy and speed needed at this moment.
India now has the chance to strengthen its research ecosystem, protect its strategic interests, and position itself as a leading innovator in key technologies. By balancing ambition with caution, it can overcome future challenges and build a secure, self-reliant technological future.