DAP 2026: ‘Owned by India’ Is the Goal, But Guardrails Are Critical: Lt Gen V.K. Saxena (Retd)

As India prepares to finalise the Defence Acquisition Procedure 2026 (DAP 2026), the draft policy has sparked wide-ranging debate within the strategic and defence industry community. Positioned as a decisive shift from the earlier “Make in India” approach to a more assertive “Owned by India” doctrine, the framework seeks to place Indigenous Design, Development and Manufacture (IDDM) at the heart of defence procurement.

In an exclusive conversation, Lt Gen V.K. Saxena (Retd), former Director General (Air Defence), Indian Army, speaks to BharatShakti Editor-in-Chief Nitin A. Gokhale on how the policy has evolved from earlier Defence Procurement Procedures (DPP), what the new draft gets right, and where critical gaps remain.

While he describes DAP 2026 as a “very major shift” aimed at strengthening strategic autonomy, transparency, and long-term capability building, Saxena also flags serious concerns, particularly around provisions that equate acquired intellectual property with indigenous design, and relaxed indigenous content norms that could be exploited.

The Ministry of Defence is currently seeking stakeholder feedback before the policy is formally notified. Therefore, his insights offer a timely and candid assessment of whether DAP 2026 can truly deliver on India’s ambition of building a self-reliant defence ecosystem.

The following are excerpts:

DAP 2026 is being seen as a major policy shift. How do you view its significance?

Saxena: “I will call it a very major shift… it makes a doctrinal shift from ‘Make in India’ to ‘Owned by India’. ‘Make in India’ meant bringing in foreign designs and producing them here. Now the emphasis is: design here, develop here, and manufacture here.”

He adds that the intent is clear:

“IDDM should be the root of the whole thing… that is the core philosophy.”

Can you walk us through how India’s defence procurement framework has evolved over the years?

Saxena: “Whether it is DPP or DAP, these are the foundational frameworks which have governed capital acquisition.”

Tracing the journey, he explains, “The DPP 2013 aimed at removing middlemen and enhancing the spirit of ‘Buy Indian’,  then DPP 2016 carried forward ‘Make in India’ and introduced IDDM.”

The next big shift came in 2020: “DAP 2020 focused on Aatmanirbharta, reducing imports and increasing indigenous content.”

DAP 2026, he says, builds on that trajectory, “Now it is about ownership, true indigenous capability, not just assembly.”

What are the key strengths of the DAP 2026 draft?

Saxena: “The document lays down very strong guiding principles, national security imperative, strategic alignment, procedural simplicity, economic prudence, and long-term industrial transformation.”

He highlights transparency and fairness as core elements: “It promises total probity, transparency, level playing field and fair competition.”

At its heart, he restates, “The soul of the document is Aatmanirbharta based on Indian design, development and manufacture.”

One major concern raised is about the treatment of intellectual property. Why is this an issue?

Saxena: “This is a very serious loophole; it can be weaponised by fraudulent players with foreign OEMs.” He explains the core problem, “Acquired IP is foreign design and development with Indian manufacture. It contributes very little to indigenous capability.”

Warning against misuse, he says, “On paper it looks good, but it opens a backdoor entry.”

What safeguards would you suggest for acquired IP?

Saxena: “The company must have full rights, source code, design data, everything, and also the capability to modify and build on it.”

He stresses that capability must already exist: “You should have engineers, labs, R&D capability… pre-existing capability must be defined.”

And, also proposes a structured transition: “There has to be a defined transition period,  after that, independent development must begin. The burden of proof must lie with the vendor.”

There is also debate around indigenous content thresholds. What concerns you here?

Saxena: “This is a minefield… a 30% player and a 70% player cannot be equated.”

He elaborates, “One may have spent decades and crores in R&D, while another has barely developed a fraction.” And, “Yes, the government wants startups to enter… but fairness must be ensured.”

How should the system reward genuine indigenous players?

Saxena: “Anything above 70% IDDM should be given priority, even direct orders at a reasonable negotiated price.”

“A 30% player cannot compete with someone who has invested for 20 years and reached 70%.”

Calling them rare, he notes, “These are vanishing few companies… and they must be rewarded.”

Are the penalties for failing to meet indigenous content norms adequate?

Saxena: “No, they are far too mild… this is a very big trap.”  “If indigenous content is not met, it is either dishonesty at bidding or deliberate import substitution later.”

His recommendation is unequivocal: “The penalty should be existential.” “Up to 75% of the contract value, blacklisting, and debarment… only then will it act as a deterrent.”

Otherwise, he warns: “You gain Rs 500 crore and pay Rs 25 crore, what is the idea?”

What about situations where India lacks certain technologies? Should flexibility be allowed?

Saxena: “We are open to that, but follow a structured route.”

He clarifies that flexibility should not dilute intent: “Urgency or lack of capability cannot become an excuse to bypass indigenous development.”

You’ve also flagged concerns about fast-track procurement. What are they?

Saxena: “Urgency cannot override our national will of building indigenous capability.”

He points out a key gap: “There is no provision to check whether an IDDM player exists, you just go ahead and buy.”

He argues this undermines the policy’s spirit, “At the first stage itself, you are compromising.”

Are there other structural gaps in the draft?

Saxena: “Yes, several, IDDM does not apply across all procurement categories.”

He lists areas needing attention: “Fast-track procedures, low-cost acquisitions, upgrades, strategic partnerships, many are devoid of IDDM consideration.”

And recommends, “IDDM must encompass all these procedures.”

You’ve emphasised training and simulation. Why is this critical?

Saxena: “Training is everything; you cannot separate equipment from training.”

He explains the gap, “The document talks about capability, but is peripheral on simulators and training systems. There must be a mandatory provision for simulator-based training as part of acquisition.”

Finally, does DAP 2026 align with India’s long-term defence goals?

Saxena: “The spirit is absolutely correct, building Indian design and development capability.”

However, he cautions, “There are lacunae…not just in acquired IP but in several other areas.”

Team BharatShakti