Wars Can’t Be Fought on Imported Tech, Build Indigenous Capacity: Veterans at BSI Dialogues

Lessons from ongoing conflicts, from the Russia-Ukraine war to tensions in West Asia, are often tempting to generalise. But doing so without context can be misleading, warned senior military veterans during a BharatShakti Dialogues hosted by the editorial team led by Editor-in-Chief Nitin A. Gokhale.

The discussion, featuring Indian Navy’s veteran Commodore Arun Golaya (Retd) and Group Captain R.K. Narang (Retd) from Indian Air Force, focused on what India must internalise from contemporary wars, particularly the interplay of geography, technology, and self-reliance.

Commodore Golaya cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions from individual conflicts.

“We have to be very careful when we learn lessons – are we learning the right lessons in the right context?” he said, pointing out how narratives shift with each war.

“After one conflict, people say short, swift wars are the future. Then another war breaks out, and suddenly, prolonged wars are back. If you keep revising lessons with every war, you are not learning at all.”

Instead, he argued, the central takeaway is far more fundamental: the ability to sustain conflict depends on domestic capacity.

“Any nation that does not have an industrial ecosystem cannot fight a long war on borrowed or imported technology,” he said.

Referring to Iran and Ukraine’s resilience, Golaya noted that their ability to endure was underpinned by local innovation.

“This resilience cannot come from imports.”

The discussion repeatedly returned to the theme of atmanirbharta – self-reliance in defence production – not merely as a policy slogan but as a wartime necessity.

Gp Capt Narang echoed this, stressing that “when you have technology ownership, many of these vulnerabilities reduce. When you are importing, problems will persist.”

Both experts underlined that future warfare will demand a tight coupling of force generation and force application, tailored to India’s specific threat environment. With the likelihood of multi-front challenges, they argued, India cannot afford doctrinal rigidity or dependence on external supply chains.

A significant portion of the dialogue examined the renewed importance of geographical choke points – long recognised in theory but now starkly visible in real-time conflicts. Cmde Golaya noted that public awareness itself has grown.

“We have been trying for decades to explain the importance of geography and choke points. Now, even a layperson understands terms like the Strait of Hormuz,” he remarked.

He outlined a chain of critical maritime passages, from the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb to the Malacca Strait and beyond, that shape global trade and energy flows. For India, geography offers a strategic advantage.

“We are sitting astride key sea lanes. Any naval force entering our theatre has to pass through narrow, well-defined points. These are areas where monitoring becomes easier,” he said.

However, he also flagged the evolving legal and strategic contestation around these chokepoints, especially amid differing interpretations of international maritime law.

“We are seeing a churn in the international system. What consensus emerges is uncertain,” he observed.

On the debate around aircraft carriers, particularly in light of drone threats and recent operational adjustments by the US Navy, Cmde Golaya pushed back against the notion that carriers are becoming obsolete.

“If the question is whether India needs more aircraft carriers, the answer is yes,” he said.

Describing carriers as “integral air power at sea,” he argued that their primary role in the Indian context is fleet air defence rather than power projection ashore. ]

“Without a carrier, adversary aircraft can operate just outside your missile range and target your fleet. The moment you have a carrier, the entire equation changes,” he explained.

He dismissed concerns over carrier vulnerability as overstated. “Everything in warfare is vulnerable. A ship in harbour is safe, but that’s not what ships are meant for,” he said, emphasising mobility and layered defence.

Gp Capt Narang, meanwhile, highlighted the rapid evolution of air power, from drones and ballistic missiles to stealth aircraft. He cautioned against misreading isolated incidents.

“Let’s not draw wrong conclusions from reports of aircraft being shot down. Stealth has proven itself and has a bright future,” he said, adding that emerging vulnerabilities would only drive further innovation.

“Redesigning future capabilities, from hypersonics to low-level drones and manned aircraft, has to be a priority,” he said.

The overarching message from the discussion was clear: there are no universal templates in modern warfare. For India, success will hinge on aligning technology, doctrine and geography, while building the industrial depth to sustain conflict when it matters most.

Ravi Shankar