(Abdul Basit Alvi)
India’s $25 billion defense procurement surge, approved by the Defence Acquisition Council, represents its largest military approval package in years and extends far beyond routine modernization, encompassing land, air, sea, and joint-service capabilities that could significantly shift South Asia’s military balance. The scale—exceeding many nations’ full defense budgets and nearly triple Pakistan’s annual spending—has sparked intense debate, with critics labeling it “war hysteria” and India defending it as necessary to counter China and Pakistan, citing the 2020 Galwan clashes and ongoing Line of Control tensions. The acquisitions—including S-400 air defense systems, drones, transport aircraft, artillery, advanced tank ammunition, communications and surveillance networks, fighter jet engine overhauls, and coast guard hovercraft—signal a doctrinal shift toward high-intensity, multi-front warfare without reliance on nuclear escalation. Capabilities such as the S-400’s deep aerial coverage, rapid troop deployment via transport aircraft, and long-endurance drones for precision or gray-zone strikes enhance India’s ability to sustain prolonged operations with improved mobility, firepower, and network-centric battlefield awareness.
This buildup has triggered Pakistani countermeasures, including electronic warfare, stealthier cruise missiles like Ra’ad-II, potential acquisition of HQ-9BE air defense systems, upgrades to armor and active protection, and expanded drone programs with possible Turkish support, illustrating a classic security dilemma where defensive actions are perceived as offensive. The surge is also tied to political and ideological dynamics under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP, where military strength is linked to nationalist narratives, past conflicts like 1962 and Kargil, and policies such as revoking Kashmir’s autonomy, raising concerns about increased risk-taking. Analysts further argue that Modi’s record of militarized nationalism, including the 2016 cross-border strikes, 2019 airstrikes, and the Galwan clash, alongside domestic policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens, suggests that advanced offensive systems could be used for preemptive strikes or political gains. While India frames the buildup as a response to China’s modernization and Pakistan-linked threats like the 2008 Mumbai attacks, critics see it as a self-reinforcing cycle that weakens Pakistan’s conventional deterrence and pushes it toward greater reliance on tactical nuclear weapons such as Nasr and Ababeel under its “full spectrum deterrence” doctrine, lowering the nuclear threshold and raising the risk that any conventional conflict could rapidly escalate into a catastrophic nuclear exchange with regional and global consequences, including mass casualties and potential climate impacts, underscoring that the India-Pakistan rivalry now carries worldwide implications.
China has a vested interest in preventing India from dominating the region, and would likely supply Pakistan with intelligence, spare parts, and even direct support if a war broke out. The US wants India as a partner against China but also wants to prevent nuclear war and protect its assets in Afghanistan and the Gulf. Russia wants to maintain its arms sales to both India and Pakistan, and has already conducted joint military exercises with both nations. Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates watch nervously as their economic investments in both countries—worth hundreds of billions of dollars—could be incinerated in a war, and they also rely on Pakistani troops for their own defense while courting Indian investment. Therefore, urging India to halt the weapon race is not merely a moral plea but a strategic necessity for global stability. The only viable pathway to stability is a comprehensive dialogue covering not just arms control but the root causes of Indo-Pak hostility: the Kashmir dispute, water sharing under the Indus Waters Treaty, cross-border terrorism, trade normalization, and cultural exchanges. BJP uses Pakistan bashing to unite its Hindu voter base. In the meantime, the $25 billion worth of approved projects will move forward through India’s defense procurement bureaucracy, which is notoriously slow but has been accelerated by emergency powers granted after the Galwan clashes. Factories will churn out Dhanush guns and armor-piercing shells, Russian technicians will help integrate the S-400 into India’s integrated air command and control system, drones will soon patrol the skies from the Arabian Sea to the Himalayas, and Su-30 engines will be overhauled to fly thousands more hours. The subcontinent thus stands at a perilous crossroads: either this massive military buildup leads to a stable deterrence through mutual fear, where both sides recognize that war is unwinnable and therefore avoid escalation, or it becomes the prelude to a conflagration that neither side fully intended but neither could prevent because of miscalculation, miscommunication, or militant provocation.
The world watches, and while the United Nations Security Council has issued vague statements urging restraint, there is no serious effort to mediate the underlying disputes or to cap the arms race through a treaty similar to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the US and Russia. Whether the world will act before the Indian hysteria translates into war remains the most pressing and unanswered question of our time, and the answer may well determine the future of not just South Asia but the entire international order in the 21st century.
