Abdul Basit Alvi
India’s defense procurement surge, approved by the Defence Acquisition Council at around $25 billion, represents its largest set of military approvals in years and goes far beyond routine modernization, covering land, air, sea, and joint-service capabilities that could significantly alter South Asia’s military balance. The scale—larger than many countries’ entire defense budgets and nearly triple Pakistan’s annual military spending—has sparked sharp debate, with critics calling it “war hysteria” and India arguing it is necessary to counter threats from China and Pakistan, citing the 2020 Galwan clashes and ongoing Line of Control tensions. The wide array of acquisitions, including S-400 air defense systems, drones, transport aircraft, artillery, advanced tank ammunition, communications and surveillance systems, fighter jet engine overhauls, and coast guard hovercraft, reflects a doctrinal shift toward high-intensity, multi-front warfare without reliance on nuclear escalation. Systems like the S-400 could extend defensive coverage deep into Pakistani airspace, while transport aircraft, advanced radar, and long-endurance drones enhance India’s ability to rapidly deploy forces, sustain prolonged operations, and conduct precision or gray-zone strikes below full-scale war, supported by improved mobility, firepower, and integrated, network-centric battlefield awareness.
At the same time, India’s buildup has triggered countermeasures from Pakistan, including plans for electronic warfare, stealthier cruise missiles like the Ra’ad-II, possible acquisition of Chinese HQ-9BE air defense systems, upgrades to tank protection and armor, and expansion of its own drone programs alongside potential purchases from Turkey, illustrating a classic security dilemma in which each side’s defensive moves appear offensive to the other. The broader package also reflects political and ideological factors under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP, where military strength is tied to nationalist narratives, past conflicts such as 1962 and Kargil, and actions like revoking Kashmir’s autonomy, raising concerns that enhanced capabilities could embolden risk-taking. Internationally, major powers face a dilemma between supporting India as a counterweight to China and preventing escalation between two nuclear-armed rivals with unresolved disputes over Kashmir, Sir Creek, Siachen Glacier, and water resources. Past crises like the 2019 Balakot episode demonstrate how quickly tensions can escalate, and with more advanced weapons now in play, the threshold for conflict is both higher due to mutual deterrence and lower due to perceived opportunities for limited war, increasing the risk of miscalculation or even nuclear escalation.
Analysts who warn that the “fundamentalist and conservative Modi government” might pose a danger to the world base their argument on the prime minister’s track record of militarized nationalism, including the 2016 surgical strikes across the Line of Control, the 2019 air strikes into Pakistani territory, and the 2020 Galwan Valley clash with China where India suffered 20 fatalities but reportedly inflicted much heavier losses on Chinese forces. They note that Modi’s government has systematically weakened India’s secular institutions, promoted Hindu majoritarianism through policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens, and used external threats to consolidate domestic power, often conflating criticism of the government with anti-nationalism. In such an environment, advanced weaponry—especially offensive systems like unmanned attack aircraft, long-range cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs)—could be used not just for defense but for preemptive strikes, regime change ambitions in Pakistan, or even to provoke a short, victorious war to boost electoral prospects, much like the 1999 Kargil War was used to boost the BJP’s fortunes at the time. The $25 billion spending surge, while justified by New Delhi as a response to China’s own massive military modernization (including the deployment of DF-17 hypersonic glide vehicles, DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles, and a fifth-generation stealth fighter, the J-20) and Pakistan’s alleged cross-border terrorism (including the 2008 Mumbai attacks and more recent grenade attacks in Jammu), is seen by critics as a self-fulfilling prophecy. By acquiring weapons that negate Pakistan’s conventional deterrents—such as the S-400 neutralizing Pakistan’s air force, the new tank ammunition neutralizing Pakistan’s armor, and the drones neutralizing Pakistan’s artillery—India forces Pakistan to rely more heavily on its tactical nuclear weapons (the Nasr and Ababeel systems, which are short-range, battlefield nuclear missiles designed to stop an Indian armored thrust). This reliance lowers the nuclear threshold dramatically, because Pakistan has explicitly stated that it would use Nasr against massed Indian conventional forces if they penetrate Pakistani territory, a doctrine known as “full spectrum deterrence.” A conventional war could thus turn nuclear within days or even hours, with catastrophic consequences for the entire region and beyond, given that a single 10-kiloton nuclear detonation could kill hundreds of thousands of people directly, and multiple detonations could cause a nuclear autumn or winter effect, reducing global temperatures, disrupting agriculture, and causing famine worldwide. Moreover, the world should indeed take notice, as the analysts argue, because the India-Pakistan rivalry no longer remains localized.
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.
