Beyond Comparisons: India’s Strategic Reckoning amid China’s Military Modernization

Can India afford to keep chasing China’s military shadow — or should it accept strategic realities and choose a different path?

As China continues to surge ahead in military modernization — exemplified by the recent unveilings of the J-36 stealth fighter and the Type 076 amphibious assault ship — India finds itself grappling with a stark reality: It is not merely lagging behind but facing a widening and potentially unbridgeable gap. While the domestic media and political rhetoric have long framed India as a rising power capable of competing with China, its persistent reliance on defense imports, sluggish indigenous production, and bureaucratic inertia complicate this geopolitical ambition.

The question, then, is whether India should continue its pursuit of this technological and military parity with China or recalibrate its strategy by acknowledging its comparative advantages, selectively acquiring key technologies, and adopting a more pragmatic, long-term defense posture. This is not just a military debate but one that strikes at India’s strategic identity, forcing a reckoning with its ambitions, its limitations, and the narratives that have shaped its defense policy for decades. At its core, given the circumstances, India should move beyond reactive comparisons and symbolic posturing and instead confront the structural and perceptual barriers — both within its strategic establishment and in the public narrative — that have long distorted its defense priorities.

Chasing China?

China’s rapid strides in military modernization continue to dominate the regional balance of power, underscoring its growing superiority in defense technology. The recent maiden flight of the sixth-generation stealth combat aircraft — coupled with other advancements in naval power such as the expansion of its amphibious assault fleet — underscore China’s attempts to bolster its military modernization. Together, these developments position China to enhance its air superiority and operational reach, which could have significant implications for regional security dynamics, particularly in relation to India.

In contrast, India’s ambitious defense modernization, spearheaded by its highly touted “Make in India” initiative, continues to fall short, particularly in areas of cutting-edge equipment development and technology consciousness. Despite mighty ambitious goals of indigenization, New Delhi’s military–industrial complex remains heavily reliant on imports for critical defense technologies, exposing the glaring gap between aspiration and execution.

While Indian policymakers have long emphasized the need to transition from acquiring foreign technology to fostering home-grown innovation, progress remains excruciatingly slow. “We are chasing technology now. We should reach a stage, where technology comes out of India and others are chasing it,” reiterates India’s Air Chief Marshal Amar Preet Singh, adding to the mounting criticisms from Indian Air Force veterans chastising the country’s premier aeronautics manufacturer, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, for its recurring delivery delays, particularly with reference to the Tejas Mk1.5. India’s over-reliance on Hindustan Aeronautics Limited has faced intense scrutiny due to structural inefficiencies in defense procurement that pose a major risk to the country’s aerial combat preparedness. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited’s delayed delivery of the Tejas fighter and recurring issues with the Sukhoi Su-30 MKI jet and the Advanced Light Dhruv helicopter highlight structural inefficiencies that have hampered the Indian Air Force’s combat readiness.

This reality forces India into a moment of reckoning.

Further complicating matters for India, the Pakistan Air Force has recently agreed to buy, an export-oriented variant of the Chinese J-31 stealth fighter, with deliveries expected by 2026. The J-31 is designed for both air superiority and strike missions. If Pakistan acquires even a small number of these jets, it will neutralize the Indian Air Force’s historical edge in air superiority over its neighbor. This shift in regional air power balance could force India into reactive mode, rather than a strategically dominant position. The combination of these developments presents a clear challenge for India, both in terms of its immediate security concerns and its broader military modernization goals.

Struggles and Stagnation of India’s Defense Modernization

While both China and Pakistan, volatile neighbors and adversaries of India, bolster their air capabilities, New Delhi now faces the dual challenge of strengthening its own defenses while remaining agile in an environment where even non-aggressive actions — strategic deployments, routine border patrols, or shifts in military posture — can be perceived as aggressive and lead to escalatory actions due to the fragile and highly charged political and security dynamics of the region. Seeing itself as one of the dominant powers in the neighborhood, India is compelled to always stay a step ahead, ensuring its deterrence and readiness against any potential external threats, even from a less aggressive neighbor.

Against the backdrop of such Chinese technological breakthroughs, the main sentiment in India following this particular launch of the J-36 became that of panic — with the bureaucratic, policy, and military communities scrambling to find solutions just to stay in the race, even if it meant trailing China. This was primarily because most of India’s homegrown ventures have so far lagged economically, technologically, and intellectually. Struggling even in the early stages of developing its fifth-generation fighter, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft, India now faces pressing concerns about the future of its military modernization, the effectiveness of its indigenous defense initiatives, and how its strategic vision should evolve in response to China’s growing military capabilities.

The key question remains whether India can keep pace with China’s technological advancements indigenously — especially when aircraft like the J-36 have already far outstripped its current capabilities in stealth and combat performance. Is India prepared to accept the continued necessity of defense imports from the West or Russia, given its technological constraints and the sluggish pace of domestic defense manufacturing? Or has it matured to a point where it can adopt a more pragmatic approach, engaging strategically with China to navigate regional dynamics while moving beyond perpetual comparisons, allowing it to focus on its own defense priorities and long-term development?

Setting the Scene: Political Rhetoric vs Strategic Reality

As China’s power rises, the threat of a border clash causing domestic humiliation will remain a powerful force shaping Indian foreign policy. The launch of the J-36 only amplifies these concerns, posing significant challenges for India and compelling a reassessment of its ambitions to overhaul its military–industrial complex.

To add to this, the political rhetoric for years has tried to peddle within domestic circles India’s capability of defending itself against China, often downplaying or disregarding the reality of its technological limitations to avoid the perception of weakness on the global stage. However, the standoffs with China in 2017 and 2020 exposed the harsh reality of these gaps in India’s military modernization, particularly in aircraft development, nuclear submarines, cyber and space capabilities, stealth technology, electronic warfare, and missiles. These shortcomings, long acknowledged by the military, have largely been ignored by politicians and the media, as addressing the gaps would risk undermining the credibility of those in power. Additionally, given the Indian electorate’s deep inclination toward a government that projects strength against China’s aggression at the de facto international boundary, known as the Line of Actual Control, the pressure on any administration to appear tough has often overshadowed more strategic considerations in shaping India’s China policy. Indeed, acknowledging the military gap would challenge the prevailing political narrative, potentially weakening India’s standing both domestically and internationally. This narrative clashes with the more sober assessments of defense experts, leading to a dissonance between public discourse and strategic reality.

Confronting the Gap Between Ambition and Reality

In this context, India is starting to reassess its psychological attachment to comparisons with China. A shift toward realism and an acceptance of the extensive technological, economic, and industrial gaps between the two countries — which would reflect a significant departure from what India so long imagined to be a traditional dyadic rivalry — could pave the way for more pragmatic defense strategies.

India can indeed pursue a multifaceted approach: developing its own defense technology, importing where necessary, and maintaining a pragmatic and constructive relationship with China. In theory, these objectives need not be mutually exclusive. But in recent years, the political and strategic discourse has been dominated by the need to outpace China, which has, in turn, shaped India’s defense policy into one of “competitive self-sufficiency.” The rhetoric of competing with China has fueled a national narrative where reliance on foreign imports, particularly in advanced defense technologies, has been increasingly viewed as unacceptable. The political confidence of the Atmanirbhar Bharat (Self-Reliant India) vision, while crucial for building a robust defense ecosystem, has also led to a deep institutional desire to reduce dependence on foreign powers for imports, especially in critical defense technologies.

Consequently, India has leaned heavily into developing indigenous capabilities — sometimes at the expense of immediate, practical solutions. The ideological commitment to self-reliance, combined with a hardline stance on China, makes it challenging for India to recalibrate its approach. Adjusting to a more pragmatic stance, where defense imports are seen as a supplement rather than a compromise to national sovereignty, would require a fundamental shift in both policy and perception. The political narrative built over the years around self-sufficiency and the competitive rhetoric against China would need to evolve, which is no small feat. As a result, the need for balance becomes less a matter of capability and more one of overcoming the domestic inertia that has embedded these positions into public policy and popular sentiment. For India, the issue now is not just technological parity — it is a question of national pride and strategic identity.

India’s defense establishment remains distracted by symbolic gestures, from statue-building to revising historical narratives. Decades of stagnation have left India struggling to keep pace. The Indian Air Force faces an operational crisis too, with only 31 of 42 sanctioned fighter squadrons functional, exacerbated by delays in aircraft acquisition and pilot shortages. Meanwhile, long-term indigenous solutions like the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft and Light Combat Aircraft Mark-II are years away, with the former’s first flight now pushed to 2028 — highlighting the urgent need for immediate action. The Indian Air Force’s current operational shortfall does not just imply slow modernization — it risks undermining India’s defense posture at a time of heightened tension. Its skirmishes at the border with China marked a turning point. The failure to effectively counter China’s assertiveness on the ground further amplified the urgency, triggering a more keen sense of disparity within India’s defense establishment.

This creates a cognitive dissonance in India’s defense policy. On one hand, India is fiercely committed to indigenization and self-reliance, as highlighted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s emphasis on Atmanirbhar Bharat. On the other hand, the country lacks the robust infrastructure to support a thriving, heavy military manufacturing industry — something China has successfully developed over decades. China’s ability to build next-generation fighter jets and cutting-edge military equipment is the result of its vast and integrated industrial base, which spans both defense and civilian sectors. India, however, still lacks this dual-use capability and must reckon with the mismatch between ambition and capability.

This situation presents India with an internal dilemma. The government has ridiculed the notion of relying on imports in defense matters, but the domestic defense manufacturing ecosystem has not kept up with the country’s growing security needs. Moreover, opposition parties have regularly pointed out the flaws and delays in India’s defense modernization, accusing the government of political grandstanding rather than delivering on its promises. The government’s dismissive stance toward these critiques only adds fuel to the fire, making it difficult for India to chart a clear course forward.

Breaking the Cycle: Acceptance, Adaptation, and a Strategic Equilibrium?

Lately, however, there has been a noticeable maturity in India’s approach to its relationship with China, moving away from overt comparisons and focusing on pragmatic engagement. India has recently shifted toward a more pragmatic approach, which doesn’t mean abandoning comparisons altogether, but rather moving past the gap between confrontational rhetoric and reality. In a mid-March podcast, Prime Minister Modi made his warmest remarks on China in years, emphasizing that “only through dialogue can we build a stable, cooperative relationship.” Chinese officials welcomed the gesture. This shift did not emerge in isolation. Less than six months ago, India and China struck a deal to disengage troops from the last two remaining incursion sites on the Line of Actual Control, signaling a pathway  toward normalization.

India now finds itself straddling a delicate balance between a shifting diplomatic stance and the realities of its military shortcomings. For example, India has recently stopped making grandiose comparisons between its “vibrant villages” and China’s high-tech infrastructure in the border regions, or has refrained from mentioning the “status quo” vis-a-vis border issues. This recognition of the economic disparities between India and China is a positive development and should serve as the basis for a more realistic military strategy. While political rhetoric has softened, suggesting a move toward normalization with China, India’s defense establishment remains locked in a reactive cycle — struggling to bridge technological gaps while grappling with delays and dependencies. The dilemma then remains whether India can break free from symbolic posturing and commit to a pragmatic, forward-looking strategy that prioritizes real military capability.

India can no longer afford to view China as a mirror to its own military ambitions, especially when the disparity is so profound. The challenge lies in overcoming the entrenched rhetoric and policy frameworks that present defense development as an either-or scenario: either Indian self-reliance or competition with China. It is this dichotomy, which has become deeply ingrained in India’s national discourse, that makes the adjustment toward a more pragmatic and nuanced strategy difficult.

The widening gap between its defense ambitions and realities can no longer be ignored or papered over with rhetoric. The debate is no longer about whether reform is necessary, but whether India has the political will and institutional capacity to execute it. Without bold, decisive action, India’s aspirations of military self-reliance will remain unfulfilled. The government’s push for modernization, including streamlining acquisition processes and fostering technological collaboration, is a step in the right direction. However, past attempts have faltered due to bureaucratic inertia, infighting, and an inability to translate vision into execution. If India is to break free from this cycle, it should commit to a few key imperatives, which are discussed below.

First, rebuild and strengthen the military–industrial complex. India’s defense sector needs structural overhauls, not just policy tweaks. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and the Defense and Research Development Organization should be reformed to function with greater efficiency, accountability, and competitiveness. Bureaucratic roadblocks in procurement and indigenous development need to be dismantled to fast-track key projects like the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft and Tejas. Without a strong domestic defense ecosystem, self-reliance will remain an illusion.

Second, prioritize military urgency over symbolism. Grand narratives of self-reliance should be matched with hard-nosed pragmatism. This means making difficult choices about where indigenous development is feasible in the near term and where external procurement remains essential.

Third, fast-track defense procurement with a strategic focus. The Indian Air Force’s dwindling squadron strength and stalled acquisitions demand immediate attention. While indigenous platforms should be prioritized, India should also make swift and pragmatic decisions on interim procurements to avoid capability gaps. Defense deals should be driven by operational urgency, not political optics.

Fourth, leverage foreign partnerships for real capability gains.  While self-reliance is the goal, India should strike a balance between indigenization and leveraging strategic partnerships. Whether sourcing technology from France, the United States, or Russia, every deal should ensure technology transfer and industrial collaboration rather than just hardware acquisitions.

Finally, move beyond reactive military planning. India’s obsession with matching China at every turn has led to a defensive, reactionary posture. Instead of chasing parity, India should define a military strategy based on its unique security needs — prioritizing naval expansion, advanced asymmetric capabilities, and force projection where it matters most.

As political winds shift and India recalibrates its approach to China, it should ensure that the recent diplomatic thaw does not lead to strategic complacency. While dialogue may offer temporary stability, deterrence ultimately rests on a combination of military capability and political resolve. If India fails to act now, it risks not just playing catch-up later but being strategically sidelined in an evolving global order. The time for half-measures has passed. India should either commit to serious military transformation or accept the consequences of stagnation.

Hely Desai is a research associate at the Council for Strategic and Defense Research in New Delhi. She is an incoming Ph.D. candidate at the University of Cambridge, where she also received a Master’s in Philosophy. She is also a Research Fellow with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization and a mentor for the Youth Leader Fund at the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs.

Image: Indian Prime Minister’s Office via Wikimedia Commons.

War on the Rocks