In March 2018, the NDA government had launched the policy of defense industry corridors. The first defense corridor was launched in UP in August last year and the second corridor has been launched on 10 February 2019 in Tamil Nadu. The second corridor is going to come up in UP. According to the government, the basic objective of these corridors is to promote the domestic defense industry for self-reliance. Currently, India imports a majority of its arms and other defense equipment from Russia (around 68 %).

Though the government has declared self-reliance in defense and job creation as two major objectives of this policy, the real focus would also be on export promotion. In the new model of export-oriented economic growth, these corridors are expected to be a major driver of making India as a defense equipment-manufacturing hub.

Apart from the concerns raised related to the economic viability of defense corridors and the ability of Indian firms to produce world-class defense equipment and technology, the implications of this policy are likely to change India’s role in global affairs. It will have also serious implications on domestic politics as well. Apart from the economic concerns related to the possibilities and liabilities of such programs, the promotion of industrialization in the field of defense-related items would bring a major shift in some of the ethical paradigms of Indian democracy. It is also likely to bring in alterations in welfare-related priorities of the Indian state. Looking at the implementation of this policy three such major issues can be highlighted.

Domestic implications

First and foremost, the acquisition of agricultural land is a precondition for establishing such corridors (quite like Special Export Zones). For this purpose, major land acquisition is being carried out. A majority of SEZs for which major land was acquired continues to remain unutilized. Most of the projects didn’t take off due to various reasons. In such a situation another drive for land acquisition would adversely impact the livelihood of the farmers and other groups. These corridors will result in dispossession of a large number of farming families and migration to the other nearby cities. For the Bundelkhand Defense Corridor around 3000 acres of land is to be acquired in the districts of Aligarh, Kanpur, Agra, Jhansi, and Chitrakoot. Similarly, in Tamil Nadu land is to be acquired in the regions of Trichy, Chennai, Hosur, and Coimbatore.

The selection of areas for the production of defense products is also a major concern. In the case of UP, the Bundelkhand region has been selected for the defense corridor. This region has been historically known for its violent, feudal culture. The region had suffered from bandits for a very long time. It is almost an efforts of four decades by various groups (including Gandhian leaders like Vinoba Bhave and many other local leaders and civil society activists) played a crucial role in disarming some of these groups and bring them back in the mainstream social life. The region has become relatively stable only in the last two decades and still struggling hard to overcome its social and economic backwardness. Any such attempts to promote the arms industry in a region that is struggling with poverty and underdevelopment is more likely to revive the culture of bloodshed.

The government has declared the creation of jobs as one of the objectives of promoting the defense corridor. In the case of the Tamil Nadu Defense corridor, it has given the logic of having a large number of engineering colleges along with other technical support bases in the region. However, no such knowledge base exists in Bundelkhand. Besides, the region is also known for its highly unskilled labor. In such a scenario, the only job creation that can happen through defense corridors is in the construction industry and least likely to generate jobs in any meaningful way. A policy like the defense corridor would destroy the peace of a backward region like Bundelkhand by reviving a culture of violence and armament and is likely to push it back in history.

Apart from the concerns of land, livelihood and job creation, there are serious issues involved with regard to the defense production, functioning of these markets and regulating their access to the people. Though there are legal mechanisms in place, which prevent misuse of arms and defense products, with the rise of the indigenous defense industry there will be a fundamental change in the context of these legal mechanisms. This would no more be a simple question of allowing or disallowing people to procure or possess such items. The industry would also play a major role in pressurizing the government to open up the domestic market for such products along with allowing exports.

The upcoming defense industry would look for effective buyers for its products within the domestic market. The private sector’s objective is to make its products profitable by reducing costs and also creating effective buyers for its products. The domestic market is the easiest available option for this purpose. Apart from the Indian armed forces, a natural buyer of some of these products, there is already an emerging big market for such products in the metro cities. Any rise in the domestic defense production is likely to result in decline in the prices of these products (including small electrical items, heavy defense equipment, and arms and ammunition) making them accessible to the population that is otherwise yet not exposed to such products.

Apart from the pricing related dynamics, the defense producers are likely to create a market for their products by propagating and advertising a sense of insecurity. This will also promote private sector security agencies. A new nexus between the defense companies, electronic media and security agencies is likely to emerge in this case (as is the case in other countries especially in the US). This new nexus would also like to get access to various data sets being used by government agencies or even by the private agencies.

The military-industrial complex has been characterized as a major feature of polities with a strong defense industry. This was also a major economic and political factor in the former Soviet Union. Its rising defense expenditure had eventually led to its complete downfall. The US has been a proactive player in various global conflicts in order to provide a bailout package to its defense industry, especially during the times of domestic or global economic crisis. Any defense industry runs on oil. The US intervention and military actions in the West Asian region are motivated by its plans to get its defense industry going by controlling the oil resources of the region.

The US could afford this kind of disastrous policy due to its exploitative economic system based upon profit motives without having socio-economic challenges like India’s. In the contemporary era of neoliberalism, a political system like India such an industrial policy is quite likely to be misused not only for the purpose of promoting conflict situations but also for the promotion of a specific cultural agenda.

This would also result in the gradual diversion of funds from welfare schemes to defense-related requirements. India’s defense budget is already rising and it falls into the two five countries with higher GDP allocated for defense requirements. But it is more likely to go up in the near future, as defense industrial promotion would require India spending more on oil and other raw material for this purpose.

In other words, this production process is likely to create a trap of insecurity to which the only answer would be more and more securitization. This is also likely to pose challenges to the notion of privacy. Besides, there have already been various forms of group animosity and violence in various parts of India. Any possibility of such groups getting access to defense technology would pose a challenge to the very idea of Indian democracy.

Redefining India’s Role in Global Affairs

Apart from aiming for the domestic market, the defense sector industrialization is also aiming at the global market. The international market can be accessed by targeting new buyers from various governments or to various groups involved in intra-state or inter-state conflict situations. By promoting defense exports India would be compelled to be a direct or indirect party to the global conflict situations. Besides, as a defense goods supplier its economic interests, rather than its commitment to global peace, would determine India’s interests. This will be a clear deviation from India’s decade-old stated objectives of foreign policy including its commitment to promote global peace and policy of non-intervention.

With a strong defense sector industrial base the foreign policy of a state gets determined by a narrow conception of national interest defines strictly in military terms. It gets devoid of any ethical or long-term goals aimed at global peace and stability. In view of defense industry considerations major foreign policy goals are governed by the market-related considerations for defense requirements, the supply of equipment and above all creation of such consumers in the domestic as well as in the global market. National interest will be determined by who are the probable consumers for the defense product. The manner in which US foreign policy has been of creating such consumers and then protecting the interests of industries who fulfill the defense-related requirements, India is more likely to follow a similar path.

Instead of investing in building new infrastructure projects and initiating land acquisition, the Indian government should focus on more coordination and efficiency in the existing production capacity. Besides, there is a need to have legal and institutional mechanisms in place to ensure concerns of equity, public safety and above all checking any form of domination and monopoly capitalism. In a time when farmers across India have been protesting against land grabbing and demanding their share in the country’s growth, India needs a more balanced defense policy and not defense industry capitalism.