Archive for May, 2015

Eminent scientist S Christopher was today appointed as Director General of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for a two-year term.

The Appointments Committee of Cabinet has approved appointment of Christopher as Secretary, Department of Defence Research and Development-cum-Director General, DRDO for a period of two years from the date of taking over the charge, an order issued by Department of Personnel and Training said.

Christopher is presently Distinguished Scientist and Programme Director (airborne early warning and control system) and Director, Centre for Air-Borne Systems in the DRDO.

Another scientist G S Reddy was appointed as the Scientificc Adviser to Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar for a two-year term. Reddy is Distinguished Scientist and Director, Research Centre Imarat, and Programme Director of Medium Range Surface to Air Missile (MRSAM) in the DRDO.

The Department of Defence Research and Development (DoDRD) has remained under additional charge of Defence Secretary since January 30 this year, after Avinash Chander’s contract was curtailed by the government.

Chander contract as Secretary, DoDRD-cum-DG DRDO and Scientific Adviser to Raksha Mantri was terminated with effect from January 31. His contract would have otherwise ended in May 2016.

Established in 1980, the DoDRD advises the government on scientific aspects of military equipment and logistics and the formulation of research, design and development plans for the equipment required by the three Services.

Recently appointed Defence Secretary G Mohan Kumar was on Monday given the additional charge of the Secretary, DoDRD. Former Defence Secretary R K Mathur, who completed his two-year term on Sunday, was handling the additional charge of DoDRD before Kumar.

Source: INDIAN DEFENSE NEWS

Advertisements

Despite commitments on fighting terror in the joint statement between India and China during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Beijing, officials say they are “concerned” over a series of moves by the Chinese government to stall India’s proposals at the United Nations.

Since December 2014, India’s Permanent Mission to the UN has filed at least three separate proposals on Pakistan-based terrorists, each of which has been reportedly delayed or stopped by China at the United Nations Security Council sanctions committee on Al-Qaida and associated entities. “We are concerned about China’s persistent opposition to our terror proposals,” a government official said.

Official sources also confirmed to The Hindu that China has put a “technical hold” on India’s request to list Hizbul Mujahideen chief and head of the ‘United Jihad Council’, Syed Salahuddin. The “technical hold” amounts to a veto on going ahead with the listing process for at least three months, as the UN Committee on al-Qaeda and associated entities, (also called the ‘1267 Committee’ for the UN Security Council resolution of 1999 that banned Al-Qaida and Taliban leaders), as the committee can only decide by “consensus”. All 1267 committee meetings are “closed-door sessions” between the 15 Security Council members, so officials depend on other diplomats to tell them which country opposes and supports a proposal.

Sources said the hold was put on Salahuddin’s listing during a meeting of the committee in April this year, but even the discussion on India’s proposal had been delayed for months after the original request was made in September last year. During that time, the 1267 committee met more than 15 times, and agreed to add about 30 new names to the sanctioned list. The listing means all member States must cut off the entity’s finances, travel and access to arms.

The request is a part of an Indian government initiative for years against Salahuddin, who is wanted for several Hizbul Mujahideen attacks. The United Jihad Council that he heads includes the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. In 2008, just two weeks after the Mumbai terror attacks, Salahuddin was photographed praying along with 26/11 key accused Zaki-Ur-Rehman Lakhvi. The Indian request to list him came after a public speech by Salahuddin in Muzaffarabad in July 2014, where he called on al-Qaeda and Taliban cadres “to fight Indian security forces in Kashmir”. Diplomats said they are puzzled by China’s move in the case as it has asked for more proof of Salahuddin’s links with the Al-Qaida. “Why should China have any opinion in the Salahuddin case, if it isn’t to help Pakistan,” one official asked, while speaking to The Hindu.

While Chinese officials seldom speak directly on the issue, the Chinese government has long maintained its close ties with Pakistan and coordination at the UN. In an interview last September, Chinese Ambassador to India Le Yucheng had told an agency, “Pakistan is also a victim of terrorism… China, India and Pakistan ought to work together to deal with the problem of terrorism and root out the cause of terrorism.”

Meanwhile, Salahuddin’s case is not the only one in which Indian proposals have faced resistance from China, sources said. In December 2014, India had issued several letters both to the UN and to the Pakistani government asking how LeT and Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed, who is on the 1267 list, was able to fund massive rallies in Lahore and Karachi. Most recently, last month, India’s Permanent Representative Asoke Mukerji had written a letter to the then Chairman of the Committee James McLay (since replaced), asking the 1267 committee to investigate who had paid or stood guarantee for Zaki-Ur-Rehman Lakhvi’s bail, as he too is on the sanctions list, and can have no recourse to funds. The issue is also pending with the 1267 committee, which has met twice already in May, without taking up the Indian proposals, allegedly after interventions by the Chinese Permanent Representative.

In the joint statement between Mr. Modi and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang issued on May 15, both sides committed to fighting terror and “urged all countries and entities to work sincerely to disrupt terrorist networks and their financing, and stop cross-border movement of terrorists”. The words gave hope, one official said to The Hindu: “But we are yet to see China’s words translating on the ground in the UN.”

Source: The Hindu

  Over the past years, India has been one of the largest arms importers. To find out the reasons for the huge demand for foreign-made weapons, DW talks to Amit Cowshish, ex-financial advisor to India’s Ministry of Defense.

Five of the top 10 largest importers of major weapons are in Asia: India, China, Pakistan, South Korea and Singapore, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). They accounted for 30 percent of the global volume of arms imports in the past five years. But India stands out in this category as it alone accounted for 15 percent of global arms imports during this time.

In fact, India imported more than three times more weapons than China, which has now become a significant weapons producer and supplier. And although Saudi Arabia is currently the world’s largest arms importer, India is projected to be ranked second in 2015 and 2016 based on existing contracts, according to global analytics firms IHS.

In a DW interview, Amit Cowshish, a former financial advisor to India’s Ministry of Defense, explains why India has become such a huge arms importer, why the indinegous arms industry is not able to meet the demands, and what this has to do with India’s regional and global aspirations.

DW: Why is India one of the world’s major arms importers?

Amit Cowshish: India shares a long and disputed border with China to its north. China is both economically and militarily stronger than India and got involved in a major border war with India in 1962. It has been active on the disputed border and resolutely following a so-called “string of pearls” policy of encircling and containing India.

China is an “all weather friend” of Pakistan, which too has a territorial dispute with India. Pakistan has been involved in at least four major military conflicts with India – in 1947-48, 1965, 1971 and 1999. It also supports secessionist activities in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, and terrorism elsewhere.

Primarily, therefore, it is the situation in its immediate neighborhood that requires New Delhi to be militarily in a position to thwart a possible two-front pincer attack in the worst-case scenario. India also needs the capability for securing the maritime trade routes.

This requires acquisition of modern and state-of-the-art military technologies and capabilities. The Indian defense industry, both in the public and the private sectors, has not been able to meet this challenge. Hence the need for import and India emerging as one of the world’s largest importers of arms in the recent years.

How has the Modi-led government made it easier for foreign weapons manufacturers to invest in the country?

The focus of the present government is more on economic development and welfare rather than military build-up. This explains why there has been no significant increase in the allocation for defense in the two budgets presented by this government so far since it came to power in May 2014.

In fact, the government has shown pragmatism in defense spending, as would be evident from the decision to go slow on raising of a mountain strike corps which had commenced in January 2014.

To my knowledge, no major defence deals have been signed so far between India and any other foreign country, though there are many significant deals in the offing. India raised the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) cap in the defence sector to 49 per cent last year; FDI beyond this limit can also be permitted by the government if it brings in state-of-the-art technology.

There is a greater clarity now about the requirement of industrial license as a list of defence items that can be manufactured only after obtaining a license has been notified by this government.

Acutely aware of the fact that India stands at the 142nd position in the global index of ease of doing business, the government has repeatedly expressed its commitment to make it easier for companies to operate in India and seems to be working towards achieving this objective.

In an attempt to make the defense procurement simpler and faster, the Indian ministry of defense is in the process of reviewing the existing procedures, including the offsets policy. Various state governments in India have formulated comprehensive plans to promote defence manufacturing.

Why are Indian firms seemingly unable to meet many of the country’s defense needs?

The defense sector was opened to the private sector in 2001, but since there were very few private sector companies that could meet the requirement, the orders normally went to the defense public sector undertakings and shipyards.

Uncertainty about the orders, complicated procurement procedures, absence of a level playing field vis-à-vis the public sector, economies of scales, absence of an eco-system conducive to defense manufacturing, and, an element of bias in favour of the public sector were – and continue to be, to a large extent – some of the factors that prevented many private players from building a strong business case for entering the defense manufacturing sector in a big way. There is no doubt, however, that the situation is slowly changing.

Besides defending the national territory and the country’s interests in the case of a conflict, what other purposes does this modern weaponry serve?

The modern weaponry is meant to strike a balance with the superior weaponry and technology that India’s adversaries, with territorial aspirations, already possess or have easy access to. So, yes, it is basically deterrence.

But India also has aspirations of being counted as a global power, which entails power projection, dealing with out of area contingencies, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, evacuation of non-combatants from areas of conflict, and anti-piracy operations. India can play these roles only if it possesses modern weaponry and other capabilities.

What measures should the Indian government undertake to reduce the country’s dependency on foreign-made weapons?

The Indian ministry of defense had introduced a “Make” procedure in 2005. This was intended to promote indigenous research, design and development of the prototypes of high technology, complex and futuristic systems. The lead role was to be played by the Indian industry – both in the public and the private sectors – with back-end tie-ups with the foreign companies.

Unfortunately, the system did not work as expected. The present government is actively engaged in revisiting the procedure in consultation with the Indian private industry. It is also taking steps to revamp the Defense Research & Development Organization and modernize both the defense public sector undertakings and the ordnance factories.

All these steps, coupled with the efforts being made to improve the eco-system (that includes issues related to the process of industrial licensing, FDI, land acquisition, taxation, IPR protection, exports, etc.) should help India reduce its dependence on imports in the long run.

Asia accounts for nearly a third of global arms imports. To which extent are we witnessing a regional arms race?
While it cannot be denied that the major countries in the region are engaged in enhancing their military capabilities, it is nowhere near the dimensions of the arms race witnessed during the Cold War period.
This is because, to a very large extent, the primary objective of most of the Asian countries is to acquire military capabilities for defending their territorial integrity, claims and other economic interests rather than world domination, which is what propelled the arms race during the Cold War era.
Amit Cowshish is a former Financial Advisor (Acquisition) to India’s Ministry of Defense and presently a Distinguished Fellow with the Indian Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.

Source: DW.de

Winner of contract may be allowed to seal offset pacts within a year
The government will allow defence procurement contracts to go through even if negotiations for offset agreements linked to them are not sealed, in a landmark change in rules aimed at cutting down the time taken in closing purchases.The defence ministry has, however, mandated that winners of contracts must seal offset arrangements, under which they are required to set up local manufacturing units or enter into sourcing deals locally , within a year of signing the main deal.

“So what we decided is to delink the conclusion of the main deal from the offsets because it takes time to identify partners,“ Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar told ET. This decision to grant greater lee way to offset deals was taken at a meeting earlier this month of the Defence Acquisition Council, where it was agreed that important contracts are getting delayed because suppliers were struggling to close their offset obligations in time. The council, headed by Parrikar, is the final authority on defence procurements.

Countries often demand offset agreements from foreign suppliers while signing big-ticket defence deals to ensure that the domestic industry benefits in the long term either by way of technology transfer or in the form of a boost to local manufacturing. Offset obligations can at times be worth more than 100% of the contract value, although in India they are usually around 30%. However, the implementation of offsets usually poses a problem. While firms submit detailed plans on how they intend to fulfill their offset obliga tions, they can firm up local partners to implement these commitments only after they have secured the main deal. This causes delays as permissions have to be sought for approving each offset contractor. Now it has been agreed that overseas vendors will be given a year’s time to finalise their offsets partners. Companies already selected for contracts and involved in executing them could also get some relaxation under this new policy .The rule states that any firm bagging a major defence contract would have to invest at least 30% of the deal amount in the Indian defence and aerospace industry.

DELAYED DEALS

Many important contracts like the Multi-role Tanker Transport Air craft (mid-air refueller) and the M-777 howitzer have faced considerable delays due to the offsets problem. In some cases, the companies have had to pay penalties and re-submit offset proposals just to keep the main deal alive.

Foreign manufacturers had sev eral complaints against the earli er offset policy, given that fines worth over $35 million were imposed on them in the past few years due to a failure to meet obligations in time. In fact, foreign firms barely met half of the $1.3 billion worth of offsets they had to discharge as investments in India between 2008 and 2014.

The defence ministry is also planning a major overhaul in the offset policy and has come up with a draft that has a three way formula. This proposes three new ways of discharging offsets –transfer of critical technology to DRDO which will in turn transfer to the industry, directed offsets of 30% to create specific manufacturing facilities and investments in skill development and training.

Source: The Economic Times

Speeding up defence deals: Government to ease offset clause for procurement contracts

The defence ministry has, however, mandated that winners of contracts must seal offset arrangements, under which they are required to set up local manufacturing units or enter into sourcing deals locally, within a year of signing the main deal. “So what we decided is to delink the conclusion of the main deal from the offsets because it takes time to identify partners,” Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar told ET. .
This decision to grant greater leeway to offset deals was taken at a meeting earlier this month of the Defence Acquisition Council, where it was agreed that important contracts are getting delayed because suppliers were struggling to close their offset obligations in time. The council, headed by Parrikar, is the final authority on defence procurements.

Countries often demand offset agreements from foreign suppliers while signing big-ticket defence deals to ensure that the domestic industry benefits in the long term either by way of technology transfer or in the form of a boost to local manufacturing.

Offset obligations can at times be worth more than 100% of the contract value, although in India they are usually around 30%. However, the implementation of offsets usually poses a problem. While firms submit detailed plans on how they intend to fulfill their offset obligations, they can firm up local partners to implement these commitments only after they have secured the main deal.

This causes delays as permissions have to be sought for approving each offset contractor. Now it has been agreed that overseas vendors will be given a year’s time to finalise their offsets partners. Companies already selected for contracts and involved in executing them could also get some relaxation under this new policy. The rule states that any firm bagging a major defence contract would have to invest at least 30% of the deal amount in the Indian defence and aerospace industry.

DELAYED DEALS
Many important contracts like the Multi-role Tanker Transport Aircraft (mid-air refueller) and the M-777 howitzer have faced considerable delays due to the offsets problem.

In some cases, the companies have had to pay penalties and re-submit offset proposals just to keep the main deal alive. Foreign manufacturers had several complaints against the earlier offset policy, given that fines worth over $35 million were imposed on them in the past few years due to a failure to meet obligations in time.

In fact, foreign firms barely met half of the $1.3 billion worth of offsets they had to discharge as investments in India between 2008 and 2014. The defence ministry is also planning a major overhaul in the offset policy and has come up with a draft that has a three way formula.

This proposes three new ways of discharging offsets —transfer of critical technology to DRDO which will in turn transfer to the industry, directed offsets of 30% to create specific manufacturing facilities and investments in skill development and training .
Source: The Economic Times

Former defence minister A.K. Antony broke his silence on Saturday by attacking Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar for compromising on national security and questioning the high-profile Rafale fighter jets deal Prime Minister Narendra Modi clinched with French President Francois Hollande last month.

Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi also chipped in by questioning delay in implementation of “One rank, One pension” scheme for ex-servicemen, cleared by the previous UPA.

“The present government has compromised our national security. The defence expenditure this year is the lowest in the recent years,” Antony said at an AICC briefing.

Antony, usually a reticent politician, also raised questions on the Rafale fighter jets deal. Prime Minister Modi during his visit to France in April had signed an agreement to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets in fly-away condition for over 6 billion US Dollars.

Questioning the Rafale deal, Antony wondered if “the finance ministry and the Defence Acquisition Council of the defence ministry were taken on board.” “Senior BJP leaders like Yashwant Sinha and Jaswant Singh had opposed the purchase of the French fighter jets during the UPA regime, finding fault on various parameters,” he said.

“Neither the prime minister, nor the defence minister or the armed forces can procure any equipment bypassing the Defence Acquisition Council,” he said. The former defence minister questioned if there was a clause on technology transfer as Modi had been stressing his ‘Make in India’ plan.

Targeting Parrikar, who had blamed Antony for sabotaging deal by making several notings on the file, Antony said he had taken “the correct decision keeping in mind the Indian Air Force’s plea for early acquisition of the fighter jet.”

“A weak man cannot safeguard national interests. We don’t want war, but should be in a position to protect our country,” Antony said even as he appealed the government to reconsider the decision.

Before Antony, Rahul targeted the government over delay in the “one rank one pension” scheme and said that while the previous UPA government had approved the plan, the NDA had failed to implement it.

“We had allotted money and also taken a decision. One year has passed and this should happen at the earliest. We will pressurise the government and ask them to take a decision at the earliest,” Rahul said after he heard a delegation of ex-servicemen.

Source: India Today

Earlier this week, India successfully tested its indigenously developed Astra supersonic air-to-air missile. The Astra, developed by India’s Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO), is a Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missile capable of being launched from India’s Sukhoi-30 MKI twin-jet air superiority fighter. The Indian Air Force currently operates roughly 200 total Su-30 MKIs, but plans to eventually operate around 270. The Astra is 149 inches in length, making it the most compact missile developed indigenously in India capable of supersonic speeds.

MVKV Prasad, director of the Integrated Test Range in the Indian state of Odisha, noted that the “missile was successfully tested to hit a simulated target” in an interview with the Press Trust of India. The Economic Times notes that the Astra “was tested to prove the maneuvering capability against a simulated target and also to validate various subsystems.” When fired from an altitude of at least 15,000 meters, the Astra can travel as far as 110 km. At lower altitudes, this range is reduced: it is capable of reaching a range of 44 km when fired from 8,000 meters, and 21 km when fired from sea level, according to the Economic Times. The active homing ability of the Astra is limited to 25 km. Under normal use, the highly maneuverable Astra missile experiences up to 30 g of acceleration force.

The Astra, which has been under development for over a decade, will be continue to undergo testing until it is ready for reliable use by the Indian Air Force. S Venugopal, a project director at the DRDO, notes that while the ”the fourth and fifth air launch of Astra was once again perfect … more tests will follow to prove its repeatability.” A longer range Mark 2 version of the Astra is planned which will increase its total range, including its active homing and tail chase ranges.

The Sukhoi-30 MKI, the intended bearer of the Astra, is a crucial asset for the Indian Air Force, particularly for a potential two-front war scenario. With a range of 1,800 km and high maneuverability, the Su-30 MKI is India’s primary aerial superiority and dominance fighter. The Astra, if it performs up to expectations, will give India’s MKI fleet considerable offensive power.

Source: National Interest

·  ·  ·  ·  NEW DELHI: India is going in for intelligence-backed “targeted kills” against terrorists in J&K while militarily dominating the Line of Control with Pakistan, forcing a 30% drop in both cross-border ceasefire violations as well as infiltration bids.

“The situation is pretty much under control. Our proactive attitude is to identify terrorists and then effectively neutralise them. Every case is handled firmly with clear-cut intelligence for targeted kills, ensuring minimal if any collateral damage,” defence minister Manohar Parrikar said in a wide-ranging exclusive interview with TOI.

This is the first forthright acknowledgement that the Army has been asked to undertake surgical strikes against terrorists, rather than conduct random operations. Incidentally, the Army neutralised 110 terrorists in 2014, the highest such tally in the last four years.

Ahead of his visit to J&K and the frozen frontier of Siachen on Friday, Parrikar clarified that when he said “terrorists should be neutralised by terrorists” or “kante se kanta nikalna (remove a thorn with a thorn)” earlier in the day, he did not mean covert operations being undertaken by “our own people”.

Instead, the aim is to exploit the differences between terror outfits for both intelligence-gathering as well as surgical strikes. “Many terrorists are drawn into terrorism because of financial allurements… they are paid money for it. If such people are there, why not use them? What is the harm is using terrorists against terrorists? Why should our soldiers be in the front?” asked the straight-talking Parrikar.

On Pakistan’s behaviour, the defence minister said “the situation actually depends on how we react to it”, stressing India’s “very firm” response to cross-border firing and abetment to terrorism was paying dividends. As per defence ministry figures, there has been a decline of 32% in Pakistan-initiated ceasefire violations and a decrease of 28% in “successful infiltrations” since the Modi government came to office in May last year.

On the China front, Parrikar made it clear he had imposed just a “temporary freeze” on the ongoing raising of the Army’s new mountain strike corps (MSC), which is geared towards acquiring quick-reaction ground offensive capabilities across the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

“It’s downsizing of the plan (the 90,000 soldiers strong formation was to be raised at a cost of Rs 64,678 crore over seven years), not the MSC itself. The previous UPA government arbitrarily approved it without any allocation of funds or proper planning,” he said.

“I have put a temporary stop (to the MSC)… it does not mean permanent. The 37,000 troops already inducted need proper infrastructure, arms and equipment, which are currently being drawn from our reserves since the previous government made no arrangements,” he said.

The minister said he would undertake a review of the non-operational flab in the 1.18-million strong Army, which would then be slashed to save on costs. “I will first make financial provisions and then come back to the MSC,” he added.

The raising of the new corps, the 17 Corps, which began in January 2014, is part of the overall military plan to belatedly counter China’s menacing build-up of trans-border military capabilities and infrastructure all along the 4,057-km LAC. The Army believes that it will not only act as a deterrent against China, but also keep Pakistan off-balance.

The logic was to have “requisite deterrence” since China can move over 30 divisions (each with over 15,000 soldiers) to the LAC, outnumbering Indian forces by at least 3:1 there. With two new infantry divisions geared for high-altitude warfare as well as armoured, artillery, air defence, engineer brigades spread from Ladakh to Sikkim, the 17 Corps is slated to have its headquarters at Panagarh in West Bengal and be fully in place by 2018-19.

 Source: TNN

New Delhi: Stressing the importance of having a long-term defence strategy and vision for defence industry growth, former president A.P.J.Abdul Kalam on Thursday said the key need is to establish a military-industrial complex involving large private industries.

The need of the hour is to establish a military-industry complex (MIC) at the national level enlisting large and medium industries to be partners along with defence PSUs (public sector units) as its members,” Kalam said at an Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham) event here.

“Establishment of MIC envisages not only the industrial development but also creates a number of job opportunities. This will pave way for knowledge workers to participate and contribute in the production of high-quality systems,” he added.

Kalam, who has been a scientist and science administrator at the Defence Research and Development Organisation and Indian Space Research Organisation, further said that regulations and control procedures are to be implemented in managing private industries for manufacturing defence systems.

“Encouraging high technology tie-ups and joint ventures between Indian and other global defence industries will achieve not only competitiveness but also envisage the product for export,” he said.

“India cannot afford to lose anymore time in pondering the issue,” he added.

Source: Indian Defense News

India is close to finalizing another large military project with Israel, The Times of India reported. The two countries have agreed to jointly develop a medium-range surface-to-air missile (MRSAM) system for the Indian Army to replace Russian-made Kvadrat and OSA-AKM air defense systems bought between 1970 and 1980.

The project will be a joint effort between The Defence Research and Development Organization, an agency of the Republic of India, and Israeli Aerospace Industries. Defence PSU Bharat Dynamic, a state owned company, will undertake bulk production of the systems in India, along with privately owned Tata Power SED and Larsen & Toubro.

Israel is the third largest defense supplier to India, behind America and Rssia, signing deals worth around $10 billion over the last 15 years, which range from spy and armed drones to sophisticated missile and radar systems. India is, in fact, the largest buyer of Israeli defense technology. In September, India agreed to buy 262 Israeli-made Barak 1 surface-to-air missiles for its navy for $144 million. In October, they signed another deal for anti-tank guided missiles , rejecting a rival US offer. They also purchased 8,356 Spike missiles and 321 launchers from Israel for $525 million.

In 2009, India and Israel agreed to jointly make the air version of MRSAM, but it is still under development despite a planned delivery time of 2013-14 because of unspecified technical snags in the initial tests of the prototype. First delivery is now expected by 2017.

Israel and India established diplomatic relations in 1992, and later that year, Israel rushed emergency supplies to them during the Kargil Conflict. Israel discreetly aided India with ordnance supply and materials such as unmanned aerial vehicles, laser-guided bombs, and satellite imagery.

In a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New York in 2014, Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly invited India to participate in a joint effort on cyber-defense, a project that will aim to be a link between civilian and military authorities in both countries.

Despite such cooperation, relations are strained due to India’s dependence on Iranian oil and a significant Muslim population. There are 180 million Muslims in India, 15% of the population, making it the second largest religion in the worlds largest democracy.

Source: Indian Defense News