There are important issues regarding national defense policy raised by India’s decision to either purchase the US-made Stryker Infantry Combat Vehicle (ICV) or keep developing its own indigenous Futuristic Infantry Combat Vehicle (FICV), especially in relation to the idea of Atmanirbharta (self-reliance) and the pressing need to modernize military capabilities.
An eight-wheeled, armored vehicle, the Stryker is built for quick deployment and combat adaptability. The US military has made substantial use of it, and it is available in a variety of configurations, such as support vehicles and infantry carriers.
About 530 Stryker ICVs are being considered for acquisition by India, with a collaborative manufacture in India following the initial purchase as part of the Make in India campaign. This strategy seeks to meet urgent operational demands while boosting indigenous manufacturing capabilities.
A 350-horsepower engine is part of the Stryker’s specifications; this might be modified for Indian conditions, especially for high-altitude deployments in places like Ladakh. It is not amphibious, though, and has drawn criticism for having insufficient power in comparison to other options, such as the DRDO-developed WhAP (Wheeled Armoured Platform).
India’s Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) is leading the FICV project, which intends to create a next-generation infantry combat vehicle that is suited to Indian conditions. Despite its setbacks, this initiative is seen as essential to attaining defense manufacturing self-reliance.
India’s long-term strategic objectives of lowering reliance on foreign military imports and developing a strong domestic defense sector are in line with the FICV project. It is unclear when the FICV would be deployed, though, which raises questions about whether it will be able to meet the Indian Army’s urgent needs.
Given the continued border tensions with China, the Indian Army urgently needs to replace its outdated BMP-II vehicles with new ICVs. Purchasing Strykers might offer a speedy way to improve operational preparedness.
On the other hand, choosing the Stryker could jeopardize India’s Atmanirbharta objectives if it results in a protracted dependence on foreign technology and restricts indigenous defense innovation.
To facilitate local manufacture, Transfer of Technology (ToT) is a crucial component of the Stryker agreement. Concerns have been raised, though, about the scope of this transfer and whether it will be complete or partial, which could eventually restrict India’s capacity to completely create its own systems.
Although the Stryker has demonstrated potential, its drawbacks—such as its lesser power and lack of amphibious capability—may prevent it from fully satisfying the Indian Army’s varied operational needs. The native WhAP is renowned for its exceptional performance in a variety of terrains and modular design.
The decision to buy US Stryker ICVs or stick with the domestic FICV project represents a larger discussion over India’s defense policy. Long-term strategic goals strongly favor promoting self-reliance through indigenous development, even though immediate operational needs may favor a speedier acquisition of Strykers. As India manages its defense modernization initiatives in the face of shifting geopolitical concerns, striking a balance between these goals will be essential.
