Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Independence Day speech contained a striking announcement: the launch of a Sudarshan Chakra Mission, a technology-driven 'security shield' meant to protect not just strategic assets but also civilian centres - hospitals, railways, and even places of faith. Inspired by mythology, the Prime Minister described it as a system that would neutralise enemy attacks and strike back with precision, developed indigenously by Indian talent.
The vision is ambitious. The idea that every Indian citizen, every critical facility, could be wrapped in a dome of protection is attractive and politically resonant. But history, geography, and recent experience all caution us against believing in the possibility of an all-encompassing shield. Pursuing such a dream risks diverting scarce resources away from the urgent and practical needs of India's defence.
America's "Star Wars" Lesson
India would not be the first country to dream of a national shield. In the 1980s, US President Ronald Reagan launched the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI), quickly nicknamed 'Star Wars'. Its aim: to render nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete" by deploying space and ground-based interceptors to intercept Soviet missiles. When it became clear the project was technologically and fiscally unfeasible, it was quietly shelved in the 1990s.
More recently, US President Donald Trump floated the Golden Dome project, another vision of a protective shield, though its details remain vague. What is clear is the scale: estimates suggest it could cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
If the United States, with unmatched resources and favourable geography, has struggled to realise such a concept, India must think very carefully before embarking on its own ambitious shield in the sky.
The Iran-Israel Experience
Even more relevant is the recent war between Iran and Israel. Israel has perhaps the world's most sophisticated multilayered defence system - Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow interceptors - all heavily backed by US technology and resources. When Iran launched waves of drones and missiles from 1,500 km away, Israel had precious warning time, a small-sized homeland to defend, and active combat support from the US and European allies.
Despite these powerful advantages, several missiles still got through and struck Israel. Why? Because interceptors are not failsafe. The other problem is magazine depth: an attacker can overwhelm defences simply by launching more projectiles than the defender has interceptors. Unfortunately, for defenders, resupply in wartime is slow and costly.
India's Realities
India's situation is starkly different from America's or Israel's.
- Geography and Warning Time: India neighbours both its primary adversaries. Therefore, missiles launched from sites in China or Pakistan would give Indian defences mere minutes to detect, track, and intercept these attacks. This compresses decision-making in a way that even the most advanced shield would struggle to handle.
- Technological Gaps: India is still developing many of the enabling technologies that even a modest version of such a shield would require. These technologies include space-based sensors, AI-enabled battle management, and interceptor missiles. Closing this gap will take not just money but decades of sustained R&D.
- Cost: Even a limited missile defence system requires tens of thousands of crores. A truly national shield covering civilian infrastructure is not just impractical but risks being a bottomless pit for resources.
An Unworkable Shield
The Prime Minister's speech set 2035 as the deadline for deploying this shield may not be achievable, given how some of the technologies required like hypersonic interceptors and directed-energy weapons are still in development around the world. Even the US, Russia, and China, with vastly larger defence-industrial ecosystems, have not mastered them.
The danger is not just that the shield will fail. It is that the attempt to build it will divert resources from urgent priorities. The Indian Air Force is operating at half its sanctioned squadron strength. The Navy has no destroyer currently under construction and its submarine fleet is dwindling. The Army continues to face shortages in artillery. These gaps affect deterrence and warfighting ability today, not in a hypothetical missile-saturated future.
At a more fundamental level, the Sudarshan Chakra project may need a rethink conceptually. Militaries prioritise the defence of key assets, allowing them to concentrate force where it is most needed. As the old aphorism goes, if you seek to defend everything, you defend nothing. Defensive capabilities also need to be married to offensive actions, whether those be retaliating against an adversary or pre-emptively degrading their offensive capabilities.
A Smarter Path Forward
None of this is to dismiss the importance of air defence or emerging technologies. India does need:
- Layered air and missile defence for strategic assets such as nuclear command centres, major cities, and military bases.
- Investment in counter-drone and counter-hypersonic research, areas that will define future conflict.
- More resilient infrastructure through hardening, dispersal, and redundancy.
- Above all, accelerated modernisation of the core platforms - fighters, submarines, and destroyers - that provide credible deterrence and real fighting capability.
The Prime Minister invoked the Sudarshan Chakra of Lord Krishna, a divine weapon of perfect precision. As a symbol, it is powerful. As a policy goal, it risks setting expectations that no real-world system can meet.
India's resources are finite and the threats it faces are immediate. A strong, balanced, and modern military will keep India secure. A mythical shield might not.
(Yusuf T. Unjhawala is an Adjunct Scholar at the Takshashila Institution. Aditya Ramanathan is Chair, Advanced Military Technologies and Outer Space, Takshashila Institution.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
