Nov 24 – Editorial Analysis – PM IAS

Defence Indigenisation: The Imperative for Private Sector-Led Quality Control

Syllabus

• GS-3: Security challenges and their management in border areas; various Security forces and agencies and their mandate. Indigenization of technology and developing new technology.

Context

An editorial on November 24, 2025, used the recent news about the IAF Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) crash at the Dubai Airshow as a springboard to analyze the state of indigenous defence production in India. The piece argues that while India has achieved technological capability (designing and flying the jet), the next phase of ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ in Defence must critically focus on robust quality control, timely production, and professional marketing, requiring a radical shift from a public sector monopoly to a private sector-led model.

1. The Tejas Paradox: Technological Triumph, Industrial Challenge

The editorial highlights the dual nature of the Tejas program.

• A Symbol of Prowess: The Tejas LCA, designed by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) and built by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), represents decades of indigenous R&D and is a technological achievement—a 4.5-generation fighter jet developed despite technology denial regimes.
• The Industrial Hurdle: However, the program has been plagued by chronic delays (taking decades to enter service) and low production rates. The crash, particularly during an international showcase event, is seen as a setback to the confidence needed for crucial export orders (e.g., from Malaysia or Argentina).
• The Quality Question: Every crash, even if rare, raises a red flag regarding the consistency of quality control and the reliability of components—an area where public sector monopolies often falter due to lack of market pressure and competition.

2. The Bottleneck: Public Sector Domination

The core argument of the editorial is that the current model, dominated by Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs) like HAL, is structurally incapable of achieving the necessary speed and quality required for a modern defence base.

• Low Production Throughput: HAL’s production rates for the Tejas are still too slow to replenish the Indian Air Force’s (IAF) declining squadron strength, which is a severe national security risk. The IAF needs the improved Tejas Mk-1A variant delivered at an accelerated pace.
• Lack of Accountability: DPSUs often operate without the strict financial and delivery accountability mechanisms faced by private firms. Cost overruns and delays are absorbed by the government exchequer.
• Inhibition of Private Talent: The editorial criticizes the reluctance to fully integrate the capable Indian private sector (e.g., the Tata and L&T groups) into the design and production of critical, high-value systems, relegating them to tier-2 or tier-3 component manufacturing.

3. Way Forward: A Strategy for True Indigenization

The editorial proposes a five-point strategy to shift the defence sector from design indigenization to industrial maturity.

• A. Private Sector Leadership in Production: The government must shift the production mandate for systems like the Tejas (and future platforms) to consortia led by the Indian private sector, allowing DPSUs like HAL to focus solely on R&D and prototypes. This introduces competition and accountability.
• B. Mandatory Quality Certification: Establish an Independent Defence Safety and Quality Assurance Board (IDSQAB), composed of ex-military personnel, scientists, and private sector quality experts. This body should have statutory powers to halt production or cancel licenses if quality standards are compromised.
• C. Streamlining the Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP): The current DAP, while favouring ‘Make in India,’ remains complex and slow. The editorial suggests a special fast-track channel for procurement from Indian private firms that demonstrate a high degree of technological readiness (TRL).
• D. Investment in Testing Infrastructure: Massive investment is needed in advanced testing and validation infrastructure—including wind tunnels, high-altitude test beds, and dedicated certification centres—to reduce reliance on costly foreign validation and prevent the introduction of untested systems into service.
• E. Countering Disinformation: The government must proactively combat misinformation campaigns launched by foreign adversaries following defence-related incidents. A dedicated, agile communication strategy from the PIB and Ministry of Defence is necessary to protect the reputation of Indian products in global markets.

4. Coastal Security Architecture: A Parallel Requirement

The editorial briefly pivots to the parallel news of the Coastal Security Exercise, linking it to the need for indigenous, high-quality, continuous security systems.

• Multi-Agency Challenge: Coastal security relies on seamless coordination between the Indian Navy, Coast Guard, Marine Police, and CISF. Failures often occur at the seams (the handover points) between these agencies.
• Technological Integration: The core solution lies in indigenous Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) systems, including the network of coastal surveillance radars, automatic identification systems (AIS), and vessel tracking software. Ensuring the continuous, high-quality operation of this indigenous technology is as critical as defence production.
• Funding and Capacity: There must be dedicated, sustained funding for the State Marine Police forces, who serve as the first layer of defence in the coastal zone.

5. Conclusion

The editorial concludes that the path to true strategic autonomy is paved not just by successful R&D, but by flawless industrial execution and robust quality assurance. The Tejas crash is a tragic reminder that the next phase of ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ must prioritize industrial professionalism over political symbolism. By decisively shifting the production mandate to the private sector and establishing rigorous, independent quality control, India can ensure that its technological breakthroughs are matched by reliable, safe, and export-worthy products.

2.Public Health and Equity: Decoding the National Strategy for Rare Diseases

Syllabus

• GS-2: Issues relating to development and management of Social Sector/Services relating to Health. Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections of the population.
• GS-3: Science and Technology—developments and their applications and effects in everyday life. Biotechnology.

Context

An editorial on November 21, 2025, focused on the need to refine and properly fund the National Policy for Rare Diseases (NPRD), following a specific appeal made by parents of children suffering from Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA)—a condition for which life-saving gene therapies exist but are prohibitively expensive. The editorial argues that for a policy to be truly national and equitable, it must move beyond general declarations and establish clear, sustainable mechanisms for funding, diagnosis, and indigenous research.

1. The Challenge of Rarity and Cost

The editorial first highlights the fundamental challenge of rare diseases in India.

• Definition and Burden: Rare diseases are conditions that affect a small percentage of the population, often defined as affecting fewer than 1 in 2,000 people. While individually rare, their collective impact is significant, affecting an estimated 70 million Indians.
• Diagnostic Odyssey: Up to 80% of rare diseases have a genetic origin. Patients often endure a “diagnostic odyssey” lasting years due to a lack of awareness, centralized registries, and specialized diagnostic labs.
• Prohibitive Cost of Treatment: The treatments, particularly Orphan Drugs (developed specifically for rare diseases), cost astronomical sums (e.g., crores of rupees per patient per year), making them inaccessible to all but the wealthiest families. This cost creates a severe ethical dilemma for the state regarding the allocation of limited public funds.

2. Analysis of the National Policy for Rare Diseases (NPRD)

The editorial evaluates the existing framework provided by the NPRD.

• Three-Tier Approach: The NPRD attempts to address the problem through three broad categories:
  • Group 1: Disorders amenable to one-time curative treatment (e.g., organ transplants).
  • Group 2: Diseases requiring long-term treatment with high costs (e.g., Lysosomal Storage Disorders).
  • Group 3: Conditions for which definitive treatment is available but where patients can be managed with supportive care.
• The Funding Gap (The Fatal Flaw): The policy’s major failure is the lack of a sustainable, large-scale funding mechanism. While it provides a one-time grant of up to ₹50 lakh for Category 1 diseases, this is grossly insufficient for chronic, ongoing treatment (Category 2) or for the high initial cost of revolutionary therapies like those for SMA.
• Crowdfunding Reliance: The editorial sharply criticizes the policy for placing a high reliance on crowdfunding platforms for patients needing lifelong or ultra-expensive therapy. This shifts the state’s responsibility to private charity, violating the constitutional guarantee of the Right to Health (Article 21).

3. The Need for Indigenous Research and Development

A key suggestion from the editorial is to radically shift focus toward domestic, affordable solutions.

• Orphan Drug Act: The editorial proposes that India enact its own version of the US Orphan Drug Act, offering incentives (tax breaks, patent exclusivity, fast-track approvals) to domestic pharmaceutical and biotech companies.
• CSIR and ICMR Mandate: Central research bodies like the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) must receive targeted funding to develop affordable Biosimilars and indigenous gene therapies (like the development of BIRSA 101 for Sickle Cell Anaemia) for common Indian rare diseases.
• Data and Registry: It is essential to establish a centralized National Rare Disease Registry to track patient data, prevalence, and treatment outcomes. This data is critical for researchers to target specific genetic mutations prevalent in the Indian population.

4. Ethical and Administrative Dimensions

The rare disease challenge is also an ethical and administrative one, which the editorial tackles.

• Prioritization Dilemma: The state faces a moral hazard: should limited public funds be spent on a single patient’s crores-worth treatment, or allocated to preventive healthcare that benefits millions? The editorial advocates for a balanced approach, where a specific, ring-fenced fund is created to address high-cost therapies without cannibalizing the general health budget.
• Transparency and Distribution: The administration of the existing funds is often opaque and slow, leading to delays that can be fatal for children with progressive rare diseases. The editorial calls for a single, transparent, online window for application and fund disbursement, potentially managed by a National Rare Disease Authority.
• Global Collaboration: India must leverage its global diplomatic standing to negotiate directly with multinational pharmaceutical companies for tiered pricing or licensing agreements for life-saving gene therapies.

5. Way Forward: Recommendations for a Robust Strategy

To truly fulfill the promise of equitable healthcare, the editorial suggests the following steps:

• Creation of a ‘Sovereign Rare Disease Fund’: Establish a permanent, large corpus fund, potentially subsidized by a small cess or tax on non-essential healthcare products, that is dedicated solely to financing rare disease treatments.
• Mandatory Newborn Screening: Implement phased mandatory national newborn screening for a panel of common, treatable rare diseases. Early diagnosis dramatically improves treatment outcomes and lowers long-term costs.
• Capacity Building: Train and certify Rare Disease Centres of Excellence (CoEs) in every region, ensuring equitable geographical access to diagnosis and specialized medical advice.
• Strengthening Public Health Insurance: Integrate high-cost rare disease management into flagship schemes like Ayushman Bharat, making the government the primary payer and thereby leveraging its bargaining power to reduce drug prices.

Conclusion

The editorial concludes that the ethical and public health mandate to treat rare diseases cannot be dismissed due to cost. The state must move from a posture of “benign neglect” to one of “active commitment.” The National Policy for Rare Diseases has laid the groundwork, but only a robust, well-funded, and research-focused strategy can bridge the massive gap between the availability of modern medicine and the access for India’s most vulnerable citizens.