The current tension between Elon Musk’s X platform and governments worldwide, from India’s censorship orders to Brazil’s operational shutdowns, exposes a fundamental flaw in our global digital architecture. As nations increasingly recognize the vulnerabilities of depending on American-controlled social media platforms, we stand at a critical crossroads: either X transforms into a truly global platform with international governance, or countries must develop their own digital ecosystems to escape the specter of U.S. sanctions and political weaponization.

The American Platform Problem: A Global Dependency Crisis

The Illusion of Global Reach

X’s claim to be a “global” platform is fundamentally misleading. While the platform serves over 500 million users across 150+ countries, it remains entirely American-owned and American-controlled. Based in Bastrop, Texas, and operating under U.S. laws, X’s “global” nature extends only to its user base, not its governance structure. This creates a dangerous asymmetry where billions of users worldwide depend on a platform that can be weaponized by a single nation’s political objectives.

The recent conflicts illustrate this vulnerability starkly. X has blocked over 8,000 accounts following Indian government orders, including those of international news organizations like Reuters. In Brazil, the platform shut down operations entirely after legal disputes with Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. These incidents aren’t isolated, X faces restrictions in China, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, with Pakistan being the only country to ban the service after Musk’s takeover.

The Sanctions Weaponization

Perhaps most concerning is X’s vulnerability to U.S. sanctions policy. The platform has been accepting payments from sanctioned entities including Hezbollah, Houthi officials, and Iraq-Syria militia bosses, highlighting how American foreign policy directly impacts global digital discourse. When sanctioned individuals lose their verification status or platform access, it demonstrates how U.S. economic warfare extends into the digital realm, affecting users worldwide who have no voice in American policy decisions.

The recent case of U.N. Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who lost her verification on X after U.S. sanctions were imposed on her, exemplifies this dynamic. Her observation that “it’s very serious to be on the list of people sanctioned by the U.S.” reveals how American economic power now extends into global communication infrastructure.

European Union’s Growing Resistance

The European Union has recognized this threat and is taking concrete action. The EU is preparing to fine X up to $1 billion for violating the Digital Services Act, marking the first major penalties under the DSA. European officials argue that X’s “freedom of speech” philosophy, implemented after Musk’s takeover, is incompatible with European legal requirements for content moderation and transparency.

More significantly, Canada is explicitly treating American social media platforms as national security threats. Canadian analysts warn that “American tech CEOs wield unprecedented power and influence over Canada’s political discourse on their social media platforms and could easily tilt the playing field in favour of their preferred candidate.” This recognition that American platforms pose sovereignty risks is spreading across the democratic world.

The Two Pathways Forward

Option 1: True Globalization of X

For X to continue as a genuinely global platform, it must undergo fundamental structural transformation:

International Governance Structure

X must transition from American corporate ownership to an international governance model. This could involve:

• Multi-stakeholder ownership: Representatives from major economies holding equity stakes proportional to their user base or economic contribution
• International board of directors: Ensuring no single nation controls platform policies
• Distributed headquarters: Regional offices with autonomous decision-making authority for their jurisdictions
• Treaty-based operations: Operating under international agreements rather than unilateral American law

Jurisdictional Decentralization

Rather than applying American legal standards globally, X must implement:

• Regional content policies: Allowing different regions to establish their own community standards within broad international frameworks
• Local data governance: Ensuring user data is stored and processed within their home jurisdictions
• Autonomous moderation: Regional teams making content decisions based on local legal and cultural contexts
• Appeal mechanisms: International arbitration panels for cross-border content disputes

Financial Independence from U.S. Systems

To escape sanctions vulnerabilities, X must:

Diversify payment systems: Integrate non-American payment processors and financial institutions
Multi-currency operations: Reduce dependence on U.S. dollar-denominated transactions
Distributed revenue streams: Prevent any single government from controlling platform finances
Sanction-resistant infrastructure: Technical and financial architecture that operates independently of American control

Transparency and Accountability

True global governance requires:

• Public oversight: Regular reporting to international bodies on content moderation, data handling, and policy enforcement
• Open algorithms: Transparency about how content is prioritized and distributed
• Democratic participation: User representation in platform governance decisions
• Independent auditing: Regular assessment by neutral international organizations

Option 2: National Digital Sovereignty

Given the complexity and political resistance to truly globalizing American platforms, the more realistic path may be national digital independence. Countries are increasingly recognizing that digital sovereignty is as crucial as traditional sovereignty.

The Strategic Imperative

Nations must develop indigenous social media platforms for several compelling reasons:

• Economic Security: Dependence on American platforms means national digital economies are subject to U.S. policy whims. When platforms change algorithms, impose sanctions, or alter business models, entire national digital ecosystems can collapse overnight.
• Political Independence: As we’ve seen with X’s content blocking in India and Brazil, American platforms can be pressured by their home government or foreign governments to suppress domestic discourse. National platforms ensure domestic political conversations remain under domestic control.
• Data Sovereignty: American platforms collect vast amounts of data on foreign citizens, creating national security vulnerabilities. Indigenous platforms keep citizen data within national borders and under national privacy laws.
• Cultural Preservation: American platforms often impose Western cultural values and English-language dominance. National platforms can prioritize local languages, cultural expressions, and social norms.

Successful Models and Emerging Examples

Several nations have already begun building digital independence:

China’s Ecosystem: Despite criticism of its censorship, China’s decision to develop WeChat, Weibo, and TikTok has created a $1 trillion digital economy independent of American control. Chinese platforms serve over 1 billion users and compete globally with American alternatives.

India’s Growing Initiative: India has launched several indigenous platforms including Koo (alternative for X) and Chingari (TikTok alternative). While still developing, these represent serious attempts at digital independence.

Russia’s Response: Following Western sanctions, Russia has accelerated development of VKontakte and other domestic platforms, demonstrating how geopolitical pressure drives digital sovereignty initiatives.

European Alternatives: The EU is supporting decentralized platforms like Mastodon and quasi-decentralized ones like BlueSky as alternatives to American-controlled social media.

Building National Platform Ecosystems

Countries seeking digital sovereignty must develop comprehensive strategies:

Technical Infrastructure: Nations need robust internet infrastructure, cloud computing capabilities, and cybersecurity systems to support domestic platforms. This requires significant investment in technical education and infrastructure development.

Legal Frameworks: Clear regulations protecting user privacy while ensuring platform accountability. This includes data protection laws, content moderation guidelines, and antitrust provisions to prevent domestic monopolies.

Economic Incentives: Government support for domestic tech companies through funding, tax incentives, and procurement preferences. Creating venture capital ecosystems that support indigenous innovation.

User Migration Strategies: Encouraging citizens and businesses to adopt national platforms through government use, integration with public services, and ensuring feature parity with international alternatives.

International Cooperation: Smaller nations can collaborate on shared platform development, creating regional alternatives that serve multiple countries while maintaining independence from superpower control.

The Geopolitical Implications

The New Digital Cold War

The battle over social media control represents a new form of digital cold war. Just as the original Cold War featured competing ideological systems, today’s digital conflict centers on competing models of internet governance. American platforms promote a market-driven, corporate-controlled model, while alternatives emphasize state sovereignty and democratic accountability.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative now includes digital infrastructure, offering developing nations alternatives to American tech platforms. Russia’s emphasis on digital sovereignty following Western sanctions provides a model for nations seeking independence from American digital hegemony. Even European Union’s Digital Services Act represents a middle path, maintaining American platforms but imposing European regulatory control.

The Sanctions Proliferation Risk

As digital platforms become increasingly important for economic and political activity, sanctions targeting platform access become more powerful weapons. The ability to deny individuals, organizations, or even entire nations access to global communication networks represents unprecedented power concentration.

This creates dangerous incentives for sanctions escalation. If X remains American-controlled, future U.S.-China tensions could result in blocking Chinese users. U.S.-Europe disputes could affect European access. Developing nations could find themselves cut off from global digital networks based on American foreign policy disagreements.

National platforms provide insurance against this vulnerability. Countries with indigenous digital ecosystems can maintain communication and commerce even under comprehensive international sanctions.

The Democratic Accountability Problem

American platforms operate with minimal democratic oversight even within the United States. For foreign users, there is essentially no democratic accountability – platform policies are set by American corporate executives and influenced by American government pressure, with no input from the billions of affected international users.

This democratic deficit is unsustainable in an interconnected world where social media platforms shape political discourse, economic activity, and cultural expression. Either platforms must become democratically accountable to their global user base, or nations must develop platforms accountable to their own citizens.

Economic and Technical Challenges

The Cost of Digital Independence

Building national social media ecosystems requires substantial investment. Technical infrastructure, content moderation systems, cybersecurity capabilities, and user interface development demand billions of dollars and years of development. Many smaller nations lack the resources for comprehensive digital independence.

However, the cost of continued dependence may be higher. Vulnerability to foreign sanctions, loss of domestic data sovereignty, and absence of indigenous digital economies represent long-term strategic risks that outweigh upfront development costs.

Regional cooperation offers a solution for smaller nations. African Union social media initiatives, ASEAN digital cooperation, and Latin American platform development can share costs while maintaining sovereignty. Multiple nations collaborating on shared platforms can achieve economies of scale while avoiding dependence on superpowers.

Technical Standards and Interoperability

National platforms risk creating digital fragmentation that reduces global communication and commerce efficiency. However, technical standards and interoperability protocols can maintain connectivity between national systems while preserving sovereignty.

Decentralized social media protocols like ActivityPub (used by Mastodon) demonstrate how multiple platforms can interconnect while remaining independently controlled. Blockchain-based social networks offer another model for maintaining global connectivity without central control.

International technical standards organizations must develop frameworks ensuring national platforms can communicate across borders while respecting domestic governance preferences. This requires diplomatic cooperation and technical innovation.

The Network Effect Challenge

Existing American platforms benefit from massive network – effects users join platforms where their friends, colleagues, and communities are already active. New national platforms face the challenge of attracting users away from established networks.
Government anchor usage provides one solution, requiring government agencies and officials to use national platforms creates initial user bases. Integration with public services makes national platforms essential for citizen interaction with government. Business incentives encourage companies to maintain presence on national platforms alongside international ones.

Content localization gives national platforms competitive advantages. Local language support, cultural relevance, and region-specific features can attract users despite smaller network sizes. Over time, as national platforms mature, network effects begin working in their favor.

The Path Forward: A Hybrid Approach

Short-term Tactical Measures

While building long-term alternatives, nations must implement immediate protective measures:

Regulatory Oversight: Imposing strict transparency requirements on American platforms operating domestically. Regular reporting on content moderation decisions, data handling practices, and foreign government requests creates accountability even without ownership control.

Data Localization Requirements: Mandating that platforms store citizen data within national borders and under national jurisdiction. This reduces surveillance vulnerabilities and ensures domestic law applies to citizen information.

Content Sovereignty: Establishing clear legal frameworks for content decisions that apply to all platforms operating domestically. Platforms must comply with domestic law rather than corporate policies or foreign government pressure.

Financial Oversight: Monitoring platform revenue streams and ensuring domestic advertising markets benefit national economies rather than only American corporations.

Medium-term Strategic Development

Regional Platform Initiatives: Countries with shared cultural or economic ties should collaborate on regional social media ecosystems. ASEAN, African Union, and Latin American initiatives can create viable alternatives to American platforms while sharing development costs.

Technical Capability Building: Massive investment in domestic technical education, research and development, and digital infrastructure. Nations must build the human capital and technical foundation for digital independence.

International Cooperation Frameworks: Developing treaty systems for digital governance that establish international rules for platform operation, content moderation, and cross-border data flows. This creates alternatives to American-dominated governance structures.

Economic Incentive Systems: Creating venture capital funds, tax incentives, and procurement preferences that support domestic digital platform development. Making indigenous alternatives economically competitive with American platforms.

Long-term Vision: Digital Multipolarity

The ultimate goal should be digital multipolarity: a world where multiple nations and regions maintain viable social media ecosystems that can interoperate while preserving sovereignty. This requires:

Technical Interoperability Standards: International agreements ensuring platforms can communicate across borders while maintaining independent governance. Email-like federated systems demonstrate how global communication can function without central control.

Economic Balance: Preventing any single nation or platform from dominating global digital commerce. Multiple currency systems, diverse payment networks, and distributed economic activity reduce single points of failure.

Cultural Diversity Protection: Ensuring global digital systems support linguistic diversity, cultural expression, and local community needs rather than imposing homogeneous American corporate culture.

Democratic Governance: Creating genuinely international oversight mechanisms for cross-border digital activity. This might involve UN-based systems, multilateral treaty organizations, or other frameworks that give all nations voice in global digital governance.

To Sum-up: The Sovereignty Imperative

The current crisis between X and various national governments represents more than content moderation disputes; it reveals the fundamental unsustainability of American digital hegemony in a multipolar world.

As digital platforms become essential infrastructure for economic, political, and social activity, national control over these systems becomes a sovereignty requirement.

X faces a clear choice: transform into a genuinely global platform with international governance, or accept that its American control makes it unsuitable for serving as global digital infrastructure. The platform’s recent conflicts with India, Brazil, the European Union, and other jurisdictions demonstrate that unilateral American control is increasingly unacceptable to the international community.

For nations worldwide, the message is equally clear: digital sovereignty requires indigenous alternatives to American-controlled platforms. While building national or regional social media ecosystems requires substantial investment and faces significant challenges, the alternative is permanent vulnerability to American sanctions and political manipulation.

The future of global digital communication will likely be multipolar rather than American-dominated. Whether this transition occurs through X’s transformation into a genuinely international platform or through the development of multiple national and regional alternatives, the era of American digital hegemony is ending.

Nations that recognize this reality and invest in digital sovereignty will be better positioned for the emerging multipolar digital order.
The choice is stark but clear: globalize digital governance or accept digital fragmentation.

Either path is preferable to the current system where billions of global citizens depend on platforms controlled by a single nation’s corporate and political interests. The time for decisive action is now, before digital dependence becomes digital subjugation.

Ganesh Kumar is a geo-political analyst.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Global Digital Sovereignty: Why Nations Must Break Free From American Social Media Hegemony appeared first on The Commune.

Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu has reaffirmed his government’s firm commitment to preserving and promoting the indigenous faiths and traditions of the state’s tribal communities, calling them the “spiritual and cultural soul” of the people.

In a message shared on his official X account, Khandu underscored the distinct nature of indigenous belief systems, stating, “They don’t come from books, but from land, memory, and lived tradition. They are not exported, they are rooted. They hold the soul of our people, our forests, mountains, rivers, and ancestors.”

Khandu emphasized that protecting these traditions is not just a cultural task but essential to maintaining the identity of the people of Arunachal. “This isn’t just about culture. It’s about who we are. And it’s about making sure we don’t forget,” he wrote.

As part of this ongoing effort, the state government has launched several initiatives across Arunachal Pradesh:

Six indigenous gurukuls have been established for the Adi, Galo, Nyishi, and Tangsa tribes to promote traditional knowledge systems through community-led institutions.

Over 3,000 registered indigenous priests are now receiving honorariums from the state for their vital role in performing rituals, preserving oral traditions, and guiding spiritual practices.

Fifty dedicated indigenous prayer centres have been set up across the state to provide spiritual spaces for community members.

Tribal cultural centres are being developed in every district to serve as hubs for cultural training, documentation, and awareness generation.

“These efforts reflect the government’s resolve to strengthen the ancestral wisdom of Arunachal’s many tribes and to ensure their traditions remain vibrant for future generations,” Khandu added in his social media post.

He also stated, “That’s why we are investing in preserving and promoting the traditional values and ethos of our indigenous communities.”

Why are Indigenous faiths so important to preserve, unlike major religions?

Because they don’t come from books, but from land, memory, and lived tradition. They are not exported, they are rooted. They hold the soul of our people, our forests, mountains, rivers, and ancestors.… pic.twitter.com/RVhXUdqVq4

— Pema Khandu པདྨ་མཁའ་འགྲོ་། (@PemaKhanduBJP) July 24, 2025

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government in Arunachal has been actively supporting indigenous faiths such as Donyi Polo and Rangfraism. The state is among the few in India where priests from local traditions are paid regular honorariums, and prayer centres are being institutionalized as part of state policy.

(With inputs from The Sentinel)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Arunachal Pradesh BJP Govt Steps Up Efforts To Preserve Indigenous Faiths Like Donyi Polo, Rangfraism: 6 Gurukuls, 3,000+ Priests Supported appeared first on The Commune.

In a defining moment, India’s cutting-edge surface-to-air missile systems—especially the indigenous Akash and probably the Russian-made S-400 Triumf – successfully intercepted and neutralized a coordinated wave of drone and missile attacks launched by Pakistan. The attacks targeted 15 military installations and multiple urban centers.

This report highlights eight key air defence systems that have been developed or significantly upgraded between 2014 and 2025.

What Are Air Defence Systems?

Air defence systems are advanced military technologies designed to detect, track, and destroy incoming aerial threats such as fighter jets, ballistic missiles, drones, and helicopters. These systems are typically deployed in a layered structure, ensuring that threats can be engaged at various ranges and altitudes.

India’s integrated air defence network combines imported systems (like the Russian S-400 and Israeli Spyder) with indigenous solutions (like the Akash) to form a comprehensive shield against enemy aerial incursions.

Types of Air Defence Systems

Let us take a look at some of the types of air defence systems.

1. Short-Range Systems
   Designed to intercept threats at distances up to 30 km.
   Examples: QRSAM (Quick Reaction Surface-to-Air Missile), Spyder.
2. Medium-Range Systems
   Engage targets between 30 km to 70 km.
   Examples: Akash NG, MR-SAM (developed with Israel).
3. Long-Range Systems
   Capable of neutralizing threats from 70 km up to 4000 km.
   Examples: S-400 Triumf, BMD Phase-2 interceptors.

Let’s take a look at each one of them.

#1 Akash & Akashteer: India’s Indigenous Air Shield

India’s Akash Air Defence System, developed by DRDO and inducted in 2014, is a medium-range surface-to-air missile system capable of neutralising multiple aerial threats—fighter jets, UAVs, helicopters, and cruise missiles—at interception ranges up to 40 km. Its advanced variants, including Akash-NG with a range of 70–80 km, enhance speed and engagement capabilities. The system was deployed during Pakistan’s retaliatory strike following India’s precision airstrikes under Operation Sindoor in May 2025.

India’s defence also featured Akashteer, a next-gen Air Defence Control and Reporting System by Bharat Electronics Limited. Touted as India’s Iron Dome, Akashteer integrates data from various radar and missile platforms to produce a real-time, unified airspace picture. Its automated, decentralised decision-making significantly shortens response times—critical for frontline defence.

During the Pakistani assault on 15 Indian locations, including key cities and military bases, Akash and Akashteer—alongside the S-400 Triumf—intercepted all incoming drones and missiles without casualties. Akashteer’s mobility, scalability, and built-in redundancy make it a flexible and reliable asset.

With over 455 Akashteer units planned and deliveries ongoing, India’s air defence posture reflects both technological progress and strategic foresight, showcasing its growing self-reliance and preparedness against evolving threats.

#2 S-400: India’s Long-Range Missile Shield

The S-400 Triumf is a Russian-made long-range surface-to-air missile system acquired by India in a $5 billion deal signed in October 2018. Designed to counter aircraft, cruise, and ballistic missiles, it can engage multiple targets simultaneously up to a range of 380 km. As of 2023, three of the five contracted squadrons are operational. While it was not used in the recent conflict with Pakistan, the S-400 is a very valuable asset to our defence. Dubbed Sudarshan Chakra, this shield was seen in action in the Ukraine-Russia war.

#3 Barak-8: Key to India’s Missile Defence in 2025 Standoff with Pakistan

In May 2025, rising tensions between India and Pakistan escalated after India’s Operation Sindoor targeted terror camps across the border. In retaliation, Pakistan launched multiple missile and drone strikes, including a Fatah-II ballistic missile aimed at Delhi. India’s Barak-8 missile system intercepted the Fatah-II over Haryana’s Sirsa, highlighting its effectiveness in air defence.

Barak-8 is a Medium Range Surface-to-Air Missile (MRSAM) jointly developed by India’s DRDO and Israel’s IAI. With a range of 70–100 km, Mach 2 speed, and a 60-kg warhead, it features dual-pulse propulsion, thrust vector control, and advanced radar and sensors. First acquired in 2017, Barak-8 has been deployed by the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force.

Amid the current conflict, Barak-8 works alongside India’s S-400 Triumf, Akash SAMs, and anti-drone systems to shield key cities. Pakistan’s missile arsenal includes the Fatah-II, Shaheen-III, and PL-15, but experts believe India maintains a technological edge with missiles like BrahMos, Agni-V, and Pralay.

on

IAI and @DRDO_India successfully test launch the MRSAM air defense system last week at a test range in India

The MRSAM is an advanced path breaking air and missile defense system that provides ultimate protection against a variety of aerial platforms. pic.twitter.com/Wk4vWPWeQ9

— Israel Aerospace Industries (@ILAerospaceIAI) January 5, 2021

#4 SPYDER: India’s Quick-Response Shield Against Aerial Threats

The SPYDER (Surface-to-air Python and Derby) is a mobile, low-level, quick-reaction air defence system developed by Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and IAI. It is capable of neutralising a wide range of aerial threats including aircraft, helicopters, drones, UAVs, and precision-guided munitions. Designed to fire Python-5 and Derby missiles—originally air-to-air systems—it offers both short-range (SPYDER-SR, up to 15 km) and medium-range (SPYDER-MR, up to 35–50 km) variants, with altitudes ranging up to 16,000 m and speeds of Mach 4.

India procured 18 SPYDER-MR systems in a $395 million deal, which included 750 each of Python-5 and Derby missiles. The Indian Air Force (IAF) currently operates one squadron, with four more on order. Each battery includes a command unit, missile launchers, and radar systems—EL/M-2106 for SR and EL/M-2084 (also used in Israel’s Iron Dome) for MR.

SPYDER has been deployed during high-tension events including post-Balakot airstrikes in 2019 and provides protection for fixed installations as well as mobile formations. With multi-target tracking, all-weather operability, and fast reaction capability, SPYDER plays a critical role in India’s layered air defence strategy, bridging gaps in low-altitude threat interception.

#5 QRSAM: India’s Rapid-Response Shield Against Low-Altitude Threats

The Quick Reaction Surface-to-Air Missile (QRSAM) is an indigenous short-range missile system developed by DRDO to bolster India’s air defence capabilities. Designed for swift deployment, it can engage multiple aerial targets within a range of 25 to 30 km. Tailored for all-weather operations, QRSAM supports “search-on-move, track-on-move, and fire-on-short-halt” tactics—making it ideal for mobile air defence during fast-paced battlefield scenarios.

The QRSAM system is configured with two primary vehicles: a fully automated command and control unit and a radar platform integrating an Active Array Battery Surveillance Radar (BSR) and Battery Multifunction Radar (BMFR), ensuring target detection, tracking, and engagement accuracy. The missile is launched from a truck-mounted canister, enhancing mobility and response time.

Its first successful test took place on 7 June 2017, at Chandipur, Odisha. The latest tests have validated its performance against aerial targets, confirming robust telemetry, radar tracking, and system coordination. Defence officials hailed it as a vital milestone in India’s journey towards self-reliant air defence solutions.

The QRSAM complements other missile systems like Akash and SPYDER, forming a crucial layer in India’s integrated air defence network, protecting critical assets and mobile military formations from low-altitude aerial threats.

#6 Abhra MRSAM: India’s Advanced Defence Shield

In February 2023, the Indian Army operationalized its first “Abhra” Medium-Range Surface-to-Air Missile (MRSAM) regiment in the 33 Corps, guarding the Sikkim frontier and the Siliguri Corridor. Developed jointly by India’s DRDO and Israel Aerospace Industries, the MRSAM is designed to neutralize a variety of aerial threats, including aircraft, helicopters, drones, and cruise missiles, at ranges up to 70 km. The system’s successful flight tests, conducted off the Odisha coast, involved intercepting high-speed aerial targets, including long-range, short-range, high-altitude, and low-altitude threats.

These trials validated the missile’s operational capabilities, proving its effectiveness in intercepting multiple targets in complex, saturation scenarios. The system includes a multi-function radar, mobile launchers, and command posts. The MRSAM is already in service with the Army, Navy, and Air Force, with its deployment on naval platforms like the INS Vikrant and Kolkata-class destroyers.

The MRSAM’s cutting-edge features include an indigenously developed rocket motor for high manoeuvrability, ensuring successful interception even in critical combat scenarios. The successful trials and operationalization of the MRSAM system signify a major advancement in India’s air defence capabilities, strengthening its ability to counter evolving aerial threats.

#7 VSHORADS: India’s Portable Air Defence Solution

The Very Short Range Air Defence System (VSHORADS) is an indigenously developed surface-to-air missile system designed by DRDO to counter low-altitude aerial threats. Optimized for short-range engagement, it can target hostile aircraft and helicopters at ranges of 6–7 km and altitudes up to 4.5 km. Weighing 21 kg and measuring 2 meters in length, the VSHORADS is lightweight, portable, and can be deployed by individuals or small groups, making it ideal for rapid deployment in defense scenarios.

The missile system achieved a significant milestone with three successful flight trials off the Odisha coast. The VSHORADS incorporates advanced technologies such as a miniaturized Reaction Control System (RCS), responsible for attitude control and steering. It has been developed with contributions from DRDO’s Research Center Imarat and other labs.

Despite having a shorter range and speed than the Russian Igla-S or US Stinger missiles, VSHORADS is tailored to meet the requirements of the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force. Its versatility, ease of use, and successful trials position it as an important asset in India’s air defense capabilities, designed to protect against low-flying aerial threats across various operational environments.

#8 2K12 Kub Kvadrat: Soviet-Origin Short-Range Air Defence

The 2K12 Kub (Kvadrat) is a Soviet-designed short-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, designed to provide air defense for ground forces against low to medium-level aerial threats. With an operational range of up to 24 km and an altitude capability of 14 km, the Kub system is equipped with a semi-active radar homing missile, the 3M9, which can reach speeds of Mach 2.8. The missile weighs 599 kg and carries a 59 kg high-explosive fragmentation warhead.

Each 2K12 Kub battery consists of several tracked vehicles, including the 1S91 radar vehicle with a 75 km detection range, and multiple triple-missile transporter erector launchers (TELs). These TELs are based on a GM-578 chassis, while the radar vehicle is built on a GM-568 chassis, all developed by MMZ. The system is designed for rapid mobility, providing versatile air defense in combat situations.

The 2K12 Kub’s ability to engage multiple targets at various altitudes and its semi-active radar guidance make it a reliable air defense system. Despite its Soviet origins, the system remains operational in several countries, contributing to the protection of military assets against aerial threats.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post India’s Sky Shield: A Decade of Air Defence Dominance (2014–2025) appeared first on The Commune.

In a recent YouTube video titled “The Drone Age of War”, Rahul Gandhi offered a sweeping critique of India’s defence manufacturing capabilities, lamenting that the country “does not make any of the components” inside advanced drones and has failed to develop core competencies in electric motors, optics, and batteries. His underlying argument: India is missing out on a new industrial revolution powered by drone technology, artificial intelligence, and a robust production ecosystem.

Yet, less than a few months later, Operation Sindoor—India’s swift and precision-driven military retaliation to the Pahalgam terror attack—proved his claims not just outdated, but fundamentally inaccurate. In what can only be described as a landmark moment for India’s indigenous defence industry, homegrown drones, including the SkyStriker and Nagastra-1, played a starring role in neutralizing cross-border terror threats and defending Indian territory from missile strikes.

What Did Rahul Gandhi Say?

In the video, he said, “This is a DJI drone made in China and that’s a Lithium Polymer battery. these are four brushless DC motors and that’s the camera. so what I was saying was that when you connect these brushless Motors to this battery, give it a camera and allow people to communicate directly with this through FPV unit you change Warfare. This little thing is now making tanks, artillery pieces, large weapons in the Ukraine Battlefield, pretty much obsolete. I said that Industrial Systems fight Wars. This is actually a commercial product this is made by a Chinese Factory called DJI and this is actually a toy. What we are seeing here is innovative technology of the motor high quality Optics telecommunication equipment and essentially a bunch of cell phone batteries set together are allowing this thing to transform the battlefield. So, it is the Optics and communication system are allowing you to see the battlefield see the sea in a completely different way and then the electric motor is allowing you to Target very very accurately, put explosive power very accurately where you want and this is revolutionized how accurately you can Target kinetic energy.”

Continuing, he said, “We have to build such a system and we have to have competence in electric motors, we have to develop competence in Optics, we have to develop competence in batteries. this is what is going to be at the heart of the electric vehicle, this is what’s going to be at the heart of all robotics, this is what’s going to be at the heart of drones, this is what’s going to be at the heart of Submarine, this is going to be at the heart of toys, Warfare, everything and the sad fact is that we’re nowhere here. we don’t make any of the components inside this we don’t understand how it’s made, we certainly don’t make any of the Optics, we don’t understand how it’s made and that’s what my speech was getting at that, this is actually where we should be playing and the network that produces this is where the real value is and all AI is actually going to be operating on this network so for example when this thing is built AI is going to be used to order how it’s built when this thing is used AI will determine how it’s used.”

It is noteworthy that the drone that Rahul Gandhi is praising in the video is banned for use in India without special permissions. DJI drones, frequently used by Pakistan-based narco-terrorists and smugglers, are linked to cross-border drug trafficking. His public use of such a drone violates no-fly zone rules and undermines national security protocols.

How India Proved Him Wrong

What we saw in the aftermath of the Pakistani aggression at the border will put Rahul Gandhi to shame for his massively ignorant comment.

SkyStriker: The Bengaluru-Israeli ‘Suicide Drone’ That Hit Terror Targets

• Developed by Bengaluru’s Alpha Design Technologies in partnership with Israel’s Elbit Systems.
• Used in Operation Sindoor to destroy terror launchpads in PoK.
• Capabilities:
  • 10 kg warhead, precision GPS-guided strikes.
  • Silent & stealthy—undetectable by radar.
  • Can loiter for hours before striking with surgical accuracy.

Nagastra-1: India’s First Indigenous ‘Suicide Drone’ (Kamikaze)

• Made by Nagpur-based Solar Industries India.
• Key Features:
  • 1 kg high-explosive warhead, GPS-guided (within 2m accuracy).
  • 30 km range, reusable if mission aborted (parachute recovery).
  • 75% indigenous components, 40% cheaper than foreign equivalents.
• Proved critical in neutralizing high-value terror targets.

HARPY Drones: Disabling Pakistan’s Air Defence

• Used to blind Pakistani radars, including one in Lahore, post-S-400 interception.
• Autonomous SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) capability—hunts and destroys radar emissions.

The Markets React: Defence Stocks Soar

India’s performance in Operation Sindoor had an immediate economic impact. Solar Industries, the manufacturer behind Nagastra-1, saw its stock surge 2.3% in a single day post-operation, with a staggering 1,450% gain over the past five years. Its market capitalization now stands at over ₹1.2 lakh crore.

Alpha Design Technologies, in which Adani Defence holds a 26% stake, also gained attention, with analysts highlighting how these drones are transitioning from showcases at expos to frontline operational assets.

The successful use of these platforms sends a powerful message to global investors: India is no longer merely assembling parts—it is innovating at scale.

Where Rahul Gandhi Got It Wrong

While Rahul Gandhi correctly emphasized the significance of motors, batteries, optics, and AI in future warfare, his assertion that India “does not make any components inside drones” is no longer valid.

• Motors and Power Systems: Indigenous drone platforms like Nagastra-1 and SkyStriker incorporate advanced electric drives designed for stealth and efficiency.
• Optics and Targeting: These drones include homegrown targeting systems integrated with GPS, AI algorithms, and thermal imaging for night-time operations.
• Software and AI Integration: Contrary to the claim that India is absent from the AI race, the software controlling these loitering drones uses real-time data analytics, route optimization, and autonomous targeting protocols—areas where India is gaining competence rapidly.

Furthermore, Gandhi downplayed the role of Indian private-sector giants like Adani Defence, labelling them mere assemblers. But Operation Sindoor’s battlefield success proves that these firms are now core contributors to India’s military-industrial complex. Assembly lines are giving way to innovation pipelines, bolstered by Make in India, Startup India, and Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) 2020 reforms.

A Technological Inflection Point for India

What Rahul Gandhi calls a “toy” from DJI is not irrelevant—it illustrates the rise of bottom-up innovation. But his mistake is assuming that India is absent from this phenomenon. In reality, Indian drones like Nagastra-1 are not only functional but strategically tailored for the subcontinent’s terrain and conflict realities. Indian defence tech now spans land, air, sea, and cyber realms—S-400, SkyStriker, HARPY, and Nagastra-1 collectively form a multi-domain deterrent grid. As the battlefield becomes more transparent and drone-saturated, India’s focus on indigenous capabilities will define future deterrence and tactical superiority.

A New Chapter in Indian Defence

India’s powerful response in Operation Sindoor marks a tectonic shift in how war is waged—and how indigenous innovation is mobilized for national security – be it the Akashteer Defence System or the homegrown drones. Far from the hollow vision of helplessness Rahul Gandhi painted, the reality is that India is rapidly becoming self-reliant, resilient, and forward-looking in the defence sector.

Rahul Gandhi’s critique is a wake-up call, but the battlefield has already responded. India is not just flying drones—it’s soaring into the future of warfare on its own wings.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Congress Scion Rahul Gandhi Said ‘India Can’t Make Drones’. Then Our Indigenous SkyStriker & Nagastra-1 Hit Pakistan appeared first on The Commune.