India's 'more options' ICBMs
India's strategic consideration is to extend the range of its ICBMs beyond the territories of its rivals — China and Pakistan. It's a worrisome development for those who played a significant role in allowing India to extend the ranges of its ICBMs. In the future, Western capitals will fall within India's ICBM targeting range.
ICBMs are one of the potent modes of carrying weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear-tipped ICBMs can cause havoc on rivals and are instrumental in ensuring mutual vulnerabilities. This adds lethality to these weapons that rivals keep a wary eye on the development of each other's ICBMs. India's friends kept a blind eye on its ICBMs. Is it because India has been granted the status of 'Net Security Provider' and 'Major Defence Partner' in the Indian Ocean Region by the United States? Likewise, a Cold War power also covertly assisted India in developing its ICBM programme through its space launch vehicles.
However, there are no permanent enemies, nor are there permanent friends; only interests. Therefore, there is a need to debunk the perception that India's extending ICBM ranges are only to target Pakistan and China. India's ICBMs can also pose a potent threat to its allies in the future. Once such a capability is achieved, it will not be easy to reverse it. Recently, the world has witnessed the US bombing of bunker busters on Iran's nuclear facilities. The intense bombing damaged Iran's nuclear facilities but not beyond repair, as per the IAEA. This also lends credence to India's ICBM programme, which has extended ranges. It has taken advantage of Western capitals' blind spot on its deadly development. Once India develops ICBMs with extended ranges, Western capitals will be permanently on its target list.
The workhorse of India's ICBM arsenal is Agni-V, recently deployed by its Strategic Forces Command, representing a significant step in target acquisition beyond its rivals' territories. Agni-V was first tested in 2012 with a declared range of 5,500km. Officially, it was a long-range ballistic missile (LRBM). Chinese experts initially assessed that the Agni-V range was under-declared, and its actual range is 8,000km.
However, the Indian strategic community maintained a strategic silence on its range. ANI first broke the news in 2022, reporting that India could extend the range of Agni-V up to 7,000km by replacing the steel content with composite materials. Presently, Agni-V is now Multiple Independent Targetable Re-entry Vehicle, providing more options for utility to the Indian Strategic Force Command during conflicts. Now, after all these years, Indian media and analysts openly suggest that the Agni-V range is 8,000km.
What about Agni-VI and Surya ICBMs? Will these two ICBMs provide India with more options? Of course, these two will be utilised for more options. News about Surya first came to the public in 1999. The development was kept secret but accidentally revealed by Indian Minister of State for Defence (and former head of DRDO) Bachi Singh Rawat. He told the media that India is developing an ICBM known as Surya that would have a range of up to 5,000km. Mr Rawat was later stripped of his position after disclosing the ICBM. He dropped a bombshell on the international community by revealing India's top-secret, under-development ICBM.
Indian rocketry received significant assistance from the Space Launch Vehicle programme, which it obtained with foreign support. Notably, India received Cryogenic engines for its SLV programme from Ukraine and Russia in the 1990s. It is believed that the same cryogenic engines are now Surya's test-bed. In the early 2000s, Russian and Western intelligence assessments indicated that India was developing an ICBM with more than 5000km range, which can be extended to 10,000km. Nevertheless, Western powers conspicuously kept mum on this, knowing that they would eventually be on India's targeting list.
Independent analysis also suggests that Agni-VI has a range of 10000-12000km. Agni-VI and Surya are under development, and to date, no test or trial of these systems by DRDO has been conducted. The Indian decision not to test Agni-VI and Surya may be due to unseen pressure from the US. Previously, the US has least criticised India on its anti-satellite test in 2019, despite overtly criticising China and Russia's ASAT missile tests in the past. India may test Agni-VI and Surya by ignoring US pressure, as it completely ignored the US pressure when it tested its ASAT missile.
India does not deny the development of both. However, India never openly discussed it due to the possibility of pressure from London, Paris, Moscow and Washington, as they were already aware of such developments. Instead, Washington and its allies are busy alleging that other powers are developing ICBMs.
What is this "more options" strategy? Is there any rocket science required to understand more options strategy? No, India's intermediate-range and long-range ballistic missiles are enough to achieve targets within the territories of Pakistan and China. Therefore, "a more option" strategy is linked with Agni-VI and Surya to acquire targets well beyond Pakistan and China. London, Paris, Moscow and Washington may reconsider their position and think about being included in the "more options" strategy.
The Western powers have helped India develop its ICBM capability while also allowing the interchangeability of space and missile components and systems, which has contributed to India's space and ballistic missile programmes. Now, the onus lies on them to think about India's "more option" strategy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Modi narrative: no takers
Listen to article Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being slapped around by friends and foes alike, perhaps for the first time in his premiership. A parliamentary debate on Tuesday quickly saw the Modi government's propaganda around the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor crumble, as Opposition Leader Rahul Gandhi and others slammed Modi's use of India's military for political optics and the disinformation campaign about all aspects of the war, which has made India's foreign ministry and media into laughing stocks. One opposition member said that Modi should prove his claim that no Rafale jets were shot down — a fact confirmed by international media and French officials — by having all 36 of India's Rafales lined up for a photo op. Gandhi said Modi should back up his claim that he did not agree to a ceasefire under US pressure by calling President Donald Trump a liar. And in a 'response' to the convenient claim that three "terrorists" recently killed in Kashmir were the Pahlgam attackers, Home Minister Amit Shah said he had solid evidence of a Pakistan connection, because the men allegedly had "Pakistani" chocolates in their possession. Later, one of the Pahlgam attack survivors — whose husband was murdered in front of her — also criticised Modi for failing to even once reference the 26 victims in whose name Operation Sindoor was conducted. Though she did not go as far as accusing him of using the victims' deaths for political gain, we will. For his entire political career, Modi has happily used the blood of his fellow Indians for political gain. Unfortunately, because of Modi's success at turning India into an oligarchy where all media is run by his billionaire allies and dissent is crushed through a combination of draconian laws and violent Hindutva mobs, most Indians are unaware of the world around them, including the fact that the Indian economy has severely underperformed, relative to what economists had projected before Modi took office, or that it is sliding on several human rights indicators. All the while, Modi remains unassailably popular and sits on his throne atop a tower of lies.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Recognition with resolve?
Listen to article A significant diplomatic shift is underway in Europe. In a matter of weeks, two of the continent's most influential powers — France and the UK — have signalled their intent to formally recognise the State of Palestine. Besides, 14 other Western nations have called on countries worldwide to move to recognise a Palestinian state. While such recognition has long been demanded by a majority of the world's nations, its adoption by Western powers marks a notable departure from the decades-old policy. Belated as it may be, this shift could have far-reaching implications for the Palestinians' pursuit of justice and statehood. French President Emmanuel Macron has stated that France will recognise Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September. Just days later, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer added urgency to the matter, telling his cabinet that the UK would follow suit — unless Israel takes "substantive steps" to end its war on Gaza. Starmer was also careful to reaffirm that "there is no equivalence between Israel and Hamas" and reiterated the UK's demands of Hamas: that it must release all hostages, sign a ceasefire, disarm, and accept that it will play no role in the future governance of Gaza. Both the French and British announcements, as well as the recognition call from 14 other Western nations, come amid deepening tensions. The war has already killed tens of thousands, displaced millions and left Gaza's civilian infrastructure in ruins. Aid convoys have been attacked, and access to food and medicine remains dangerously limited. That such developments have also drawn criticism from Israel's traditional allies points to a growing disillusionment with a conflict that has long been treated as an intractable exception to international norms. Recognition, in itself, does not bring peace. It does not end occupation or stop military aggression. But it does serve as a powerful political statement - that the international community can no longer justify its inaction with platitudes about timing and negotiations.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Operation Mahadev and India's shifting role in South Asia
The writer is a public policy analyst based in Lahore. She can be reached at durdananajam1@ Listen to article India recently launched Operation Mahadev in Lidwas, near Srinagar, targeting militants allegedly involved in the April 22 Pahalgam attack. While the government called it a success, there is still no verified evidence linking those killed to the Pahalgam attack. This recurring gap between military actions and verifiable outcomes is eroding India's credibility, both domestically and internationally. What complicates matters further is the abrupt transition from Operation Sindoor to Operation Mahadev, not due to a strategic pause initiated by India, but because of a ceasefire — one reportedly brokered by the United States. This shift in the tempo of military actions highlights something deeper: India's discomfort in navigating a region where it is no longer the sole power broker. And that discomfort has only grown more visible as India struggles to balance its internal political narrative with external strategic realities. In the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament, the Pahalgam attack and India's retaliatory actions have sparked heated debate. Home Minister Amit Shah claimed those killed in Operation Mahadev were carrying Pakistani voter IDs and — oddly enough — Pakistani chocolates, as supposed proof of foreign involvement. But across the aisle, former Home Minister P Chidambaram cautioned against drawing premature conclusions. He pointed out that no independent investigation had yet established Pakistan's direct role in the Pahalgam attack. His remarks echoed concerns of many analysts who questioned whether India had once again rushed into a military response without solid ground. Rahul Gandhi added fuel to the fire, claiming that Indian pilots were given strict instructions not to engage Pakistan's defence systems, and that Islamabad had prior knowledge of the strike's limits. Whether these claims are fully accurate or politically motivated, they raised doubts over the true intent and efficacy of Operation Sindoor — was it a military response or a public performance? The four-day standoff between May 7 and May 11 brought South Asia to the brink. India claimed to have struck nine terror sites and disrupted eleven Pakistani air bases. Pakistan responded with Operation Bunyan-ul-Marsoos, claiming it had downed six Indian jets, including Rafales, and intercepted several drones. Then came a sudden ceasefire — not the result of bilateral talks, but reportedly due to US intervention. Former President Donald Trump didn't hesitate to take credit, claiming it was his diplomatic pressure that ended the hostilities. He even endorsed Pakistan's claim of shooting down Indian jets. Strikingly, New Delhi offered no rebuttal, no clarification, not even a token denial. That silence was more than a diplomatic gesture. It suggested an unease within India about how to handle its diminishing ability to control the narrative - both at home and abroad. India has long projected itself as South Asia's natural leader — economically, militarily and diplomatically. But in this episode, the heavy lifting to halt escalation came not from New Delhi, but from Washington. That exposed a growing dependency on Western partners to manage regional crises, calling into question India's cherished notion of "strategic autonomy." The broader message from this episode is that South Asia is no longer India's undisputed sphere of influence. The region has entered a new phase, where external actors like the US — and increasingly, China — shape events with more agility than India does. China, while officially silent during this latest crisis, remains a critical player. Its growing ties with Pakistan, military infrastructure in disputed regions and deep economic engagement with South Asian countries make it a strategic counterweight to India. While New Delhi focuses on containing Pakistan, Beijing continues to expand its footprint — not just in military terms, but also through economic corridors, port access and diplomatic alliances. India's strategic myopia risks ceding more ground to China than it can afford. India stands at a crossroads. Its aspiration to lead South Asia is real — and achievable. But that requires shifting from theatrics to transparency, from overstatement to credibility. Here's what New Delhi should consider moving forward: If military operations are to gain public and global support, India must present transparent, independently verifiable proof. That includes forensic intelligence, clear identification of targets and post-operation disclosures. The age of unquestioned nationalistic fervour is waning — citizens and allies alike demand facts. India needs to redefine what autonomy means in a multipolar world. Relying on US intervention, while convenient, cannot be the default. Strategic autonomy doesn't mean going solo; it means building coalitions that share your long-term vision. That includes mending ties with neighbours rather than attempting to dominate them. India's greatest challenge today is not Pakistan. It is in managing its own ambitions in a region that is no longer playing by the old rules. Operations like Sindoor and Mahadev may offer political capital in the short run, but true leadership will come only when India chooses clarity over confusion, and substance over showmanship.
