Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

London-listed companies will have greater flexibility to pay top executives higher salaries under new guidance from the UK’s £9.1tn investor body, despite a series of shareholder protests against bumper pay packets.

The Investment Association, the trade body representing 250 large investors holding important stakes in UK-listed companies, said on Wednesday that it had “simplified” its remuneration guidelines so that companies could set pay policies to “suit their specific needs” while also “being responsive to shareholder expectations”.

The move comes after prominent business figures called for higher executive pay to encourage companies to stay listed on the London Stock Exchange following an exodus of groups moving to the US, where executive remuneration tends to be higher. 

Andrew Ninian, a director at the IA, said the revised guidelines “demonstrate that investors want to incentivise delivery of long-term performance”. 

The investment body said its members wanted “a competitive” listing environment “that attracts companies to list and operate in the UK” and noted that “during the past year, there has been significant debate” on executive remuneration and “its impact on UK-listed companies”.

Companies’ remuneration committees use the IA guidelines when deciding whether to increase executive pay. Companies can deviate from the guidelines but shareholders generally expect the reasons to be explained.

Julia Hoggett, chief executive of the London Stock Exchange, said last year that UK executives should be paid more if the country wanted to retain talent and prevent companies moving overseas. 

The IA had committed last year to reviewing its guidance after pressure to respond to concerns that it was too rigid and made it difficult for companies with an international presence to attract top executives, particularly from the US.

Keith Barr, the former boss of InterContinental Hotels Group, is among a handful of executives to have left the UK in favour of the US. He warned that the UK was “not a very attractive place” for listed companies.

But the move to reward executives with higher pay risks stoking a greater backlash from some shareholders, after significant investor revolts against pay increases this year. AstraZeneca’s investors approved a potential £1.8mn increase for boss Pascal Soriot in April but the company was hit by a significant revolt from shareholders.

London Stock Exchange Group and Smith & Nephew were among the other FTSE 100 companies that pushed through higher executive pay deals at their AGMs this year. 

The updated guidelines allow for companies to benchmark executive pay against international rivals, noting that if a significant proportion of revenues are generated in an overseas market, such as the US, the remuneration committee “is encouraged to set out the impact of attracting global talent on the positioning of remuneration”.  

Luke Hildyard, director of the High Pay Centre, a think-tank, said that executive pay practices at global peers were “relevant in some instances” but noted that “few UK companies are of a similar size or global footprint as the biggest US firms, so comparisons are mostly redundant”.

Remuneration consultants at Alvarez & Marsal said the change was “positive” and “may help the market to develop a more rational and less emotionally charged framework for discussing pay levels”.

The new guidance also makes it easier for companies to adopt “hybrid” pay structures, which include long-term incentives that reward loyalty but have until now been more common in the US than the UK. Companies will also be given more flexibility on the level of director bonuses that must be deferred. 

The IA said boards should exercise discretion to “avoid rewarding or penalising executives for factors beyond their control or influence”. Alvarez & Marsal said this more flexible approach was “a significant change in tone from the IA”. 

Selecting the right platform is a bit like building a house: if the foundations aren’t stable then you’re in serious trouble further down the line.

I’m increasingly seeing advisers considering switching platforms looking to financial stability as that key foundation stone from which to build.

Today’s advice platform market is characterised by oversupply and frequent regulatory change, leaving a key problem for advisers to overcome – long-term stability.

A financially robust platform reassures advisers their chosen provider will endure market consolidation, invest in continuous innovation and maintain high service levels, while being able to adequately adapt to the pace of regulatory change.

Financial stability is about more than survival; it’s about thriving in a competitive market

Consumer Duty further underscores the need to take a more long-term approach. Advisers must ensure their platform partners can consistently meet these regulatory expectations, safeguarding consistency in service quality and good client outcomes.

Financial stability is about more than survival; it’s about thriving in a competitive market.

A stable platform is not a static platform. Instead, it’s a reliable partner that adapts, supports advisers’ evolving needs and provides the infrastructure to keep pace with technological advancements.

Without assessing a platform’s financial stability and ability to invest in development, advisers risk partnering with a platform that could struggle to sustain service quality or keep up with industry innovations, potentially putting their client relationships and business growth at risk.

Contrary to some opinions, advisers are open to exploring new platforms, but they generally need a trigger to make such a significant switch

Contrary to some opinions, advisers are open to exploring new platforms, but they generally need a trigger to make such a significant switch.

Realistically, a firm will only shift large volumes of business when there’s a compelling reason — which are often realised by concerns about their current platform’s financial health and levels of investment.

Consistency of service, back-office connectivity, and digital automation and experience give advisers an edge in an industry where marginal gains can make a real difference.

If doubts arise about a platform’s financial security, advisers should question whether they will continue to see these cornerstones of platform efficiency maintained.

Switching usually requires significant push factors that prompt advisers to consider their options. These can include long call wait times, processing delays, transaction errors and lack of accountability, all problems that damage client relationships and erode trust.

Platform charges have increasingly become a secondary consideration

Platform charges have increasingly become a secondary consideration. Charges across the industry are highly competitive, and advisers now view them as relatively uniform. Instead of focusing solely on costs, advisers weigh charges against a broader range of factors, like digital experience, investment choice, service model and overall value for money.

Platform charges represent only a small portion of the total cost of advice, which includes adviser fees and investment management costs. So, with cost differences between platforms generally minimal and one eye on Consumer Duty, advisers are beginning to prioritise the long-term viability of a platform over short-term savings.

With a focus on value mandated by Consumer Duty, advisers are gravitating towards platforms that have greater resources at their disposal. These are more capable of investing in reliable service and support, which ultimately benefits clients and helps advisers to scale their businesses.

Why onboarding matters

A seamless onboarding experience is essential for affirming advisers’ confidence in their decision to switch platforms. This process is their first impression of the new platform and sets the tone for their platform experience.

A well-designed onboarding process should be efficient, transparent and supportive, according to the individual needs of advice firms. This process involves not just the technical aspects of transferring data and setting up accounts but also clear communication, training and ongoing support.

Delivering all this requires investment, not just at the start, but as part of a continuous review process.

Effective onboarding can transform what is seen as a daunting process into a smooth, positive experience

By minimising the friction involved in switching and providing comprehensive assistance during the transition, platforms can reduce perceived barriers to change.

This proactive approach instils a sense of trust and reliability, which fosters long-term loyalty, making advisers more likely to stay with the platform and recommend it to others. Effective onboarding can transform what is seen as a daunting process into a smooth, positive experience.

While multiple factors influence platform selection and switching, we are seeing the emergence of financial stability as a critical element.

In an era of market oversupply and rapid technological change, advisers are increasingly recognising and seeking out platforms that are operationally efficient and financially secure.

Understanding these dynamics allows platforms to better position themselves to meet the evolving needs of advice firms and their clients to deliver mutual future success.

Ranila Ravi-Burslem is intermediary distribution director at Scottish Widows

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

There are signs of stirring from the slumbering form of Radiohead. According to bassist Colin Greenwood, the band convened for rehearsals over the summer, eight years after their last album, A Moon Shaped Pool. Their reactivation, if it continues, would be a big event. But I hope it won’t result in The Smile being wiped from the schedules of Thom Yorke and Jonny Greenwood.

The album is the second this year from the Radiohead duo’s spin-off band. It teams them with drummer Tom Skinner of London jazz group Sons of Kemet. Their busy output resembles a release of pent-up energy, somewhere between a satellite orbiting Radiohead and an escape craft heading for parts unknown. As though loosened up by Skinner’s supple skills, Yorke and Greenwood sound almost frolicsome amid the songs’ twisty dynamics and brooding lyrics.

Cutouts was made during the same recording sessions as Wall of Eyes, which came out in January. In July Greenwood was hospitalised with an unspecified infection, receiving treatment in intensive care. He has now recovered, although The Smile had to cancel a European tour — an unfortunate check to the momentum that they’ve built up since their 2022 debut, A Light for Attracting Attention.

The new album lacks a peak comparable with Wall of Eyes’ “Bending Hectic”, a dizzying art-rock wig-out, but its 10 tracks flow together very well. “Foreign Spies” is an electronic ballad with echoes of 1970s cosmic music and a melody adapted from Greenwood’s 2019 orchestral composition “Horror vacui”. Its dreamy tempo feeds into “Instant Psalm”, a hymnal psychedelic number with another tender vocal turn from Yorke.

“Zero Sum” picks up the pace with Greenwood’s wiry guitar riffs and Skinner’s richly layered percussion. Yorke’s lyrics evoke a familiar sense of dread, but his singing is responsive and versatile. In “Don’t Get Me Started”, his voice cries out amid echo effects as if in a void. For “Bodies Laughing”, he conjures a grotesque scenario involving mockery and physical disgust in a needling high croon. Like the rest of the album, the song gets under your skin.

★★★★☆

‘Cutouts’ is released by XL Recordings

HOUSEHOLDS should be aware of rules surrounding this common item which could land you a £300 fine or even a criminal record.

Local authorities can issue fines for illegal log burner use in England.

1

This rule was introduced by the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to reduce air pollution and has been in place for over two decades.

But councils can issue fines under new rules brought in last year.

Last year, the government instructed local authorities to consider using powers in the 2021 Environment Act to issue on-the-spot civil penalties.

Local authorities can issue financial penalties of between £175-£300 for smoke emissions from chimneys in smoke control areas in England. 

You could also get a fine of up to £1,000 for using unauthorised fuel in an appliance that’s not on the exempt list.

In some cases, if the situation goes to court, then fines could be as high as £5,000 for repeat offenders, as well as an additional £2,500 for every day the breach continues.

If you are confused about what types of appliances you can use it is always worth ringing your local council and asking for help.

How to avoid being fined

It is not against the law to use one of these heating devices, but there are certain regulations in place for households.

For example, if you live in a smoke control area, wood burners can not emit more than three grams of smoke per hour.

A smoke control area is a place where people and businesses are not allowed to emit a large amount of smoke from a chimney.

This rule was introduced by DEFRA to reduce air pollution and has been in place for over two decades.

You can find out if you live in a smoke control area by using an online map created by the department, this can be found by searching https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/sca/.

For example, people who live in Slough with the SL16 postcode are in a smoke control area meaning how much fumes their appliances can emit is limited.

Residents who live in these types of areas can use log burners, but the appliance must first be approved by DEFRA.

You can find a full list of appliances and fuel which are safe to use by visiting, https://smokecontrol.defra.gov.uk/fuels-php/.

For example, it is safe to use some kinds of smokeless logs such as Aimcor Excel briquettes.

Families who use logs for fire should look for the ‘Ready to Burn’ logo on fuel packaging.

This means the fuel has less than 20% moisture and complies with DEFRA’s regulations.

If you buy a new log burner then it must adhere to Ecodesign rules to reduce smoke and pollutant emissions.

It is always worth checking with your manufacturer if a wood burner adheres to new ecodesign rules.

The reminder comes as many Brits look for alternative ways to heat their home this winter.

Energy costs have risen by £149 for the average household this month after Ofgem’s new price cap came into force.

Cuts to the Winter Fuel Payment also mean that around 10million pensioners are set to miss out on up to £300 in fuel support.

THE Duke and Duchess of Cambridge often favour staycations with their family over foreign holidays – much like Kate Middleton enjoyed with her family as a child.

She and her siblings would spend every summer visiting a particularly quaint corner of the Lake District – next to Lake Coniston and the charming village of Coniston.

6

6

Advertisement

6

In an interview with the Evening Standard, Kate’s brother James Middleton described his childhood summers in the Lake District.

He said: “The Lake District. It stems from my childhood, reading Beatrix Potter’s Peter Rabbit, and as I got older, Arthur Ransome’s Swallows and Amazons.

“As my family and I spent time on Coniston Water and Lake Windermere, it was almost like we were living the stories in real life.

“I’d have visions of having my own ‘Timmy’ — the dog in the Famous Five — and imagined that we could go on adventures together.

“Every school holiday we would stay anywhere from a weekend to a week there, in sun or snow or rain, and because there was no electricity in the family cottage it was a real adventure — hiking in the mountains and playing in the Lakes.”

The Princess’s brother claims to have first visited the Lake District when he was just six months old, and the family’s ties to the area go back generations, with their paternal great-great-grandfather living in Yorkshire.

Their connection was even immortalised in a family coat of arms, which was given to Kate Middleton shortly before her marriage to Prince William.

A set of chevrons symbolises mountain landscapes like the Lake District, reflecting Princess Kate’s love of the outdoors.

More recently, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have visited the National Park in a royal capacity, making appearances at the Air Cadet‘s Windermere adventure training centre and turning their hands to sheep shearing.

As England‘s largest lake, Lake Windermere is a popular holiday destination in its own right.

But holidaymakers looking to visit the Lake District might want to head to Coniston Water, a slightly lesser-known body of water in the area.

In a review on TripAdvisor one person described their trip to Coniston, writing: “Close to the overrated Lake Windermere, Coniston is close, as the crow flies, but following a long winding road journey. It is a bit prettier than Windermere.”

Located in the southern area of the Lake District, Coniston is a quaint village at the mouth of the Coppermines Valley.

Historically, the village was known for its copper and slate mining.

However, in recent years, Coniston Water, a nearby lake has garnered tourist attention.

Roughly five miles long and half a mile wide, Coniston Water is located just a mile away from the village.

On Coniston Water, visitors can hire boats from Coniston Boating Centre, with dark sky canoeing taking place at night.

Coniston village is popular with hikers and ramblers because of its proximity to the Old Man of Coniston, one of Cumbria‘s most popular fells.

In the village, there are a range of shops, pubs and places to eat, including the Crown Inn.

Coniston also has its own local brewery – Coniston Brewery.

other nearby attractions include Lowther Castle & Gardens and Tarn Hows, an accessible walking route in the Lake District.

Coniston is a five-and-a-half-hour drive from London, and it’s a two-hour drive from Manchester.

Meanwhile, this often-ridiculed UK seaside town has been compared to Miami.

And this Victorian beach town is set to become big again this summer.

6

6

6

Advertisement

In the 1990s, when India was pursuing economic reforms, testing nuclear weapons and raising its profile internationally, its defence establishment began work on a homegrown military jet engine: the Kaveri, named after a river in the country’s south.

For a nation where self-reliance in industry is a mantra of both Narendra Modi’s government and those that preceded it, the ability to develop and build such powerful technology on its own soil — referred to in India as an “indigenous” product — is one of its biggest dreams.

But producing advanced fighter jet engines is a complex process and the knowledge to make them requires real-world experience built up over decades. Only five countries — notably the current permanent members of the UN Security Council — know how to build them: the US, UK, France, Russia and China. Beijing, however, is just moving from a reliance on imported equipment from Russia and only recently test flew a fighter jet with a supposedly homegrown engine.

India was eager to join the elite club. But despite years of research, prototyping and testing, the Kaveri flopped. India had failed to produce an engine with sufficient thrust to power its current generation of Tejas light combat aircraft. Instead, it plans to use a version of the Kaveri in future unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones.

Yet India’s mission to build an “indigenous” military jet engine is back on. What it learned from its work on the Kaveri, not least its mistakes, may yet bear fruit. According to Indian defence industry officials, foreign diplomats and analysts, the world’s fifth-biggest economy is in an advanced stage of deliberations on producing its first world-class “Made in India” jet engine, working with a western partner that is yet to be decided.

While the foreign partner would bring its technological experience, the engine would be wholly developed and built in India — making it the first truly “indigenous” product of its kind. Once complete, the engine would be fitted into India’s new suite of fifth-generation advanced fighter aircraft due to be airborne by the mid-2030s.

A behind-the-scenes battle is now heating up, involving lobbying, horse-trading, and pledges about future ownership of intellectual property, to become the aerospace partner of choice for the world’s most populous country.

Jostling for the lucrative contract to help India fulfil its ambitions are three key players: General Electric of the US, the UK’s Rolls-Royce, and French group Safran. France and the US are already India’s second and third-biggest defence suppliers after Russia, whose aircraft and other military equipment India is diversifying away from.

Which partner New Delhi chooses would be freighted with geopolitical implications. It comes at a time when India’s international ambitions are rising, its military rivalry with China is deepening, its relationship with the US is expanding and the Modi government is aspiring to join the world’s top tables, including the UN Security Council.

Part of the attraction is simply one of scale. India will over time require considerable numbers of aircraft

On the table for the three companies — and the governments backing them — is a decades-long partnership across both defence and civil industries with a fast-growing economy, one that will depend on imported knowhow and kit for years to come.

“Part of the attraction is simply one of scale,” says Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “India will over time require considerable numbers of aircraft as the air force looks to recapitalise combat aircraft fleets.”

India, says Philippe Errera, executive vice-president of international and public affairs at Safran, is “hugely important” for the group, “based on the present and looking into the future”.

“This goes beyond military jet engines, to include defence more broadly but also commercial engines,” he adds.

Last year, India managed to land an uncrewed spacecraft near the Moon’s south pole. But despite years of trying, it has yet to develop a viable, advanced military jet engine.

Developing an engine large and powerful enough for a civil jet is already extremely complex, analysts say. It relies on knowledge built up over decades, including which materials to use and why and on how to integrate the different parts.

A military jet engine that is capable of delivering world-class performance on a consistent basis brings with it an extra set of challenges, given the higher speeds and tolerances involved. This helps explain why more countries have nuclear weapons capability than the technology needed to keep a fighter jet in the air.

While large civil engines need to maximise fuel efficiency, military jet engines are about the amount of power an engine can produce in relation to weight of the aircraft, analysts say. “No other form of power apart from nuclear comes close to the level of power density you get in a gas turbine,” says one industry expert, who asked not be named because of the sensitivities around discussing large military deals.

Civil airliners fly predictable route patterns and spend much of their time at cruising altitude; military jets have to fly at much higher speeds and with the ability to accelerate quickly. This means, for example, that the bearings in the gas turbine have to be developed to withstand greater tolerances. The engines also use afterburners, which provide a short burst of increased thrust by igniting additional fuel in its exhaust stream.

Complicating things further, most fifth-generation fighters — like the one being mooted by India — will have their engines embedded within the aircraft frame to minimise their radar and infrared signatures to help avoid detection. All these complexities extend the development and certification programme for military engines.

“India has a technology bottleneck which it has to pass through with gas turbines,” says Prasobh Narayanan, a senior aviation analyst at Janes in Bengaluru. “It is not able to crack that bottleneck on its own, and needs help.”

India has a technology bottleneck which it has to pass through with gas turbines. It is not able to crack that bottleneck on its own

India’s efforts to develop the Kaveri in the 1990s came at a time of acute strategic challenges, after the Soviet Union — its biggest military supplier — collapsed. New Delhi was also at loggerheads with Washington over its nuclear weapons programme, and began developing military ties with alternative suppliers such as France.

The situation today is far different. India has reconciled with the US and over the past two years the two nations have expanded co-operation in defence and technology. This partially reflects a shift in India’s threat perception; it now sees China, and not its neighbour and long-standing foe Pakistan, as the bigger danger.

Since Modi took power in 2014, he has stepped up efforts to bring foreign defence groups to India and promote more “indigenous” production in defence, urging private groups such as Tata, Adani and Mahindra to begin making defence products ranging from personnel carriers to drones.

However, the entry of these Indian conglomerates to the defence market over the past decade have failed to make up for the failings of its state-owned groups, led by Hindustan Aeronautics (HAL), India’s biggest aerospace producer. India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation and HAL are set to be the Indian partner in developing the new jet engine. HAL and India’s ministry of defence did not respond to requests for comment.

India abandoned plans for a “Make in India” project to produce French Rafale jets locally, opting instead to buy 36 imported jets in 2016. Today India also remains its biggest defence importer — not a point of pride for a country that aspires to boost its own industrial exports and create desperately needed jobs. China is going to be “increasingly active in the combat aircraft export market and with its own rather than Russian-sourced engines”, says Barrie of the IISS. But he believes Beijing is unlikely to compete in traditional western markets.

The world’s large aero-engine makers have been active in India for decades, forging partnerships with domestic contractors and setting up local manufacturing. Engines by Rolls-Royce powered the first flight of the Indian Air Force in 1933, while Safran is the leading supplier of turbine engines for the country’s military helicopters.

$1.8bn

Amount approved by the government for manufacturing, testing and certifying of five advanced military aircraft prototypes

90 years

Length of Rolls-Royce’s long history in India, involving multiple partnerships across the UK aerospace and defence group’s divisions

3,000

People employed by Safran in India (Bangalore plant, above), a workforce the French group says will increase with its expansion

After the Kaveri engine failed to meet performance criteria, HAL turned to GE engines, and uses the US producer’s F404 models in its first-generation Mk1 fighters.

During Modi’s state visit to Washington last year, GE announced it was ready to supply India with its newer F414 engines for the forthcoming Tejas Mk2. The agreement includes the potential joint production of the F414 engines in India.

GE signalled at the time that it believed that this positioned it well for future work. The US company said it would continue to “collaborate with the Indian government” on the engine programme for the more advanced fighter.

India’s commitment to building its own military jet engine is backed by significant funding. In March, its Cabinet Committee on Security approved funding worth $1.8bn for the manufacturing, testing and certifying of five prototypes for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft programme over the next five years.

Indian officials have spoken of inducting the planned jet into the Indian Air Force by the early to mid-2030s, leading to speculation among defence analysts in the country that it will soon decide who its partner on the “indigenous” jet engine will be.

Rolls-Royce and Safran each insist that they are ready to work with HAL, the state-owned aerospace firm, to co-develop a bespoke engine that would entail a full transfer of intellectual property to India, including the right to include it in future exports.

Britain’s Rolls-Royce has emphasised its long history in India, which stretches back more than 90 years and involves multiple partnerships across its divisions.

“What we are talking about is a gear change,” says Alex Zino, director of future programmes for Rolls-Royce’s defence division. “Now is the time to co-create that IP and that capability in-country, so that it is owned in-country.”

India, Zino says, would have the freedom to operate, upgrade or modify the co-developed engine, should they partner. Rolls-Royce has been working on its proposal “through and with the UK government”, he confirms.

Safran, too, is promising India similar freedoms to own any engine technology it and HAL co-develop. The French company’s proposal would give India “strategic independence in terms of empowering the country to design, develop and produce state of the art military jet engines domestically and export them”, says Errera, the Safran executive.

GE’s offer, by contrast, would withhold a small portion of the IP on any future co-developed jet engine, according to two people familiar with its plans. “Some things the US, from a national security perspective, might want to retain,” says one of the people. GE declined to comment.

Some US officials remain wary of India’s continued close relationship with Russia, analysts say, meaning Washington and GE might be less willing to part ways with coveted technology in its entirety. Although India and the US are co-operating more closely than ever, including on defence, New Delhi retains ties and trading relationships with not only Moscow but other governments, such as Tehran, that are inimical to Washington.

Working in GE’s favour, however, is geopolitics and India’s deepening relationship with the US — part of a joint strategy to build an “Indo-Pacific” bulwark against China. India is already deploying multiple US defence platforms, including helicopters, howitzers, and mobility aircraft, and is in the process of agreeing a major contract for long-endurance UAVs with General Atomics.

“I think the American offer is the most serious one,” says Amit Cowshish, a retired senior civil servant formerly active in India’s defence ministry. “The Americans could possibly be pushing harder with the kind of clout they have, which is much more than that of any other country.”

France has made an appeal based on its own burgeoning relationship with New Delhi. Safran employs just under 3,000 people in India — a number it says will grow as it expands its operations there. The French group, in which the government holds an 11 per cent share, plans to open a maintenance facility in the aerospace and tech hub of Hyderabad, a city in southern India’s Telangana state, next year. The site will support the Leap engines Safran makes through its CFM International, a joint venture with GE Aerospace, and which power the majority of the Airbus A320 family of commercial jets.

“We have stood by your side through thick and thin,” Safran’s chair Ross McInnes assured an audience at India’s Defence Conclave earlier this month. “The same cannot be said of your other western partners,” he added, noting that France was the only western country that stood with India after the uproar over its nuclear tests in 1998.

Errera echoes the point, saying there is “more predictability and more stability in the relationship” with France than with its rivals. And unlike the US, where Congress needs to sign off on big defence deals, the French government could green light any future co-operation.

India’s government and HAL have given no indication of when they will issue the first “request for information” to potential engine partners.

Although India’s state-dominated defence establishment tends to move slowly, and with limited transparency, analysts and officials say New Delhi will need to quicken its pace if it wants to keep up on defence.

“If they don’t make the decision, soon they will be missing the deadline” for a decision on their engine programme, says Raji Pillai, resident senior fellow with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a Canberra-based think-tank. “India’s fighter jet numbers are depleting pretty fast.”