There are some historic reasoans for that too, but still both of these countries developed high level of industrial capabilities, "because" they used ToT and partnerships to improve themselves. Both also keep importing the necessary techs and weapons and both negotiate to get as much ToT or customization rights as possible, so why would the same be bad for us?
You actually pointed out 2 examples that we should follow and that shows the benefits of ToT and industrial partnerships.
Like I said before, the time was different. Over a century ago, the West got Japan to open up and in return they offered money, trade, unbridled access to technology (that they themselves were developing) among other things to make sure that Japan would be their bulwark against imperial Russia. Do remember, the Great Game was in full flow.
Once Japan got the access, they progressed rapidly and perhaps got a little too ambitious. At that time, the Brits allowed the Soviets, access to their jet engine technology, since Nazis were viewed as the bigger threat. In a few years, the Soviets became the biggest threat to the West.
Then after WWII, the West did not dismantle the Japanese tech base, rather the
Amreekis, gave huge contracts to the
Zaibatsu such as Sumitomo, Mitsui and Mitsubishi for the post-war reconstruction efforts. Auto companies, especially Toyota got huge contracts to supply vehicles for the Korean war. The objective at that time was to contain Soviet-Sino expansion into Pacific and Japan that was the enemy only a few years ago, was funded extensively with money and technology to stand up as a bulwark against the commies. Once Japan came into being as a tech power and the South Korean polity stabilised, they started taking over the Western auto and electronics market, much to the chargin of the Western companies. To save the US auto mobile monopoly, the infamous "Chicken tax" was introduced, where Japanese trucks (not cars) were slapped with a tariff of 25%.
When Japan matured as a economic powerhouse, they normalised relations with SoKo in 1960s. This normalisation involved HUGE amounts of money (~$10 billion USD in present money), setting up of the Pohang Steel Company (now known as POSCO) and other tech. SoKo under the leadership of Park Chung Hee, a former decorated soldier of the Imperial Japanese army, followed the Japanese template to transform from the poorest country in Asia in 1950s to a powerhouse by the late 1980s, so much so as to threaten and overtake Japanese in certain sectors- Samsung is bigger than any Japanese electronics company.
Japan also funded China with know how, money and infra and Chinese happily lapped up and stole what they could while cursing the Japanese all the time.
So the story is that all these countries for several reasons (colonial guilt, short-term business plans) transferred lots of money and unrestricted technology to nations that ended up rivalling or even surpassing them in some of their core areas.
Now, the countries are far more cautious, every worthwhile technology comes with huge checks and balances and restrictions. Emergence of strict IP laws was also in line with these experiences. Other tech will be outright denies to us as it was the case with missile development and space tech. We did get to see the designs of rockets and launchers etc. but the critical details such as engine tech, metallurgy, alloy composition, fuel etc. were off limits. ISRO scientists had to do all of this the hard way and this is why our first GSLV launch happened only recently.
That's a given, the problem is the naivety that we often have in our industry, to belive we can do things that others can, although they are decades ahead of us. The knowledge and experience doesn't come just like that and sadly the LCA programme is proof of that. So we need to be more realistic in our own developments to be successful. Risk reduction via off the shelf parts, JVs or even joint developments are crucial and the focus must be on the success of the programme, not the indigenous content => LCA MK1A
We have no choice but to take the long route and learn along the way. Of course this is not to say we cannot and should not learn from. We can learn from their experiences to perhaps leap frog the development cycle in some areas or avoid their mistakes in others. But eventually we'll have to get there on our own.
As you said, off the shelf commercial parts are important and it would be foolish to try and re-invent the wheel, where the tech is widely and unrestrictedly available and there's little threat of sanctions stymieing the process, because these stuffs are so widely used that restricting them is impossible without causing a cascading affect. BUT, all the JVs in the world will NOT allow for the transfer of sensitive tech, regardless of the status of our industrial sector. Not only because these companies do not wish to empower future competitor by sharing critical know how as many did in the past, but also because they fear a loss or theft of technology and it reaching places that would have very unpleasant consequences.
Experience will come only when we get our hands dirty and keep learning, innovating and improving along the way. Else we'll keep doing
screwdrivergiri for the foreseeable future.
