India’s Military Evolution:

 From the Lessons of 1947 to the Multi-Domain Force of 2026

From Kashmir and Rezang La to Kargil, Balakot and Operation Sindoor, India’s military journey reflects eight decades of hard lessons, technological adaptation and an increasingly determined pursuit of strategic autonomy.

             INDEPENDENCE DAY SPECIAL — 2026

On India’s 80th Independence Day, this special World & Words analysis traces the evolution of India’s armed forces from the military challenges of 1947 to the precision, jointness and multi-domain capabilities shaping India’s strategic posture in 2026.

                By Mitin Sheth (Shanilohit) | August 15,2026

                                        Estimated Reading Time: 18–20 minutes

Introduction

India entered independence in 1947 with armed forces inherited from the British Empire, a divided military establishment, limited indigenous defence-industrial capacity and borders that would almost immediately be tested by war. Nearly eight decades later, the strategic picture is dramatically different.

India operates nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines, aircraft carriers, long-range missile systems, modern combat aircraft, satellites, drones, integrated air-defence networks and an expanding domestic defence-industrial base. Yet this transformation did not occur through a single modernization programme. It was shaped by experience—sometimes through victory, sometimes through painful failure.

The 1947–48 Kashmir War exposed the importance of logistics and air mobility. The shock of 1962 forced India to reconsider assumptions about China and Himalayan defence. Nathu La and Cho La in 1967 demonstrated a more confident military posture. The 1971 war showed what coordinated political and military strategy could achieve. Kargil exposed intelligence and surveillance vulnerabilities. Balakot altered India’s response calculus against cross-border terrorism. Operation Sindoor subsequently demonstrated how precision-strike capabilities, intelligence, air defence, electronic warfare and increasingly networked military operations are changing India’s approach to limited conflict.

The story of India’s military evolution is therefore not simply about acquiring more weapons. It is about learning how national power must adapt when the nature of the threat itself changes.

Early Challenges: The 1947–48 Indo-Pakistan War

At independence, India inherited a military establishment undergoing one of the most difficult reorganizations imaginable. Personnel, equipment and infrastructure had to be divided between India and Pakistan even as violence accompanied Partition. Within months, Kashmir became the first major military test.

The conflict demonstrated the extraordinary importance of logistics and mobility in mountainous warfare. India’s emergency airlift of troops to Srinagar became critical to preventing the loss of the Kashmir Valley. The experience established a lesson that would repeatedly return over the following decades: India’s northern borders could not be defended by manpower alone. Roads, airfields, communications, logistics and the ability to reinforce remote positions rapidly were themselves strategic weapons.

The war also exposed India’s dependence on inherited and imported equipment. An independent foreign policy ultimately required something more difficult—an independent capacity to sustain military power.

The Harsh Awakening: The 1962 Sino-Indian War

The Himalayan debacle of 1962 was more than a military defeat; it was a national reckoning. India’s leadership had pursued the Forward Policy, establishing positions along disputed frontiers even though many lacked adequate logistical and military support. When Chinese forces launched coordinated offensives in Ladakh and the North-East Frontier Agency, Indian troops confronted severe disadvantages in deployment, equipment, communications and supply.

Yet the story of 1962 cannot simply be reduced to military inadequacy. Indian soldiers fought with exceptional courage under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. Rezang La became one of the defining examples of that resistance, where troops of 13 Kumaon fought against overwhelming odds. Courage, however, could not compensate for systemic weaknesses.

The limited use of offensive air power during the conflict remains one of the most debated decisions of the war. More broadly, 1962 demonstrated the consequences of allowing political assumptions about an adversary to outrun military preparedness. The consequences were profound. India expanded and reorganized its Army, strengthened mountain warfare capabilities and accelerated defence procurement. The conflict also contributed to a major expansion of India’s military relationship with the Soviet Union, including the eventual manufacture of MiG-21 aircraft in India. Infrastructure and logistics along the Himalayan frontier assumed much greater strategic importance.

Most importantly, 1962 destroyed the assumption that difficult geography itself could guarantee security. Its enduring lesson was uncomfortable but necessary:Diplomacy is strongest when supported by credible military capability.

Pushback and Tactical Recalibration: Nathu La and Cho La, 1967

Only five years after the trauma of 1962, India and China confronted each other again in Sikkim. This time the outcome was markedly different. During the clashes at Nathu La and subsequently Cho La in September–October 1967, Indian forces held their positions and responded forcefully.

The engagements were limited compared with the 1962 war, but their psychological and strategic significance was considerable. They demonstrated that India had absorbed at least some of the lessons of the earlier conflict: stronger positions, better tactical confidence and a greater willingness to respond rather than withdraw. Government accounts of the Nathu La battle describe the Indian counter-offensive as inflicting heavy losses on Chinese forces. The clashes of 1967 therefore became an important bridge between the trauma of 1962 and the more confident Indian military posture that followed.

Strategic Dominance: The 1971 War

The 1971 India–Pakistan War remains India’s most decisive conventional military victory. Its significance went far beyond battlefield success. Within thirteen days of full-scale hostilities, the political geography of South Asia had fundamentally changed and Bangladesh emerged as an independent nation.

What distinguished the campaign was the alignment of military operations with a clearly defined political objective. Indian forces advanced rapidly in the eastern theatre while the Indian Air Force increasingly constrained Pakistan’s ability to reinforce and sustain its Eastern Command. The culmination came on 16 December 1971, when Lieutenant General A.A.K. Niazi signed the Instrument of Surrender in Dhaka before Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora. Government of India records describe the surrender of approximately 93,000 Pakistani personnel, and the photograph of the surrender became one of the defining images of modern South Asian history. But 1971 was not merely an Army victory.

The Naval Dimension

At sea, India demonstrated how maritime power could decisively shape a continental conflict. Pakistan dispatched its long-range submarine PNS Ghazi toward India’s eastern coast, where INS Vikrant represented a critical threat to Pakistani operations. Ghazi sank off Visakhapatnam during the opening phase of the war. The precise cause of the submarine’s destruction has remained historically debated, so it is more accurate to describe its loss than to state categorically a mechanism that remains disputed.

Its disappearance nevertheless removed an important submarine threat from the eastern theatre. INS Vikrant, India’s first aircraft carrier, subsequently played a vital role in the 1971 campaign—a role that the Government of India continues to officially recognize. On the western seaboard, Operation Trident and Operation Python demonstrated the offensive potential of Indian naval missile warfare against Karachi.

The broader significance of 1971 therefore lay in India’s ability to combine land operations, air power, maritime operations and diplomacy in pursuit of a coherent political objective. It established an enduring principle: military success becomes strategically decisive when battlefield operations serve a clearly defined national purpose. India had demonstrated that it could do more than defend territory. Under exceptional circumstances, it could reshape the regional balance of power.

High-Altitude Warfare: The 1999 Kargil Conflict

The 1999 Kargil War confronted India with a military challenge fundamentally different from the conventional wars of 1947–48, 1962 or 1971. This was a limited conflict fought under a nuclear shadow, across some of the world’s most unforgiving mountain terrain, while political leadership deliberately imposed geographical limits on the Indian military response.

Pakistani forces had crossed the Line of Control and occupied a series of commanding heights in the Kargil–Drass sector. Many of these positions stood above 5,000 metres, overlooking approaches connected to the strategically vital Srinagar–Leh highway. From these elevated positions, defenders enjoyed an enormous tactical advantage: Indian troops attempting to recapture the heights often had to climb steep or near-vertical slopes while exposed to observation and fire from above.

The intrusion exposed serious weaknesses in India’s surveillance, intelligence assessment and early-warning mechanisms. But once the scale of the occupation became clear, the military response developed into Operation Vijay, an intensive campaign to reclaim the occupied Indian positions. The political constraint was equally significant. The Government of India directed that Indian forces would not cross the Line of Control. This meant that the Army had to remove the intruders through direct operations on the Indian side rather than widening the battlefield into Pakistan-controlled territory.

Tololing: The Momentum Begins to Shift

Among the early decisive battles was the struggle for Tololing in the Drass sector. The position was tactically important because the surrounding heights dominated approaches in the region. Indian troops repeatedly assaulted heavily defended mountain positions under extraordinarily difficult conditions.

On 13 June 1999, Tololing and Point 4590 were recaptured, providing one of Operation Vijay’s first major breakthroughs. The victory helped shift battlefield momentum and opened the way for further operations against Pakistani-held heights. But Kargil was increasingly demonstrating that infantry courage alone could not solve the tactical problem. Artillery became crucial.

Concentrated artillery fire was used to suppress and destroy fortified positions before infantry assaults. The conflict consequently reinforced an enduring lesson of mountain warfare: when geography gives the defender overwhelming natural protection, firepower, observation, logistics and infantry manoeuvre must function together.

Operation Safed Sagar: Air Power at Extreme Altitude

The Indian Air Force entered the campaign through Operation Safed Sagar on 26 May 1999. Operating combat aircraft in the Himalayas presented unusual technical challenges. High altitude affected aircraft and weapon performance, while mountainous terrain complicated target identification and attack profiles. The political instruction not to cross the Line of Control added another operational constraint.

The IAF employed aircraft including the MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-27, Mirage 2000 and MiG-29, together with helicopters and reconnaissance platforms. The Mirage 2000 became particularly important. Its precision-strike capability, including the use of laser-guided weapons, demonstrated the growing importance of accurate air-delivered firepower against fortified mountain positions. Government records describe Mirage 2000 aircraft conducting precision strikes with laser-guided bombs during Operation Safed Sagar.

The scale of the air effort was substantial. Official Indian Air Force figures released for the 25th anniversary of Kargil state that the IAF flew approximately 5,000 strike missions, 350 reconnaissance/ELINT missions, around 800 escort flights and more than 2,000 helicopter sorties for casualty evacuation and air transport during the campaign.

Kargil therefore became an important demonstration of how air power could support ground forces in extremely difficult terrain without automatically expanding a limited conflict into a broader war.

Tiger Hill and Point 4875: Courage on the Heights

Few images from the conflict became as deeply embedded in India’s national memory as the battle for Tiger Hill. After a difficult assault against heavily defended positions, Indian forces recaptured Tiger Hill on 4 July 1999. Its fall represented both an operational success and an enormous psychological victory.

Fierce fighting continued at Point 4875, Batalik, Mushkoh Valley and other positions. These battles produced some of the most celebrated acts of individual courage in modern Indian military history. Captain Vikram Batra fought and died during operations around Point 4875, while Grenadier Yogendra Singh Yadav displayed extraordinary courage during the assault on Tiger Hill. Both were awarded the Param Vir Chakra, India’s highest wartime gallantry award.

Behind these famous names stood thousands of soldiers fighting against an adversary and an environment that could both kill. Cold, thin air, steep gradients, inadequate cover and the physical burden of carrying weapons and supplies uphill transformed even movement toward an objective into an ordeal. Victory therefore came at a heavy price. Official Ministry of Defence figures record 527 Indian soldiers as having made the supreme sacrifice during the Kargil War.

The Strategic Lessons of Kargil

Kargil did not end when the final positions were reclaimed. Its institutional consequences extended far beyond the battlefield. The conflict exposed vulnerabilities in intelligence coordination, surveillance and the ability to detect occupation of remote high-altitude positions. It reinforced India’s requirement for better satellite reconnaissance, unmanned surveillance, communications, specialized high-altitude equipment and stronger mechanisms for intelligence sharing.

It also demonstrated the importance of joint military operations. The Army’s ground campaign under Operation Vijay and the Air Force’s Operation Safed Sagar increasingly demonstrated how different services could combine their capabilities against a common operational problem. The Navy also deployed during the conflict, adding another dimension to India’s strategic pressure.

But perhaps Kargil’s most important lesson concerned escalation control. India possessed the military capability to widen the conflict, yet political leadership deliberately kept operations on the Indian side of the Line of Control. Military force was therefore used aggressively at the tactical level while remaining restrained at the strategic level. This combination—battlefield determination with political control over escalation—became one of the most important lessons of the conflict.

Kargil consequently occupies a distinctive place in India’s post-Independence military history. 1962 demonstrated the consequences of inadequate preparedness. 1971 demonstrated the possibilities of decisive conventional warfare. Kargil demonstrated how India could fight and win a limited war while consciously preventing that war from becoming unlimited.

That lesson would become increasingly important as India entered an era in which terrorism, precision weapons and nuclear deterrence made the boundary between military retaliation and uncontrolled escalation progressively more difficult to manage.

Changing the Threshold: The Balakot Airstrikes

February 2019 marked another important shift in India’s response to cross-border terrorism. Following the Pulwama terrorist attack, Indian Air Force Mirage 2000 aircraft struck a target near Balakot in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

The geographical location mattered. Balakot lay beyond the Line of Control. India was signalling that terrorist infrastructure could no longer automatically assume sanctuary simply because it was located deeper inside Pakistani territory. The operation therefore represented more than an air strike; it represented an attempt to alter the established threshold of retaliation.

India publicly characterized the action as a non-military pre-emptive strike against a Jaish-e-Mohammed facility, deliberately framing the operation in counter-terrorism rather than conventional-war terms. Pakistan responded with air operations the following day, and Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman was captured after his MiG-21 Bison was shot down. His subsequent release illustrated both the danger of rapid escalation and the diplomatic mechanisms available for containing it.

Strategically, Balakot demonstrated that India was prepared to accept greater operational risk in responding to terrorism. It also reinforced the need for improved intelligence, electronic warfare, stand-off weapons, integrated air defence and modern combat aircraft. Balakot’s enduring significance therefore lies not simply in what was struck. It lies in the threshold that India demonstrated it was willing to cross.

 Operation Sindoor: Precision Warfare and the New Indian Response

Operation Sindoor represents another stage in India’s evolving military doctrine—but it must be described accurately. Unlike the earlier characterization of Sindoor primarily as a covert operation, the operation became a publicly acknowledged Indian military response involving precision strikes and subsequent multi-domain military exchanges. This distinction matters.

Operation Sindoor demonstrated that India’s evolving deterrence model increasingly combines intelligence, precision weapons, air power, air and missile defence, electronic warfare, drones and networked command systems. Modern warfare is no longer separated neatly into land, air and sea. Sensors detect targets; satellites and unmanned platforms contribute intelligence; electronic-warfare systems attempt to disrupt communications and radar; air-defence networks intercept incoming threats; and precision weapons allow commanders to attack selected targets without automatically initiating large-scale territorial warfare.

Operation Sindoor therefore belongs within the broader transition toward multi-domain warfare. The objective is not simply to possess more firepower. It is to connect information, sensors, decision-making and weapons rapidly enough to create military advantage while maintaining political control over escalation. The Government of India has itself emphasized the coordination of the Army, Navy and Air Force during Operation Sindoor.

For India’s defence planners, the operation will therefore be studied not simply for the weapons employed, but for what it reveals about future limited conflicts under the nuclear shadow.

Self-Reliance and Strategic Posture in 2026

By 2026, India’s military posture combines imported capabilities, long-standing international defence partnerships and an increasingly ambitious indigenous industrial programme. The objective of Atmanirbhar Bharat in defence is not complete isolation from foreign technology. That would be neither realistic nor strategically desirable. The more important objective is reducing critical vulnerabilities.

A nation that cannot manufacture ammunition, repair platforms, replace losses, maintain supply chains or upgrade key technologies independently can find its political freedom constrained during prolonged conflict. India’s expanding indigenous ecosystem now encompasses missiles, artillery, warships, aircraft, radars, electronic systems, drones and other technologies.

From Technology Denial to Defence Exports

India’s pursuit of self-reliance did not begin in 2026. Its foundations were laid decades earlier as successive crises demonstrated the strategic risks of technological dependence. A major institutional turning point came in 1983 with the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP) under the leadership of Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. The programme encompassed Prithvi, Trishul, Akash and Nag, while Agni began as a technology-demonstration project whose technology fed into the later Agni series.

The 1998 Pokhran-II nuclear tests provided another powerful reminder of the vulnerability created by dependence on external technology. The sanctions and technology-denial environment that followed reinforced a strategic lesson India had encountered repeatedly since Independence: access to critical technologies could become uncertain precisely when national security required them most.

The transformation is now visible not merely in what India produces for its own armed forces, but increasingly in what it can supply abroad. Official Ministry of Defence figures put India’s defence production at a record ₹1.78 lakh crore in FY 2025–26, while defence exports reached a record ₹38,424 crore. Government data also state that Indian defence products are now exported to more than 80 countries.

This represents an important evolution in India’s strategic trajectory—from dependence on imported weapons, through licensed production and indigenous development, toward becoming an increasingly significant defence manufacturer and exporter.

The transition from buyer to builder—and increasingly from builder to exporter—is therefore one of the clearest measurable expressions of India’s pursuit of strategic autonomy.

The modern INS Vikrant illustrates this transformation particularly well. Designed by the Indian Navy’s Warship Design Bureau and constructed by Cochin Shipyard, the indigenous carrier represents a major advance in India’s domestic naval-industrial capability. Self-reliance should therefore not be understood merely as an industrial slogan. It is increasingly a component of strategic autonomy.

 Nuclear Readiness: What SIPRI Yearbook 2026 Actually Shows

India’s military evolution cannot be understood without examining the nuclear dimension. According to the SIPRI Yearbook 2026, India’s estimated military nuclear stockpile stood at approximately 190 warheads in January 2026.

More significantly, SIPRI’s table estimates 10 Indian warheads as deployed, defining deployed warheads as those placed on missiles or located at bases with operational forces. SIPRI emphasizes that all such figures are approximate open-source estimates. SIPRI further assesses that India may now occasionally deploy a small number of nuclear warheads mounted on missiles during peacetime.

This distinction is crucial. It would be misleading to imply that India has suddenly placed its entire nuclear force on operational alert. What the SIPRI assessment suggests instead is a gradual evolution associated with modernization of delivery systems and changes in readiness.

India continues developing land-, air- and sea-based nuclear delivery capabilities, while its ballistic-missile submarine programme strengthens the survivability of its deterrent. China’s expanding nuclear forces and India’s long-standing strategic competition with Pakistan remain central elements of this environment. SIPRI specifically notes India’s increasing focus on longer-range systems capable of reaching targets throughout China.

Nuclear modernization therefore strengthens deterrence—but it also increases the importance of command-and-control reliability, political restraint and crisis communication.

From ₹93 Crore to ₹7.85 Lakh Crore: Financing India’s Military Transformation

India's military evolution since Independence can also be traced through another revealing measure: the resources the nation was prepared to commit to its defence.

In India's first post-Independence budget covering 15 August 1947 to 31 March 1948, estimated net expenditure on Defence Services stood at approximately ₹92.74 crore. Remarkably, defence accounted for roughly half of the Central Government's revenue expenditure at the time—a reflection of Partition, internal instability and the immediate security pressures confronting the new Republic.

The following year, the 1948–49 Defence Services Budget Estimate rose to ₹121.08 crore, excluding another ₹14.99 crore of capital expenditure for land, training establishments, accommodation, naval vessels, aircraft and associated equipment. Even in its earliest years, therefore, independent India was being forced to invest simultaneously in immediate military readiness and the foundations of a national defence infrastructure.

The 1962 shock fundamentally changed that equation.

Before the Sino-Indian War, defence expenditure remained comparatively constrained. Historical expenditure series place the 1962–63 defence allocation at roughly ₹372 crore. The military defeat triggered one of the sharpest defence-spending corrections in independent India's history: the subsequent budget allocation rose to approximately ₹867 crore. Defence spending consequently moved sharply upward as India expanded its Army, raised mountain formations, strengthened infrastructure and accelerated weapons procurement.

The financial consequences of war appeared again in 1971–72. As the crisis in East Pakistan developed into the India–Pakistan War and ultimately the liberation of Bangladesh, India's defence expenditure increased by approximately 27 percent over the preceding year—one of the largest wartime increases after 1962.

By the time India fought the Kargil War in 1999, the scale of the defence establishment had changed beyond recognition. Historical expenditure data place defence spending at approximately ₹45,690 crore in 1999–2000, compared with about ₹39,890 crore in 1998–99. Kargil subsequently reinforced the requirement for surveillance, intelligence, precision weapons, high-altitude equipment, communications and technological modernization.

The scale expanded dramatically again in the twenty-first century. By 2013–14, India's Ministry of Defence allocation had reached approximately ₹2.53 lakh crore under the comparable government series.

For 2026–27, the allocation stands at a record ₹7.85 lakh crore.

The nominal numbers tell an extraordinary story:

1947–48 — approximately ₹93 crore

↓

1962–63 — approximately ₹372 crore

↓

Post-1962 expansion — approximately ₹867 crore

↓

1971–72 — major wartime increase of approximately 27%

↓

1999–2000 — approximately ₹45,690 crore

↓

2013–14 — approximately ₹2.53 lakh crore

↓

2026–27 — ₹7.85 lakh crore

These figures, however, must be interpreted carefully. A rupee in 1947 cannot meaningfully be compared at face value with a rupee in 2026. Inflation, GDP growth, changes in accounting methodology, pensions, personnel costs and the expanding size and technological complexity of India's armed forces all affect the comparison.

The historical significance lies elsewhere.

India's defence expenditure repeatedly changed when the country's strategic environment changed. 1947 demanded survival; 1962 forced military reconstruction; 1971 required the resources for decisive conventional warfare; Kargil exposed the cost of technological and surveillance gaps; and the contemporary era demands investment in missiles, aircraft, warships, space, cyber capabilities, drones, electronic warfare, artificial intelligence and indigenous defence production.

The 2026–27 budget therefore represents more than a larger financial number. A record ₹2.19 lakh crore has been provided under the capital head, while approximately ₹1.39 lakh crore of the modernisation budget is earmarked for procurement from domestic defence industries.

That connection between military expenditure and indigenous capability is central to India's pursuit of strategic autonomy.

The real measure of defence spending is not how much money appears in the Budget. It is how effectively that money is converted into readiness, deterrence, technological advantage and the ability to sustain a war without critical dependence on another country.

 Conclusion: From Inherited Arms to Strategic Autonomy

India's military history since independence is not a straight progression from weakness to strength.

It is a history of adaptation.

1947–48 demonstrated the importance of mobility and logistics.

1962 exposed the cost of strategic unpreparedness.

1967 restored confidence on the Himalayan frontier.

1971 demonstrated the power of coordinated military and political strategy.

Kargil exposed surveillance weaknesses while demonstrating India's capacity for controlled conventional response.

Balakot challenged an established threshold in responding to cross-border terrorism.

Operation Sindoor demonstrated the growing importance of precision, integration and multi-domain operations.

And 2026 finds India confronting the next transformation: artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, cyber warfare, space-based surveillance, hypersonic weapons and increasingly compressed military decision cycles.

The journey from inherited rifles and wartime shortages to indigenous missiles, nuclear submarines, modern fighters and aircraft carriers is therefore about more than military hardware.

It is about sovereignty.

Because ultimately, strategic autonomy does not mean standing alone.

It means possessing the national capability to make critical decisions without having those decisions dictated by military dependence on somebody else.

Mitin Sheth (Shanilohit)

(Senior Columnist, Janmabhoomi Group of Newspapers | Author | Geopolitical Analyst | Strategic Book Reviewer)

Selected References

1. SIPRI — SIPRI Yearbook 2026: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security

2. Government of India / PIB — Kargil Vijay Diwas 2026 / Operation Vijay

3. Indian Air Force / PIB — 25 Years of Kargil Victory: Operation Safed Sagar

4. Government of India / PIB — 1971 Victory and Surrender

5. Government of India / PIB — Operation Sindoor: Tri-Service Coordination

6. Ministry of Defence / PIB — Operation Sindoor and the New Military Ethos,  May 2026

7. Ministry of Defence / PIB — Defence Production FY 2025–26

8. Ministry of Defence / PIB — Defence Exports FY 2025–26

9. Government of India / PIB — Operation Sindoor and Multi-Domain Capability

10. Government of India / PIB — Tri-Service Operational Synergy
 

Disclaimer

This article is an independent journalistic and strategic analysis based on historical records, official publications, defence literature and publicly available open-source information. It does not disclose classified information or operational secrets. References to military capabilities and operations are contextual and analytical and do not represent the official position of the Government of India or the Indian Armed Forces. Nuclear-force figures are open-source estimates and should not be interpreted as officially declared Indian data.

"Independently authored work. AI tools were used only for supportive tasks (research, translation, editing, image generation, and grammatical/punctuation correction). Final content and creative direction are the author’s own".

Copyright Notice

Copyright © 2026 Mitin Sheth (Shanilohit). All Rights Reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced, distributed or republished without prior written permission from the author, except for brief quotations permitted under applicable copyright law.