Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal’s call to industry to cut import dependence, particularly in capital goods, has come at an awkward moment. The rupee has slipped to fresh record lows near 97 to the dollar, oil prices remain elevated because of the West Asia crisis, and India’s April merchandise trade deficit widened to $28.38 billion. The external account has again forced an old question on policymakers: can India reduce dependence on imported machinery without slowing the very industrial expansion it seeks to promote?
Capital goods imports and India’s manufacturing ambitions
Capital goods occupy a special place in this debate. Consumer goods imports can often be curbed or substituted without serious damage to productivity. Capital goods are different. They are the machines, tools, industrial systems and precision equipment that enable production across automobiles, pharmaceuticals, electronics, textiles, renewable energy and heavy engineering.
READ | Gold imports, oil prices expose limits of austerity calls
India’s manufacturing ambitions now extend to electric vehicles, semiconductor fabrication, green energy equipment, electronics and defence production. Many of these sectors depend on imported technology, imported machine tools and imported production systems. India is, therefore, importing many of the tools it needs to become a manufacturing power.
That dependence has grown because domestic capability has not kept pace with industrial ambition. Imported machinery, electronics manufacturing tools, semiconductor systems, high-end robotics, precision instruments and heavy engineering equipment expose firms to exchange-rate shocks and supply disruptions. A weakening rupee only makes that exposure more visible.
The April trade numbers show the pressure. A wider merchandise deficit, higher oil imports and capital outflows have revived concern over the import bill. Goyal’s appeal marks a shift from the usual emphasis on exports to a more active concern with import composition. The objective is understandable. The method will matter.
Import substitution cannot be forced
Replacing imported capital goods is not like replacing imported toys or luxury products. Indian manufacturers often buy foreign machinery because it offers higher precision, longer life, better software integration, lower downtime and assured compatibility with global production standards. Export-oriented firms cannot compromise on reliability merely to meet a localisation preference.
READ | Govt may raise tariffs to curb steel imports from China
The policy test, therefore, is not whether an imported machine can be replaced by an Indian one. It is whether the domestic alternative can deliver comparable productivity, precision, energy efficiency and after-sales reliability. A rupee saved on imports can be lost many times over if the machine raises defect rates, slows production or weakens export quality. Import substitution in capital goods must be judged by lifecycle competitiveness, not by the import bill alone.
Semiconductor manufacturing illustrates the constraint. Advanced chip fabrication equipment is dominated by a small group of companies in the Netherlands, Japan and the United States. Similar gaps exist in high-end machine tools, aerospace components, industrial robotics and advanced medical equipment. These are not sectors in which import substitution can be achieved by exhortation or tariff walls.
India’s domestic capital goods base is not weak across the board. Rajkot, Ludhiana, Batala, Jalandhar and Pune have engineering clusters with real capability. India has strengths in auto components, pumps, castings, forgings and machine parts. But much of this base remains concentrated in low- and mid-technology segments. Precision engineering, advanced controls, industrial software and specialised production systems remain areas of dependence.
This is the core policy problem. If localisation is pushed before domestic firms can match imported quality, Indian manufacturers will face higher costs. That will hurt export competitiveness. It may also discourage firms from investing in new capacity at a time when manufacturing growth needs scale, technology and confidence.
Manufacturing competitiveness is the real test
The economics of production is not decided by patriotism. Indian firms face high logistics costs, expensive credit, regulatory uncertainty and uneven infrastructure. A foreign machine may be more expensive at the point of purchase, but cheaper over its life cycle because it produces more, breaks down less and meets global standards.
This is why import substitution must not become a return to pre-1991 industrial policy. India has seen that model before. High tariff protection and licensing produced technological stagnation, poor quality and firms that survived because competition was kept out. Policymakers today know this history. The wiser course is not blanket protectionism, but capability creation.
Production-linked incentive schemes have shown that targeted state support can work when it is tied to output, scale and investment. Electronics, solar modules, telecom equipment, batteries and drones have benefited from this approach. The next challenge is harder. Industrial machinery and capital equipment require deeper technology, patient capital, design capability and supplier ecosystems.
READ | Chinese imports: India needs to curb growing dependence
Government procurement can support domestic firms. Standards can encourage quality. Incentives can reduce risk. But tariffs alone cannot create machine-tool champions or semiconductor equipment suppliers. That requires research, engineering talent, testing facilities, long-term orders and partnerships with global firms.
Global supply chains and self-reliance
India’s manufacturing growth depends on integration with global trade and technology networks. The country cannot become a manufacturing hub by isolating itself from the machinery, components and know-how that define modern production. Its trade policy reflects this reality. India is pursuing free trade agreements even as it speaks of self-reliance. The India-Oman agreement is expected to come into force from June 1, and the government has been highlighting market access arrangements with developed economies.
This apparent tension is not necessarily a contradiction. India needs openness where technology access is critical and domestic capacity where import dependence creates strategic or macroeconomic vulnerability. The difficult task is to distinguish between the two.
The country has emerged as a major services economy and a large consumer market. Manufacturing depth remains uneven. That gap cannot be closed by appeals to buy Indian alone. It will require firms to invest in technology upgrading, the state to reduce production costs, and policy to reward competitiveness rather than mere localisation.
Goyal’s warning is useful if it pushes industry to identify avoidable imports and build domestic alternatives where capability exists. It would be damaging if it becomes another excuse for protection without performance. India needs fewer imported vulnerabilities, but it also needs world-class machinery. The test of policy is to reduce the first without sacrificing the second.