RBI curbs test India’s rupee internationalisation: Global shocks have pushed the rupee lower. Since the escalation of the West Asia conflict in late February 2026, the currency has weakened by over 4% against the dollar, breaching 95 at one point. Oil prices, capital outflows, and risk aversion have combined to drive the slide.
The Reserve Bank of India has responded with targeted curbs in foreign exchange markets. These measures aim to contain volatility and speculative pressure. They also sit uneasily with India’s longer-term goal of rupee internationalisation.
READ | RBI’s rupee defence is about volatility, not control
Rupee depreciation and external pressures
The pressure has been building through FY26. The rupee has depreciated close to 10% against the dollar, making it one of Asia’s weaker currencies. India’s dependence on imported oil has amplified vulnerability. Higher crude prices have widened the current account deficit.
Capital flows have reinforced the trend. Foreign portfolio investors have pulled out tens of billions of dollars from Indian markets. This has tightened dollar liquidity and accelerated the rupee’s decline.
RBI’s curbs on forex market activity
The RBI moved to curb speculative positioning. Banks’ net open positions in foreign exchange markets were capped at $100 million. The ability to offset onshore exposures with offshore non-deliverable forward (NDF) positions was removed. Banks were also barred from offering NDF contracts to clients, and restrictions were placed on rebooking derivative contracts.
These measures targeted arbitrage trades between offshore and domestic markets. Banks had built large positions by exploiting price differences, with exposures reportedly reaching $40 billion. The scale of these trades added momentum to the rupee’s fall.
READ | Rupee under pressure from oil shock and foreign outflows
Impact on banks and market functioning
Following the curbs, banks unwound positions quickly. This forced dollar selling and helped the rupee recover partially from its lows. The immediate objective—reducing speculative pressure—was achieved.
The costs are visible. Banks face losses on unwound positions. Hedging has become more expensive. Restrictions have reduced market flexibility. For foreign investors, these changes raise transaction costs and uncertainty.
The RBI has described the measures as temporary. Governor Sanjay Malhotra has indicated that they respond to specific market conditions rather than signal a policy shift. Even temporary controls, however, affect perceptions of predictability.
Alongside these regulatory measures, the RBI has also relied on direct intervention in currency markets. It has sold dollars in the spot market and used forward positions to smooth volatility. This draws on India’s foreign exchange reserves, which remain above $700 billion, but is not costless.
Sustained intervention tightens domestic liquidity unless sterilised and can expand the central bank’s forward book. The policy choice, therefore, is not between controls and inaction, but between different instruments with distinct costs and limits.
Rupee internationalisation versus market controls
India’s ambition to internationalise the rupee requires deep and liquid financial markets. It also requires openness. Market participants must be able to hedge freely and take positions without sudden constraints.
Frequent or abrupt interventions work against this objective. Investors look for rule-based frameworks. Discretionary controls, even if justified in the short term, weaken confidence in the long-term policy regime.
Economists have flagged the tension. Administrative controls cannot be sustained without affecting the broader agenda. India’s foreign exchange reserves, above $700 billion, provide a buffer. But neither reserve sales nor market restrictions can substitute for stronger fundamentals.
READ | RBI monetary policy and the rupee’s warning signals
Policy choices and the impossible trinity
Alternative tools exist. The central bank could attract inflows through non-resident deposits or adjust interest rates. This time, it has relied on targeted restrictions instead.
The trade-off reflects the “impossible trinity.” A country cannot simultaneously maintain a fixed exchange rate, free capital movement, and independent monetary policy. By intervening and imposing curbs, the RBI has prioritised exchange rate stability and monetary autonomy over full capital mobility.
This approach aligns with defensive policymaking across emerging markets. In periods of global stress, central banks act to contain volatility rather than allow disorderly market moves.
Limits of intervention
These measures buy time. They do not address underlying drivers: external shocks, oil dependence, and capital flow volatility. The current account deficit remains sensitive to energy prices. Portfolio flows remain cyclical.
The challenge is sequencing. Short-term stability measures must not derail long-term market development. Rupee internationalisation requires gradual liberalisation, not episodic tightening.
A stronger currency will follow stronger fundamentals. That includes export competitiveness, stable capital inflows, and deeper financial markets. Suppressing market activity cannot deliver that outcome.
The coming months will test the RBI’s calibration. The balance between intervention and openness will shape both currency stability and India’s financial ambitions.