• Bhupendra Gupta

Following the Galwan Valley clash in 2020, India fundamentally recalibrated its economic engagement with Chinese companies by placing national security at the forefront of policy. Restrictions were imposed on government procurement, strategic infrastructure, telecommunications, and foreign direct investment. The objective was unambiguous—to reduce dependence on China in strategic sectors and advance the vision of an Atmanirbhar Bharat (Self-Reliant India).

Against this backdrop, the government’s decision to grant four Chinese-linked power equipment manufacturers a two-year exemption to participate in critical power sector tenders inevitably raises important questions. It suggests that even after six years, India has not developed sufficient domestic industrial capacity. Otherwise, what justifies such an exception?

The government’s argument is that the rapidly expanding power sector requires an uninterrupted supply of high-voltage transmission equipment. While this may be a practical consideration, it also invites a legitimate question: has enough been done to prepare Indian industry for this challenge? Were public-sector giant BHEL and capable private manufacturers provided long-term procurement commitments, research support, and technological assistance on the same scale as the government’s repeated promises of self-reliance?

Self-reliance is not merely a slogan; it is built through public procurement policy. If major government contracts continue to be awarded to foreign companies, how will Indian manufacturers expand their production capacity? Industrial investment grows only when businesses have confidence in sustained future demand. If foreign firms are repeatedly allowed entry through policy exceptions, the incentive to strengthen domestic manufacturing will inevitably weaken.

India’s capabilities are not confined to the public sector alone. Besides BHEL, companies such as CG Power & Industrial Solutions, Hitachi Energy India, GE Vernova T&D India, Siemens Energy India, TD Power Systems, Voltamp Transformers, and Transformers & Rectifiers (India) possess experience in manufacturing high-capacity transformers, gas-insulated switchgear (GIS), circuit breakers, substations, and other transmission equipment. With assured long-term government orders, greater investment in research and development, technological upgradation, and capacity expansion, these companies could meet a substantially larger share of India’s requirements. The obvious question, therefore, is why policy is creating exceptions for foreign firms instead of strengthening existing domestic capabilities.

This is not merely an economic issue; it is equally a matter of national security. Power transmission infrastructure is a strategic national asset. Dependence on companies from a country with which India continues to have unresolved border disputes and security concerns demands careful long-term consideration.

If India genuinely faces a shortage of such equipment, the government should present a transparent roadmap explaining how this gap will be eliminated over the next five years. What additional manufacturing capacity will be created? What incentives will be extended to Indian companies? What concrete measures will be taken to promote research, technology transfer, and export competitiveness? Temporary exemptions are not a long-term solution. Building durable domestic capacity is.

The government has clarified that this exemption is not a change in policy but a one-time exception under special circumstances. History, however, demonstrates that repeated exceptions often evolve into policy itself.

India must decide whether it wishes to pursue short-term convenience or long-term industrial self-reliance. If ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ remains confined to speeches while strategic sectors continue to depend on foreign suppliers, the vision will remain incomplete.

The exemption granted to these four Chinese-linked companies is not merely about four firms. It is a test of India’s industrial policy, national security priorities, and the credibility of its commitment to self-reliance.

The real question is this: what direction does India want its industrial policy to take? If domestic companies lack sufficient capacity, it is the government’s responsibility to help build it. If they still remain inadequate after six years, the government must explain what progress has actually been made toward self-reliance.

Self-reliance does not mean rejecting foreign companies altogether. It means giving Indian industry the first opportunity to grow in sectors that are strategically vital.

Ultimately, the government must answer a fundamental question: Is ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ a serious policy commitment, or merely a slogan to be set aside whenever circumstances become difficult? In strategic sectors, permanent dependence on imports can never be a substitute for genuine self-reliance.

(The author is Chairman Congress Vichar Vibhag MP)