Make in India, MSME Policy and Industrial Production Index
›Make in India launched: **September 2014**
›Make in India 2.0: 27 sectors (15 manufacturing + 12 services)
›Manufacturing GDP share: 16% (target 25% by 2025)
+ 25 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
**Make in India** was launched in **September 2014** by the Government of India as the first campaign of its kind for the manufacturing sector. It addresses regulation, infrastructure, skill development, technology, finance availability, and exit mechanisms. It also contains proposals for easier norms and rules to attract foreign companies.
**Make in India 2.0** focuses on **27 sectors:**
- 15 manufacturing sectors (coordinated by DPIIT — Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade)
- 12 service sectors (coordinated by Department of Commerce)
**Targets under Make in India:**
- Manufacturing sector growth: **12-14% per annum**
- Manufacturing share of GDP: **15% → 25% by 2025**
- Create **100 million additional jobs** by 2022 in manufacturing
- Increase domestic value addition and technological depth
- Enhance global competitiveness of the Indian manufacturing sector
- Create appropriate skill sets among rural migrants & urban poor for inclusive growth
- Ensure sustainability of growth, particularly with regard to environment
Successful examples of the Make in India initiative include manufacturing of railway coaches (Indian Coach Factory Chennai, Rail Coach Factory Kapurthala), defence manufacturing (HAL Tejas Light Combat Aircraft), mobile phone manufacturing (Samsung mobile factory in Noida), and automobiles. India is an emerging defence manufacturing hub with two Defence Industrial Corridors being set up in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. The initiative is also spearheading the wider adoption of 'Industry 4.0' technologies to increase competitiveness and build efficient value chains, with projects under the 'Smart Cities Mission' considered forerunners. For instance, General Electric (GE) established an Industry 4.0 smart factory in Pune in 2015.
**Challenges to Make in India:**
1. Low labour productivity — Indian manufacturing workers are 4-5x less productive than Thai/Chinese workers (McKinsey report)
2. FDI investment — much comes from Mauritius-based shell companies (suspected round-tripping of black money)
3. Small industrial unit sizes — cannot achieve economies of scale
4. Complicated outdated Labour Laws (conceived in independence era based on ISI/statist model)
5. Lack of adequate rail transport infrastructure
6. Costly and inconsistent electricity supply
7. Delay in land acquisition — takes 3-4 years vs. 2 years in other emerging economies
**MSMEs (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises):**
- Governed by **MSMED Act 2006** (provides first legal framework for concept of "enterprise" covering both manufacturing and services)
- MSME industries have advantages like labour intensiveness, low-cost technology, low capital/investment, short gestation period, and strong forward and backward linkages with other sectors. They play a crucial role in providing employment, industrialization of rural and backward areas, reducing regional imbalances, and assuring equitable distribution of national income and wealth.
- **New MSME Classification (revised definition):**
| Classification | Investment | Turnover |
|---|---|---|
| Micro | < Rs. 1 crore | < Rs. 5 crore |
| Small | < Rs. 10 crore | < Rs. 50 crore |
| Medium | < Rs. 50 crore | < Rs. 250 crore |
- Export turnover is **NOT counted** in the Turnover limits (incentivizes exports)
- MSMEs contribute: **30% of India's GDP**, **45% of manufacturing output**, **40% of exports**
- Total MSMEs: ~**6.34 crore** (90% are informal); employ **11 crore+ workers**
**Key MSME Schemes:**
- **Udyam Registration Number** — self-declaration registration with single unique identifier
- **RAMP (Raising and Accelerating MSME Performance)** — institutional strengthening, market and credit access, technology, delayed payments, greening
- **ASPIRE** — Scheme for Promoting Innovation and Rural Entrepreneurs; technology and incubation centres
- **CHAMPIONS** (May 2020) — Creation and Harmonious Application of Modern Processes for Increasing Output and National Strength; single-window ICT platform
- Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (Aatmanirbhar Bharat)
- U.K. Sinha Committee and K.V. Kamath Committee recommendations for MSME reforms
- Faster credit access: Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1 crore in 59 minutes (in-principle approval)
- Employment Exchange for Industries
- Framework for revival and rehabilitation of MSMEs
Major challenges faced by the MSME sector include: absence of adequate and timely banking finance, limited capital and knowledge, non-availability of suitable technology, low production capacity, ineffective marketing strategy, constraints on modernization & expansions, non-availability of skilled labour at affordable cost, and difficulties in follow-up with various government agencies for payments and problem resolution.
**Index of Industrial Production (IIP):**
- Compiled and published monthly by **National Statistical Office (NSO)**
- Released with time lag of **6 weeks**
- The scope of IIP as recommended by the United Nations Statistical Office (UNSO) includes mining, manufacturing, construction, electricity, gas and water supply; however, India's IIP excludes construction, gas and water supply sectors due to data constraints.
- **Base Year: 2011-12**
| Sector | Weight |
|---|---|
| Mining | 14.373% |
| Manufacturing | 77.633% |
| Electricity | 7.994% |
**Eight Core Industries** (40.27% of IIP weight):
Crude Oil, Natural Gas, Refinery Products, Coal, Steel, Cement, Electricity, Fertilizers
- Published monthly by Ministry of Commerce and Industry with time lag of **one month**
- Base year: 2011-12
- Their specific weights are: Crude Oil (8.98%), Natural Gas (6.88%), Refinery Products (28.04%), Coal (10.3%), Steel (17.9%), Cement (5.73%), Electricity (19.85%), Fertilizers (2.63%).
**KVIC (Khadi and Village Industries Commission):**
- Statutory body established in 1956 under "The Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act 1956"
- Objectives: employment, production of saleable articles, self-reliance among the poor, rural community spirit
- Functions include: planning and organizing training, building reserves of raw materials and implements, promoting sale and marketing, encouraging research in technology, providing financial assistance and technical information, promoting cooperative efforts, ensuring genuineness and quality standards, undertaking studies of challenges, and establishing separate organizations for these activities.
All key facts
›Make in India launched: **September 2014**
›Make in India 2.0: 27 sectors (15 manufacturing + 12 services)
›Manufacturing GDP share: 16% (target 25% by 2025)
›Services GDP share: 54%
›Make in India additional objectives: enhance global competitiveness, create skill sets for rural migrants & urban poor, ensure sustainability with environment. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›Make in India successful examples include railway coaches, defence manufacturing (HAL Tejas), mobile phones, and automobiles. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›India has two Defence Industrial Corridors being set up in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›According to McKinsey’s report, Indian workers in the manufacturing sector are, on average, almost four to five times less productive than their counterparts in Thailand and China. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›Indian labour laws were conceived during the independence period and are based on an import-substitution and statist (state intervention and control) model of economic development. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›The land acquisition process in India takes around 3 to 4 years compared to two years in other emerging economies. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
ppp models investment
Industrial Policy Resolution (IPR) 1948
›Independent India's first Industrial Policy Resolution was issued in April 1948.
›It reflected an economic outlook that favored a socialist society with a strong public sector, private property, and democracy, where the government would plan for the economy with private sector involvement.
›The IPR 1948 emphasized securing a continuous increase in production and its equitable distribution.
+ 9 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
The Industrial Policy Resolution (IPR) of 1948 was the first industrial policy issued by independent India, released in April 1948. It reflected an economic outlook that combined features of socialism with democracy and private property, aiming for a socialist society with a strong public sector. The IPR 1948 established the foundation for a mixed economy in India, clearly delineating the roles of both the public and private sectors in industrial development.
The resolution emphasized a continuous increase in production and its equitable distribution, articulating a progressively active role for the state in industrial development. It classified industries into four main categories based on the degree of government involvement: State Monopolies, Basic Industries, Regulated Industries, and Private Industries. This framework aimed to accelerate the pace of industrial development by encouraging coexistence and collaboration between public and private enterprises.
All key facts
›Independent India's first Industrial Policy Resolution was issued in April 1948.
›It reflected an economic outlook that favored a socialist society with a strong public sector, private property, and democracy, where the government would plan for the economy with private sector involvement.
›The IPR 1948 emphasized securing a continuous increase in production and its equitable distribution.
›It stated that the state must play a progressively active role in the development of industries.
›The resolution marked the dawn of the mixed economy in India.
›It outlined the roles of both the public and private sectors in India.
›The IPR 1948 classified industries into four categories:
›**State Monopolies:** Industries under the exclusive monopoly of the Government of India, including manufacturing of arms and ammunitions, atomic energy, and railway transport.
›**Basic Industries:** Industries considered basic for economic development and under the central government, such as coal, iron and steel, shipbuilding, aircraft manufacturing, telephone, telegraph and wireless, and mineral oils. Existing private companies in these sectors were allowed to continue.
›**Regulated Industries:** Important industries for the masses that the government would regulate (e.g., pricing, quantity of production), including automobiles, heavy machinery, chemicals, fertilizers, sugar, paper, cement, cotton, and woollen textiles.
›**Private Industries:** All other industries were open to the private sector and cooperatives.
›The main thrust of IPR 1948 was to lay the foundation of a mixed economy where public and private enterprises would coexist and accelerate industrial development.
Government Initiatives for MSME Sector
›The Indian Government has stressed MSMEs since the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, to improve economic conditions (p. 235).
›The primary responsibility for MSME promotion and development rests with State Governments, with the Government of India supplementing their efforts (p. 235).
›The Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and its organizations assist states in encouraging entrepreneurship, employment, livelihood opportunities, and enhancing MSME competitiveness (p. 235).
+ 18 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
The Indian government has consistently emphasized the promotion and development of the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSME) sector due to its significant contribution to employment generation, industrial production, and exports. While state governments bear the primary responsibility for MSME promotion, the Government of India supplements these efforts through various initiatives, with the Ministry of MSME playing a crucial role in assisting states to foster entrepreneurship, create employment, and enhance MSME competitiveness.
Key government strategies include creating a conducive regulatory environment, facilitating access to finance, encouraging technological upgradation, and addressing operational challenges. Notable initiatives range from simplifying registration processes through the Udyam Registration Number, to comprehensive development schemes like RAMP and ASPIRE that focus on institutional strengthening, market access, and innovation. Platforms like CHAMPIONS provide single-window solutions for MSMEs, while financial measures such as faster credit access and schemes under Aatma Nirbhar Bharat address funding gaps. The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006, provides the legal framework for the sector, including updated classification definitions to ensure appropriate benefits are extended to eligible enterprises. Additionally, the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC), established in 1956, plays a vital role in promoting khadi and village industries with objectives focused on employment, economic production, and rural self-reliance.
All key facts
›The Indian Government has stressed MSMEs since the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, to improve economic conditions (p. 235).
›The primary responsibility for MSME promotion and development rests with State Governments, with the Government of India supplementing their efforts (p. 235).
›The Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and its organizations assist states in encouraging entrepreneurship, employment, livelihood opportunities, and enhancing MSME competitiveness (p. 235).
›**Udyam Registration Number** allows MSMEs to self-certify their existence, bank details, and Aadhaar details to receive a unique identifier for accessing government services online (p. 235).
›**Raising and Accelerating MSME Performance (RAMP)** scheme aims to strengthen institutions, improve Centre-State linkages, enhance access to market and credit, facilitate technology upgradation, address delayed payments, and promote greening of MSMEs (p. 235).
›**A Scheme for Promoting Innovation and Rural Entrepreneurs (ASPIRE)** aims to establish a network of technology and incubation centers to accelerate entrepreneurship and promote start-ups in rural and agriculture-based industries (p. 236).
›An **Employment Exchange for Industries** has been launched to facilitate matchmaking between job seekers and employers (p. 236).
›A framework for the revival and rehabilitation of MSMEs has been created by the government (p. 236).
›MSMEs are provided in-principle approval for working capital and term loans worth Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 1 crore in 59 minutes (p. 236).
›
Maharatnas, Navratnas, and Miniratnas
›Maharatnas, Navratnas, and Miniratnas are categories of Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) identified and declared by the government. (p. 44)
›The purpose of granting these statuses is to improve efficiency, infuse professionalism, and enable these PSEs to compete more effectively in the liberalized global environment. (p. 44)
›These designated PSEs are given greater financial, managerial, and operational autonomy in decision-making. (p. 44)
+ 9 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
Maharatnas, Navratnas, and Miniratnas are special designations granted by the Indian government to certain Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs). The primary objective behind declaring these statuses is to enhance the efficiency and professionalism of these PSEs, enabling them to compete more effectively within a liberalized global economic environment.
PSEs that are accorded these statuses receive increased financial, managerial, and operational autonomy. This greater freedom allows them to make various decisions independently, aiming to run the company more efficiently and thereby boost their profits. Many of these profitable PSEs were initially established during the 1950s and 1960s, reflecting an era where self-reliance was a key aspect of public policy. Their original mandates included providing essential infrastructure, offering direct employment to the public, and delivering quality end-products at nominal costs, while also being accountable to stakeholders. The granting of these special statuses has demonstrably led to improved performance of these companies.
While some scholars have argued that this policy, particularly through disinvestment, partly privatized these enterprises instead of solely fostering their expansion as global players, the government has recently adopted a strategy to retain them within the public sector. The current approach aims to empower these companies to expand into global markets and independently raise resources from financial markets.
All key facts
›Maharatnas, Navratnas, and Miniratnas are categories of Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs) identified and declared by the government. (p. 44)
›The purpose of granting these statuses is to improve efficiency, infuse professionalism, and enable these PSEs to compete more effectively in the liberalized global environment. (p. 44)
›These designated PSEs are given greater financial, managerial, and operational autonomy in decision-making. (p. 44)
›This autonomy helps them run the company efficiently and increase profits. (p. 44)
›Many profitable PSEs were originally formed during the 1950s and 1960s, reflecting the policy of self-reliance. (p. 44)
›These PSEs were set up to provide infrastructure, direct employment, quality end-products at nominal cost, and were accountable to stakeholders. (p. 44)
›The granting of these statuses has resulted in better performance of the companies. (p. 44)
›Examples of Maharatnas include Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Steel Authority of India Limited. (p. 44)
›Examples of Navratnas include Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, and Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited. (p. 44)
›Examples of Miniratnas include Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Airport Authority of India. (p. 44)
›Scholars have alleged that instead of facilitating expansion as global players, the government partly privatized them through disinvestment. (p. 44)
Deregulation of Industrial Sector (1991 Reforms)
›Before 1991, regulatory mechanisms included industrial licensing, restrictions on private sector entry in many industries, reservation of some goods for small-scale industries, and controls on price fixation and distribution of industrial products (ch03-unit.md, p. 41).
›The reform policies introduced in and after 1991 removed many of these restrictions (ch03-unit.md, p. 41).
›Industrial licensing was abolished for almost all product categories, except for alcohol, cigarettes, hazardous chemicals, industrial explosives, electronics, aerospace, and drugs and pharmaceuticals (ch03-unit.md, p. 41).
+ 11 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
The Deregulation of the Industrial Sector was a key component of the liberalisation policies introduced in India with the New Economic Policy of 1991. Prior to these reforms, the industrial sector was subject to extensive regulatory mechanisms, including industrial licensing which required government permission for starting or closing a firm, or determining production levels. Many industries were also reserved for the public sector, some goods were exclusively produced by small-scale industries, and there were controls on price fixation and distribution of certain industrial products.
The 1991 reforms aimed to dismantle these restrictions to foster a more competitive environment and remove barriers to entry and growth for firms. As a result, industrial licensing was largely abolished, retaining it only for a few specific product categories such as alcohol, cigarettes, hazardous chemicals, industrial explosives, electronics, aerospace, and drugs and pharmaceuticals. The number of industries reserved exclusively for the public sector was drastically reduced, primarily to parts of atomic energy generation and some core railway transport activities. Additionally, many goods previously reserved for small-scale industries were dereserved, and market forces were largely permitted to determine prices across most industries. These measures were intended to open up various sectors of the economy and stimulate growth and development by reducing government control.
All key facts
›Before 1991, regulatory mechanisms included industrial licensing, restrictions on private sector entry in many industries, reservation of some goods for small-scale industries, and controls on price fixation and distribution of industrial products (ch03-unit.md, p. 41).
›The reform policies introduced in and after 1991 removed many of these restrictions (ch03-unit.md, p. 41).
›Industrial licensing was abolished for almost all product categories, except for alcohol, cigarettes, hazardous chemicals, industrial explosives, electronics, aerospace, and drugs and pharmaceuticals (ch03-unit.md, p. 41).
›Industries now exclusively reserved for the public sector are limited to a part of atomic energy generation and some core activities in railway transport (ch03-unit.md, p. 41).
›Many goods previously produced only by small-scale industries have been dereserved (ch03-unit.md, p. 41).
›In most industries, the market is now allowed to determine prices (ch03-unit.md, p. 41).
›The industrial licensing framework, formalized under the Industries Development and Regulation (IDR) Act of 1951, was the principal instrument for coordinating and controlling investments in industry, establishing the 'License Raj' (ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md).
›The 'License Raj' system controlled various aspects including entry, capacity expansion, technology, output mix, capacity, location, and import content, often thwarting competition and entrepreneurship (ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md).
›The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act was passed in 1969, severely restricting activities of large business houses (ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md).
Small-Scale Industry (SSI) in India
›The Village and Small-Scale Industries Committee, also known as the Karve Committee, was established in 1955. (p. 29)
›The Karve Committee noted the potential of small-scale industries for promoting rural development. (p. 29)
›A 'small-scale industry' is defined with reference to the maximum investment allowed on the assets of a unit. (p. 29)
+ 13 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
Small-Scale Industries (SSIs) in India were identified as a key instrument for promoting rural development, a possibility noted by the Village and Small-Scale Industries Committee, also known as the Karve Committee, in 1955. The definition of an SSI is based on the maximum investment permitted on the assets of a unit, a limit that has varied over time. For instance, in 1950, an SSI unit was one that invested a maximum of five lakh rupees, a limit that has since been raised to one crore rupees.
A significant characteristic attributed to SSIs is their 'labour intensive' nature, meaning they employ more labour compared to large-scale industries, thereby generating more employment. Recognizing that SSIs face challenges competing with larger industrial firms, specific policies were implemented to protect them. These policies included reserving the production of a certain number of products exclusively for the small-scale sector, with the criterion for reservation being the units' ability to manufacture these goods. Additionally, SSIs were granted concessions such as lower excise duty and access to bank loans at reduced interest rates. The promotion of SSIs also served to provide business opportunities for individuals who lacked the substantial capital required to establish large firms.
All key facts
›The Village and Small-Scale Industries Committee, also known as the Karve Committee, was established in 1955. (p. 29)
›The Karve Committee noted the potential of small-scale industries for promoting rural development. (p. 29)
›A 'small-scale industry' is defined with reference to the maximum investment allowed on the assets of a unit. (p. 29)
›The maximum investment limit for SSIs has changed over time. (p. 29)
›In 1950, a small-scale industrial unit was defined as one that invested a maximum of rupees five lakh. (p. 29-30)
›As per the chapter, the maximum investment currently allowed for an SSI is rupees one crore. (p. 30)
›Small-scale industries are believed to be more 'labour intensive', meaning they use more labour than large-scale industries. (p. 30)
›SSIs are believed to generate more employment due to their labour-intensive nature. (p. 30)
›To protect SSIs from competition with big industrial firms, the production of a number of products was reserved for the small-scale industry. (p. 30)
›The criterion for reserving products for SSIs was the ability of these units to manufacture the goods. (p. 30)
›SSIs were given concessions, including lower excise duty and bank loans at lower interest rates. (p. 30)
›The promotion of small-scale industries offered opportunities to individuals who did not possess the capital to start large firms to enter business. (p. 31)
Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0)
›The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0) is the present industrial revolution. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 232)
›It builds upon the third industrial revolution and the digital revolution that began in the middle of the last century. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 232)
›Industry 4.0 is characterized by merging technology that blurs the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 232)
+ 13 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
The Fourth Industrial Revolution, also known as Industry 4.0, represents a new technological phenomenon rooted in digitalization that builds upon the digital revolution and the third industrial revolution. While Industry 3.0 focused on the automation of single machines and processes through electronics and information technology, Industry 4.0 emphasizes the end-to-end digitization of all physical assets and their integration into digital ecosystems with value chain partners. This revolution is characterized by the merging of technologies that blur the lines between physical, digital, and biological spheres, leading to transformations in entire production, management, and governance systems.
Key drivers of Industry 4.0 include big data, high computing capacity, artificial intelligence, and analytics, aiming to completely digitize the manufacturing sector. It facilitates the meeting of the real and virtual worlds through the amalgamation of emerging technologies such as advanced robotics and cyber-physical systems, leading to the creation of "smart factories." In these smart factories, machines are digitally connected, can learn from vast amounts of generated data, and make autonomous decisions.
The adoption of Industry 4.0 brings significant challenges for the labor force, requiring large-scale re-skilling and continuous retooling as digital labor becomes integral to most work profiles. It suggests a shift away from traditional lifetime employment models. For India, adopting Industry 4.0 technologies is imperative to enhance manufacturing competitiveness and increase its share in GDP. Initiatives like "Make in India" are spearheading its wider adoption, leveraging India's strengths in Information Technology and its large workforce of IT professionals, with "Smart Cities Mission" projects serving as potential forerunners for this environment.
All key facts
›The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0) is the present industrial revolution. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 232)
›It builds upon the third industrial revolution and the digital revolution that began in the middle of the last century. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 232)
›Industry 4.0 is characterized by merging technology that blurs the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 232)
›It is rooted in a new technological phenomenon: digitalization, which enables building a new virtual world to steer the physical world. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 232)
›While Industry 3.0 focused on the automation of single machines and processes, Industry 4.0 concentrates on the end-to-end digitization of all physical assets and their integration into digital ecosystems with value chain partners. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 232)
›It is driven by the power of big data, high computing capacity, artificial intelligence, and analytics, aiming to completely digitize the manufacturing sector. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 232)
›Industry 4.0 involves the amalgamation of emerging technologies like advanced robotics and cyber-physical systems. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 233)
›It creates "smart factories" where machines are digitally connected, can learn from data, and make autonomous decisions. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 233)
›
Permit License Raj
›The private sector in India was kept under state control through a system of licenses (p. 29).
›A license from the government was mandatory for establishing any new industry (p. 29).
›Existing industries were required to obtain a license for expanding their output or for diversifying production into new varieties of goods (p. 29).
+ 21 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
During the period of 1950-1990 in India, the private sector was subjected to extensive state control primarily through a system of licenses. This regulatory framework, often referred to as the Permit License Raj, mandated that no new industry could be established without first obtaining a license from the government. Beyond new establishments, even existing industries were required to secure a license if they intended to expand their production output or diversify into new varieties of goods. The industrial licensing framework was formalized under the Industries Development and Regulation (IDR) Act of 1951, becoming the principal instrument for coordinating and controlling investments across various aspects including entry, capacity expansion, technology, output mix, location, and import content.
The policy served multiple objectives. One significant aim was to promote regional equality by encouraging industrial development in economically backward areas. To achieve this, obtaining a license was made easier for industrial units set up in such regions, and these units were granted concessions like tax benefits and lower electricity tariffs. Another purpose of requiring licenses for production expansion was to ensure that the quantity of goods produced in the economy aligned with its perceived requirements, preventing overproduction in certain sectors. However, the system also faced criticism for its operational aspects. The necessity of obtaining licenses for industrial activities was reportedly misused by industrial houses, with large industrialists sometimes acquiring licenses not for genuinely establishing new firms, and even cornering capacity by putting in multiple applications without intending to implement them. The complex bureaucracy led to endless delays, discouraged honest entrepreneurs, and ultimately thwarted competition, entrepreneurship, and growth.
All key facts
›The private sector in India was kept under state control through a system of licenses (p. 29).
›A license from the government was mandatory for establishing any new industry (p. 29).
›Existing industries were required to obtain a license for expanding their output or for diversifying production into new varieties of goods (p. 29).
›This licensing policy was used to promote industry in backward regions by making it easier to acquire a license for units located there (p. 29).
›Industrial units established in economically backward areas were offered concessions such as tax benefits and electricity at a lower tariff (p. 29).
›A primary purpose of this policy was to promote regional equality (p. 29).
›The licensing requirement for expansion aimed to ensure that the quantity of goods produced did not exceed what the economy required (p. 29).
›Licenses for production expansion were granted only if the government was convinced that the economy needed a larger quantity of goods (p. 29).
›The requirement to obtain a license to start an industry was misused by industrial houses (p. 32).
›This misuse included big industrialists acquiring licenses not for the purpose of starting new firms (p. 32).
›The industrial licensing framework was formalized under the Industries Development and Regulation (IDR) Act of 1951 (p. 208).
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act 2006
›The MSMED Act was notified in 2006. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›Its purpose is to address policy issues affecting MSMEs and their coverage and investment ceiling. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›The Act seeks to facilitate the promotion and development of these enterprises and enhance their competitiveness. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
+ 6 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act was notified in 2006 with the primary objective of addressing policy issues affecting the MSME sector, as well as defining its coverage and investment ceilings. This Act represents a significant milestone as it provides India's first-ever legal framework for the recognition of the "enterprise" concept, encompassing both manufacturing and service entities. Its overarching goal is to facilitate the promotion and development of these enterprises and to enhance their competitiveness within the Indian economy.
Under the MSMED Act 2006, specific classification criteria have been established for Micro, Small, and Medium enterprises, based on their investment in plant and machinery/equipment and annual turnover. A key provision within this classification is that turnover specifically related to exports is not counted within the prescribed turnover limits for any MSME category. This exclusion is designed to allow more units to remain classified as MSMEs, even if they achieve high export figures, thereby extending the benefits of the MSME classification to them.
All key facts
›The MSMED Act was notified in 2006. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›Its purpose is to address policy issues affecting MSMEs and their coverage and investment ceiling. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›The Act seeks to facilitate the promotion and development of these enterprises and enhance their competitiveness. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›It provides the first-ever legal framework for recognizing the concept of "enterprise," covering both manufacturing and service entities. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›The classification of MSMEs under the Act (as per recent changes) is:
›**Micro:** Investment < 1 cr AND Turnover < 5 cr
›**Small:** Investment < 10 cr AND Turnover < 50 cr
›**Medium:** Investment < 50 cr AND Turnover < 250 cr — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›Turnover with respect to exports is not counted in the turnover limits for any category of MSME units (Micro, Small, or Medium). — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
Industrial Policy Resolution (IPR) 1956
›The Industrial Policy Resolution (IPR) was issued in 1956. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md
›It was governed by the principles of the "socialist pattern of society" accepted by Parliament in December 1954. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md
›The IPR 1956 was a logical extension of Mahalanobis's thinking for the 2nd Five-Year Plan. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md
+ 4 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
The Industrial Policy Resolution (IPR) of 1956 was a significant policy document that extended the socialist orientation of India's economic strategy. It was a logical progression from the Parliament's acceptance of a "socialist pattern of society" as the objective of social and economic policy in December 1954, and it reflected Professor P. C. Mahalanobis's economic thinking that shaped the Second Five-Year Plan.
The IPR 1956 significantly broadened the scope of the public sector by reserving seventeen industries exclusively for state control. These reservations were justified by the belief that such industries were of "basic strategic importance" and required investment on a scale that only the state could provide. The industries were categorized into Schedule A, B, and C to delineate the roles of the public and private sectors. This policy reinforced the government's commanding role in key sectors and laid the foundation for heavy industrialization led by the state.
All key facts
›The Industrial Policy Resolution (IPR) was issued in 1956. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md
›It was governed by the principles of the "socialist pattern of society" accepted by Parliament in December 1954. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md
›The IPR 1956 was a logical extension of Mahalanobis's thinking for the 2nd Five-Year Plan. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md
›It reserved seventeen industries exclusively for the public sector, thereby widening its scope. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md
›Reserved industries included iron and steel, mining, machine tool manufacture, and heavy electrical plants. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md
›The logic for these reservations was that these industries were of "basic strategic importance" and required investment on a scale only the state could provide. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md
›The industries were divided into Schedule A, B, and C. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md
Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act
›The Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act was passed in 1969. (Page 210, 212)
›It was enacted under Indira Gandhi's government. (Page 212)
›The Act severely restricted the activities of large business houses. (Page 210)
+ 6 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
The Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act was a significant piece of legislation enacted in India in 1969 under Indira Gandhi's government. Its primary objective was to restrict the activities of large business houses and prevent the concentration of economic power, thereby addressing issues of monopoly and restrictive trade practices in the economy.
The Act declared any business group with combined assets exceeding Rs. 20 crores as a monopoly, effectively debarring such entities from expanding their operations after 1969. This stringent regulation significantly impacted large Indian firms, preventing them from achieving economies of scale and hindering their industrial growth. For instance, the Tata group, a major industrial empire, had over a hundred proposals for new or expanded business projects rejected during the two decades the law was in effect.
Widely considered damaging to modern Indian history, the MRTP Act suppressed entrepreneurship and competition, contributing to the "License Raj" era. Its restrictive nature meant that Indian firms missed numerous opportunities for industrial development and expansion. The Act remained in force for over two decades, experiencing a modification in the mid-1980s when the Rajiv Gandhi government raised the asset limit fivefold to Rs. 100 crore. However, it was finally scrapped in September 1991 by the Narasimha Rao government, paving the way for economic reforms.
All key facts
›The Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act was passed in 1969. (Page 210, 212)
›It was enacted under Indira Gandhi's government. (Page 212)
›The Act severely restricted the activities of large business houses. (Page 210)
›Any business group with combined assets above Rs. 20 crores was declared a monopoly under the Act. (Page 212)
›Such declared monopolies were effectively debarred from expanding their business after 1969. (Page 212)
›The Act was considered one of the most damaging in modern Indian history, as it crippled private industry for a generation. (Page 212)
›It led to Indian firms losing opportunities to achieve economies of scale and launch their industrial revolution. (Page 212)
›In the mid-1980s, the Rajiv Gandhi government raised the MRTP asset limit fivefold to Rs. 100 crore. (Page 212)
›The MRTP Act was finally scrapped in September 1991 by the Narasimha Rao government. (Page 212)
Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) in India
›The extensive role of the government in promoting the industrial sector was due to the lack of capital among Indian industrialists and an insufficient market size at the time of independence. (p. 29)
›The decision to develop the Indian economy on socialist lines led to the policy of the government controlling the "commanding heights of the economy." (p. 29)
›The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 (IPR 1956) formed the basis of the Second Five Year Plan and classified industries into three categories:
+ 28 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
In the initial decades following India's independence, Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) played a pivotal role in the nation's economic development, particularly in the industrial sector. This extensive role for the government was primarily driven by two factors: the lack of sufficient capital among Indian industrialists to undertake large-scale industrial ventures and a market that was not large enough to encourage private sector investment in major projects. Additionally, the decision to develop the Indian economy along socialist lines, as reflected in the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1948 and the Directive Principles of the Constitution, positioned the government to control the "commanding heights of the economy."
The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 (IPR 1956) further cemented this approach by classifying industries into three categories. The first category comprised industries exclusively owned by the government, while the second involved areas where the private sector could supplement public sector efforts, with the government retaining sole responsibility for new units. The third category covered the remaining industries for the private sector. The public sector was expected to lead the way, with private sector policies complementing its efforts.
By 1990, the industrial sector, largely due to the public sector's contribution, showed impressive achievements, including a rise in its GDP share from 13% in 1950-51 to 24.6% and significant diversification beyond traditional industries like cotton textiles and jute. However, some economists have criticized the performance of many PSUs. These criticisms include the continued production of goods and services (often monopolized) that were no longer required solely by the public sector, leading to inefficiency due to a lack of competition. Furthermore, many PSUs incurred substantial losses but continued to operate, placing a burden on national resources due to the difficulty of closing government undertakings. This led to arguments for the state to withdraw from areas manageable by the private sector, allowing it to focus resources on essential services that the private sector cannot provide.
All key facts
›The extensive role of the government in promoting the industrial sector was due to the lack of capital among Indian industrialists and an insufficient market size at the time of independence. (p. 29)
›The decision to develop the Indian economy on socialist lines led to the policy of the government controlling the "commanding heights of the economy." (p. 29)
›The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 (IPR 1956) formed the basis of the Second Five Year Plan and classified industries into three categories:
›Exclusively government-owned industries. (p. 29)
›Industries where the private sector could supplement public efforts, with the government solely responsible for starting new units. (p. 29)
›Remaining industries for the private sector. (p. 29)
›The public sector was designated to lead the industrial development, with private sector policies complementing it. (p. 29)
›The industrial sector's contribution to GDP increased from 13% in 1950-51 to 24.6% in 1990-91, with significant diversification largely attributed to the public sector. (p. 30)
›Criticisms of PSUs include continuing to produce goods and services (often monopolizing them) even when no longer required, such as telecommunication services. (p. 31)
›Many public sector firms incurred huge losses but continued to function, imposing a drain on the nation's limited resources. (p. 32)
›It was difficult to close a government undertaking, even if loss-making. (p. 32)
›1991 crisis: Foreign reserves = **$1 billion** (less than 2 weeks of imports)
›Fiscal deficit in 1990-91: **8.4% of GDP**
›67 tonnes of gold pledged to raise $600 million
+ 8 facts · tap to read
▾ Full passage
The economic reforms of 1991 (LPG Reforms) were India's most significant structural transformation since independence.
**Definitions:**
- **Liberalization:** Removal of state restrictions on private individual activities.
- **Privatization:** Transfer of business, industry or service from public to private ownership and control.
- **Globalization:** Flow of goods, services, capital and labour across international borders.
**Background — Crisis of 1990-91:**
By 1990-91, India's macroeconomic fundamentals had severely deteriorated:
- Fiscal deficit: **8.4% of GDP**
- Current account deficit: **3.1% of GDP**
- Inflation: **17%**
- Foreign exchange reserves: Down to **$1 billion** by June 1991 (not enough to finance even a fortnight of imports)
- Short-term debt: ~$6 billion; $2 billion rolled over every 24 hours
- NRI deposits of $10 billion began to be rapidly withdrawn
- India pledged **67 tonnes of gold** as collateral to Union Bank of Switzerland and Bank of England to raise over $600 million (April–July 1991)
**Contributing Factors to the Crisis:**
- Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 → oil prices rose, Indian exports to Middle East fell
- India's sovereign credit rating was downgraded
- Short-term borrowings to fund fiscal deficits of the 1980s
- Imports were nearly double exports in second half of 1980s
**Chronology:**
- June 21, 1991: PV Narasimha Rao sworn in as PM (Congress coalition)
- July 24, 1991: Dr. Manmohan Singh presented the reform budget
**The Three Directions of 1991 Reforms:**
1. Dismantled the complex regime of licenses, permits and controls (end of Licence Raj)
2. Reversed strong bias towards state ownership of means of production (privatization/disinvestment)
3. Opened up economy to foreign trade and investment (globalization)
**Key Reform Measures:**
- Industrial licensing abolished for most industries (except strategically important sectors)
- MRTP Act restrictions were scrapped in September 1991 (replaced later by Competition Act 2002)
- Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) 1973 replaced by Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) 1999
- Import tariff rates drastically reduced
- Current account convertibility introduced
- Private sector entry allowed in banking, insurance, telecom, civil aviation
**Impact:**
- India's growth rate accelerated from ~3.5% (1950s-80s) to ~6% in 1990s and 7-8% in 2000s
- Services sector emerged as the fastest growing component of GDP post-liberalization
- Services now form **55% of Indian economy**
- India became the fastest growing large economy in the 2010s
**Background before 1991 — Structural Weaknesses:**
- Licence Raj via IDR Act 1951
- MRTP Act 1969 (stifled large industry expansion)
- Bank nationalization (1969 and 1980)
- FERA 1973 (restricted foreign investment)
- Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) — inward-looking
- Reservation for small scale industries (800+ items by 1987)
All key facts
›1991 crisis: Foreign reserves = **$1 billion** (less than 2 weeks of imports)
›Growth rate after reforms: ~6% in 1990s; 7-8% in 2000s
›Services sector: 55% of Indian economy post-liberalization
›Manufacturing: Only 16% of GDP post-reforms (vs. China's 27%)
›Between 1950-1990: India's average growth < 4% p.a. while developing world averaged > 5%
›
Projects under the 'Smart Cities Mission' are considered forerunners of the Industry 4.0 environment in India. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›MSMED Act: **2006** (first legal framework for enterprises)
›MSME Medium threshold: Investment < Rs. 50 cr AND Turnover < Rs. 250 cr
›MSME advantages include labour intensiveness, low-cost technology, low capital/investment, short gestation period, and strong forward and backward linkages. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›MSMEs: 6.34 crore units; 30% of GDP; 45% of manufacturing; 40% of exports; 11 crore workers
›MSME additional schemes include 'Employment Exchange for Industries' and a framework for revival and rehabilitation of MSMEs. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›RAMP scheme objectives include: strengthening institutions and governance at Centre & State, improving Centre-State linkages, enhancing MSMEs' access to market and credit, technology upgradation, addressing delayed payments, and greening of MSMEs. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›ASPIRE aims to set up a network of technology and incubation centres to accelerate entrepreneurship and promote start-ups in rural and agriculture-based industries. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›CHAMPIONS is an ICT-based platform launched in May 2020 to provide a single-window solution for MSMEs, helping them with grievances, support, and handholding throughout the business lifecycle. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›IIP base year: 2011-12; published by NSO; 6-week lag
›IIP measures the short-term changes in the volume of production of a basket of industrial products during a given period. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›IIP in India excludes construction, gas, and water supply sectors, which are recommended by UNSO. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›Manufacturing weight in IIP: 77.633%
›Core Industries: 8 industries = 40.27% of IIP weight; published by MoCI; 1-month lag
›Core Industries specific weights: Crude Oil (8.98%), Natural Gas (6.88%), Refinery Products (28.04%), Coal (10.3%), Steel (17.9%), Cement (5.73%), Electricity (19.85%), Fertilizers (2.63%). — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
›Annual workforce addition: 12 million people
›KVIC functions: plan training, build raw material reserves, promote sale/marketing, encourage research, provide financial assistance, promote co-op efforts, ensure quality standards, study challenges, establish separate organizations. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md
The **CHAMPIONS** online platform, launched in May 2020, is an ICT-based system designed as a single-window solution to help, handhold, solve grievances, encourage, and support MSMEs throughout their business lifecycle (p. 236).
›The definition of MSMEs has been changed to allow businesses to expand up to a turnover of Rs. 250 crore (and investment up to Rs. 50 crore) while retaining MSME benefits (p. 236).
›**Aatma Nirbhar Bharat** schemes for MSMEs include Distressed MSME Funds, Fund of Funds (Mother Funds), and Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (p. 236).
›U K Sinha Committee and K V Kamath Committee have recommended reforms for MSMEs (p. 236).
›The **Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act 2006** provides the first legal framework for recognizing "enterprise" (both manufacturing and service entities) and defines MSME classifications (p. 236).
›Under the MSMED Act 2006, the new classification for MSMEs based on investment and turnover is:
›Turnover from exports is not counted in the limits for any category of MSME units (p. 236).
›**Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC)** is a statutory body established in 1956 to provide employment, produce saleable articles, and create self-reliance in rural communities (p. 237).
›KVIC functions include training, raw material supply, marketing promotion, research, financial assistance, fostering cooperatives, and ensuring quality standards (p. 237).
›The government has recently decided to retain these PSEs in the public sector, enabling them to expand globally and raise resources from financial markets. (p. 44)
›
Under the 1969 MRTP Act, any business group with combined assets above Rs. 20 crores was declared a monopoly and effectively debarred from expanding its business (ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md).
›The Rajiv Gandhi government, in the mid-1980s, raised the MRTP asset limit fivefold to Rs. 100 crore (ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md).
›The Narasimha Rao government scrapped the MRTP Act in September 1991 (ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md).
›Reservation policies for small-scale firms contributed to India's lack of manufacturing prowess and prevented industries from achieving economies of scale (ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md).
›Small-scale enterprises often lacked the capital, technology, and professional management experience to achieve economies of scale and improve productivity and efficiency (ch06-indian-economy-1947-2014.md).
›Reservation policies for small-scale firms might have contributed to India's lack of manufacturing prowess and prevented industry from reaping benefits of economies of scale. (p. 213)
›Small-scale enterprises, operating in both organized and unorganized sectors, often lacked technology, capital, and professional management experience. (p. 213)
›With limited capital, small-scale enterprises were unable to achieve economies of scale, or increase their productivity and efficiency. (p. 213)
›Small-scale industries were recognized for their importance in providing employment to educated men. (p. 213)
**Impact on Labour:** The shift in employment will be gradual but profound, requiring large-scale re-skilling and continuous retooling of the workforce. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 233)
›Lifetime or permanent employment is expected to more or less cease to exist with workers in the Industry 4.0 era. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 233)
›The maximum impact of intelligent automation is expected on the global industry of IT services and BPO workers. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 233)
›**India's Context:** Most parts of India's manufacturing sector are still in the post-electrification rungs of the technology ladder, with integration of physical systems on cyber platforms at a nascent stage. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 233)
›Adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies is imperative for India to achieve its target of making the country a global hub for manufacturing, design, and innovation, and augmenting manufacturing's share in GDP from 16% to 25% by 2025. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 233)
›The "Make in India" initiative is spearheading wider adoption of 'Industry 4.0' in India. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 233)
›Projects under the Government of India’s ‘Smart Cities Mission’ are touted as forerunners of the Industry 4.0 environment. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 233)
›General Electric (GE) established a smart factory in Pune in 2015, which can be termed as Industry 4.0, capable of producing diverse items with dramatically reduced switchover times. — Vivek Singh — Indian Economy, ch07-indian-economy-after-2014.md (p. 233)
›
The licensing system was the principal instrument for coordinating and controlling investments in industry (p. 208).
›It controlled aspects such as entry, expansion of capacity, technology, output mix, capacity, location, and import content (p. 208).
›The intended purposes of licensing included creating a planned pattern of investment, counteracting monopoly and wealth concentration, maintaining regional balance, protecting small-scale producers, encouraging new entrepreneurs, and promoting optimum scale plants and advanced technology (p. 212).
›The administration of the licensing system by the bureaucracy created a "nightmare for the entrepreneur" (p. 212).
›Larger industrial houses misused the system by submitting multiple and early applications for the same product to "foreclose capacity" without intending to implement the licenses (p. 212).
›This system tragically ended in thwarting competition, entrepreneurship, and growth, failing to achieve any of its social objectives (p. 212).
›Endless delays in clearing applications discouraged efficient and honest entrants and rewarded wily, inefficient producers who could manipulate the system (p. 212).
›The regulation was complex, covering industrial licensing, import and export regulations, price controls, capital issue controls, and the allocation of indigenously produced materials (p. 212).
›The administrative mechanisms for implementing the policies of the License Raj provided incentives to circumvent laws and regulations (p. 212).
›It created a powerful group of vested interests, including politicians, bureaucrats, and a large section of private industry (p. 212).
›The rigidity of the License Raj, where businessmen could not shape their firms' destinies, was a factor contributing to the decline of India's share in global commerce (p. 212).
›Despite an assessment in the mid-1970s noting strain on administrative machinery and delayed implementation, the government led by Mrs. Indira Gandhi reinforced the controls system due to political compulsion (p. 212).
›The Rajiv Gandhi government (1984-1989) introduced reforms, including relaxation in the grant of licenses (p. 211).
›There was often no distinction made between what the public sector alone could do and what the private sector could also do. (p. 32)
›Independent India's first Industrial Policy Resolution (IPR) was issued in April 1948, marking the dawn of the mixed economy and outlining roles for public and private sectors. (p. 203)
›The IPR 1948 classified industries into four categories:
›**State Monopolies:** Manufacturing of arms and ammunitions, atomic energy, and railway transport. These were under the exclusive monopoly of the Government of India. (p. 203)
›**Basic Industries:** Coal, iron and steel, shipbuilding, aircraft manufacturing, telephone, telegraph and wireless, and mineral oils. These were under the central government, but existing private companies in these sectors were allowed to continue. (p. 203)
›**Regulated industries:** Automobiles, heavy machinery, chemicals, fertilizers, sugar, paper, cement, cotton, woollen textiles etc., which the government would regulate. (p. 203)
›**Private industries:** All other industries were open to the private sector and cooperatives. (p. 203)
›The Calcutta school of thought, propounded by Professor Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis, advocated for capital-intensive and heavy industrialization led by the public sector to build key industries and control the "commanding heights" of the economy. (p. 205)
›The 2nd Five Year Plan (1956-61) adopted the Mahalanobis model, emphasizing the government's role in developing basic heavy industries for producer goods (capital goods) to strengthen economic independence. (p. 207)
›During the 2nd Five Year Plan, hydroelectric power projects, three steel plants at Bhilai, Durgapur, and Rourkela were established, coal production increased, and railway lines were added. (p. 207)
›The Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 reserved seventeen industries exclusively for the public sector, including iron and steel, mining, machine tool manufacture, and heavy electrical plants. (p. 207)
›The logic behind these reservations was that these industries were of "basic strategic importance" and "required investment on a scale which only the state could provide." (p. 207)
›A flaw identified with India's socialism was setting up a "massive, inefficient, and monopolistic public sector" to which autonomy of working was denied. (p. 209)
›The public sector did not live up to expectations of generating surpluses to accelerate capital accumulation and help reduce inequality. (p. 209)
›The primary argument for public sector companies occupying the 'commanding heights' was to provide a "big push" to solve the coordination problem in economic development, creating a skeleton around which the market economy could grow. (p. 209)
›Public sector undertakings like Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (IDPL) incubated aerospace knowledge and laid the foundations of the private Indian drugs industry, respectively. (p. 210)
›Major private commercial banks were nationalized in 1969. (p. 210)
›Insurance was nationalized in 1972. (p. 210)
›The coal industry was nationalized in 1973. (p. 211)
›The government decided to take over and run sick companies, such as a number of textile mills, rather than allowing them to close down. (p. 211)