The recent decision of the Union Government to identify and reduce dependence on imports of 100 specific products is odd, albeit well-intentioned. It is positioned as a step toward reducing India’s vulnerability to supply chain disruptions, conserving foreign exchange, and encouraging local manufacturing. Yet, the approach, in its current form, raises several questions about its rationale, scope, and long-term effectiveness. According to reports, the Commerce & Industry Ministry has divided these imports into three broad categories—raw materials, intermediates, and finished goods—in order to map areas where domestic industry can step in to substitute foreign supplies.

Commerce & Industry Secretary Sunil Barthwal elaborated that the government is particularly examining raw materials like zinc, plastic products, a range of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and other critical intermediates where India’s import bill is significant but where the potential to expand local manufacturing exists. On paper, this strategy sounds practical: identify weak spots in the import basket and strengthen domestic capability. However, once one digs deeper, the approach appears oddly restrictive.

The first question that arises is: why limit the exercise to 100 goods? If the government indeed has the ability and willingness to boost domestic manufacturing in these chosen products, then logically, the same strategy should apply to a broader range of imports. Targeting only 100 goods creates an artificial boundary. It risks signaling that the rest of the import basket is of less importance, despite vulnerabilities in other categories. For example, global disruptions over the past few years have shown that even seemingly minor items, when sourced primarily from abroad, can cause significant bottlenecks in domestic industries.

Restricting the focus to a list of 100 products appears arbitrary rather than systemic. A second issue is the potential for lobbying. Once the government announces that only a select set of products will receive active support for import substitution, various industry associations and business lobbies will inevitably push for inclusion of their own product categories. This could distort policymaking, turning a well-intentioned exercise into a contest of influence rather than one guided by economic logic or strategic need. Such pressures are not new in India’s policy ecosystem, and carving out a privileged list of 100 goods risks creating more of the same.

Alongside the Commerce & Industry Ministry, the Consumer Affairs Department has also signaled its intent to involve the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) more closely in this effort. BIS will reportedly conduct random checks and testing of products that carry the ‘Made in India’ label. This scrutiny is tied to the definition of what qualifies as an Indian product. A critical parameter is that a minimum of 50 per cent of the value addition or local content must originate within India.

The effectiveness of such measures must be judged against experience. The government has, in recent years, promoted quality control orders (QCOs) in different sectors to regulate the quality of imports and boost consumer safety. While the intent was sound, MSME experts point out that this sometimes led to what is colloquially called “QCO shopping.” In practice, businesses began focusing more on meeting regulatory checklists or finding loopholes rather than investing in genuine capability-building or product quality improvement. This highlights a key risk with piecemeal, sector-specific interventions. India needs a comprehensive improvement in the overall business climate and not narrowly targeted measures.