📰 Supreme Court examines allegations of rampant misuse of PMLA
A three-judge Bench is holding back-to-back hearings on petitions filed by people from all walks of life
•The Supreme Court is looking into allegations of metamorphosis of an anti-money laundering law, brought to sniff out drug money, into a potent weapon to raid rivals and deny rights.
•A three-judge Bench led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar is holding back-to-back hearings on petitions filed by people from all walks of life and across the country complaining of the alleged subversion of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) by the government and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
•Lawyers, including senior advocate Kapil Sibal for Karti Chidambaram, allege that PMLA is pulled into the investigation of even “ordinary” crimes.
•Senior advocate Amit Desai said assets of genuine victims have been attached. The ED could just walk into anybody’s house. In all this, the fundamental purpose of PMLA to investigate conversion of “illegitimate money into legitimate money” was lost.
•Mr. Sibal reminded that PMLA was enacted in response to India’s global commitment (including the Vienna Convention) to combat the menace of money laundering. Instead, he said, rights have been “cribbed, cabined and confined”.
•“PMLA was a comprehensive penal statute to counter the threat of money laundering, specifically stemming from trade in narcotics. Currently, the offences in the schedule of the Act are extremely overbroad, and in several cases, have absolutely no relation to either narcotics or organised crime,” Mr. Sibal argued in the top court.
•Petitioners pointed out that even the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) - an equivalent of the FIR - is considered an “internal document” and not given to the accused.
•“The ED treats itself as an exception to these principles and practices [of criminal procedure law] and chooses to register an ECIR on its own whims and fancies on its own file,” they argued.
•Pursuant to the registration of the ECIR, the ED begins to summon accused persons and seeks details of all their financial transactions and of their family members. The accused is called upon to make statements which are treated as admissible in evidence.
•“Throughout this procedure, the accused does not even know the allegation against him, as the only document which contains the allegation is the ECIR, which is not supplied to the accused persons,” Mr. Sibal pointed out.
•The court is also examining submissions that PMLA does not distinguish between an accused and a witness while summoning them. “Procedure under criminal law makes a distinction between the accused and a witness,” Mr. Sibal, who led the petitioner side, argued.
•The petitioners noted the lack of clarity about ED’s selection of cases to investigate. “The initiation of an investigation by the ED has consequences which have the potential of curtailing the liberty of an individual,” they have contended.
•They complain that ED registers an ECIR immediately after an FIR is lodged. This is when the cause of action to commence an investigation under the PMLA can arise only if the commission of the alleged predicate offence has resulted in generation of ‘proceeds of crime’ and such proceeds are “projected or claimed as untainted property”.
•Petitioners have submitted that discretion exercised under PMLA should be guided by rule of law. It must not be “arbitrary, vague and fanciful”.
It focuses on security, law and order
•The Union Government has approved the continuation of a police modernisation scheme for five years up to 2025-26 with a financial outlay of ₹26,275 crore.
•The Union Home Ministry said the scheme includes security-related expenditure in Jammu and Kashmir, northeastern States and Maoist-affected areas, for raising new battalions, developing high-tech forensic laboratories and other investigation tools.
•The scheme has been approved for the period from 2021-22 to 2025-26.
•“This scheme comprises all relevant sub-schemes that contribute to the modernisation and improvement with a total central financial outlay of ₹26,275 crore,” a statement by Ministry said.
•It said provision has been made under the scheme for internal security, law and order and adoption of modern technology by police.
•Assistance will be given to States for narcotics control and strengthening the criminal justice system by developing a robust forensic set-up in the country, it said.
•A central outlay of ₹18,839 crore has been earmarked for security-related expenditure in Jammu and Kashmir, insurgency affected northeastern States and Left Wing Extremism (LWE) affected areas.
•According to the statement, ₹4,846 will be given by the Central Government for the modernisation of State police forces. To develop operationally independent high-quality forensic sciences facilities in States and Union Territories for aiding scientific and timely investigation, ₹2,080.50 crore will be given.
•With the implementation of the ‘National Policy and Action Plan’ for combating Maoists or LWE, the LWE violence incidents have come down drastically, the statement said.
•To further pursue this accomplishment, six LWE-related schemes with a central outlay of ₹8,689 crore have been approved. These schemes include Special Central Assistance (SCA) to most LWE-affected districts and districts of concern to consolidate the gains, it said.
•For the raising of India Reserve Battalions or Specialised India Reserve Battalions, a central outlay of ₹350 crore has been approved. The statement said ₹50 crore has been approved under the central sector scheme of Assistance to States and Union Territories for narcotics control.
📰 The import ban on drones
Why has the Government issued such a ban? Will this move help promote more indigenous models of drones?
•The story so far: The Government last week banned the import of drones barring for R&D, defence and security purposes. This is the latest in a slew of measures the Government has taken to promote make in India drones. However, there are no restrictions on import of drone components as local manufacturers heavily rely on them to assemble their own drones.
What does the order say?
•The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued an order on February 9 prohibiting with immediate effect the import of drones in Completely-Built-Up (CBU), Semi-knocked-down (SKD) or Completely-Knocked-down (CKD) forms. Import of drones by government entities, educational institutions recognised by Central or State governments, government recognised R&D entities and drone manufacturers for R&D purpose as well as for defence and security purposes will be allowed provided an import authorisation is obtained from the DGFT. The order also says that import of drone components is “free”, implying that no permission is needed from the DGFT allowing local manufacturers to import parts likes diodes, chips, motors, lithium ion batteries etc. Before this order, import of drones was “restricted” and needed prior clearance of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and an import license from DGFT. However, smaller drones known as nano category drones that weighed less than 250 grams and flew below 50 feet or 15 meters needed an equipment type approval from the Department of Telecommunications for operating in de-licensed frequency band(s) and did not require an import clearance of the DGCA or an import license from the DGFT.
What other measures has the Government taken to promote indigenous drone manufacturing?
•In August last year, the Government brought out liberalised Drone Rules, 2021 which reduced the number of forms to be filled to seek authorisation from 25 to five. They also dispensed with the need for a security clearance before any registration or issuance of licence.
•Under these rules, R&D entities too have been provided blanket exemption from all kinds of permissions, and restrictions on foreign-owned companies registered in India have also been removed. The Government has also announced a production-linked incentive scheme for drones and drone components with the aim to make India a “global drone hub by 2030”. It has allocated ₹120 crore for a period of three years under which it will offer an incentive of 20% of the value addition made by a manufacturer of drones or drone components or drone related IT products.
•Apart from giving a boost to local manufacturers through the scheme, the Government also hopes that foreign manufacturers will be encouraged to set up assembly lines in India.
How has the drone industry reacted to the import ban and what is likely to be the immediate impact of the announcement?
•“The import ban gives us a chance to prove what we can do. It is a very good move by the Government to nurture and protect the industry,” says Dr Sarita Ahlawat, co-founder of Botlabs Dynamics which was behind the grand drone show for the ‘Beating Retreat’ ceremony during the Republic Day celebrations last month.
•But how well the ban is implemented remains to be seen, she warns. But what difference will the ban make if local manufacturers rely heavily on foreign-made components. “Most drone manufacturers in India assemble imported components in India, and there is less of manufacturing. What the import ban will do is that it will ensure that an Indian manufacturer has the control of the IP, design and software which gives him or her a total understanding and control of the product. Over a period of time this can enable further indigenisation,” says Smit Shah, President, Drone Federation of India.
•For its defence needs, India imports from Israel and the U.S.. Consumer drones such as those used for wedding photography come from China and drones for light shows also come from China apart from Russia.
•Indian drone manufacturers and service providers arrange drones for a variety of use cases such as survey and mapping, security and surveillance, inspection, construction progress monitoring and drone delivery.
•The ban is likely to hurt those who use drones for photography and videography for weddings and events as these primarily come from China because they are cheaper and easy-to-use and India still has a lot of catching up to do in manufacturing them.
📰 For something: On the Quad
It remains a group of friends who share many things, but not a common enemy
•The Quad Ministerial meeting in Melbourne, meant to set the stage for a meeting by the leaders of Australia, India, Japan and the U.S. later this year in Tokyo, ended with outcomes that showcased its “positive agenda” in the Indo-Pacific region. From plans to deliver more than a billion vaccine doses — India-made with U.S. funding and distributed through Japanese and Australian networks — and donate another 1.3 billion doses around the world; to prepare for an Indo-Pacific Clean Energy Supply Chain Forum to tackle climate change; to further a “Quad vision” for technology governances and safe and transparent 5G systems, and to launch humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations, the Quad is, in the words of the joint statement issued, “more effective in delivering practical support to the region”. Despite being the only one of the Quad partners that deals with hostile land-neighbours, India was also able to insert a reference to fighting “cross-border” terrorism, and condemnation of the 26/11 attack and Pathankot attacks. The bonhomie between the Ministers shows a growing level of comfort with the principles behind the grouping of democratic countries, to support regional countries’ efforts to advance a “free and open Indo-Pacific”. That Quad members have thus far avoided institutionalising their grouping, and that they have not “militarised” it, is to their credit. In addition, despite Beijing’s sharp criticism of the grouping, Quad members chose not to name China directly as the joint statement spoke of ensuring a rules-based order and respect for sovereignty and building a region “free from coercion”.
•However, while the grouping is strong on all these precepts, there are obvious differences in the practice of their vision for the Indo-Pacific region and the world in general. The situation in Myanmar was mentioned, but External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar made it clear that while India supports a restoration of democracy, it does not support western “national” sanctions. The meeting took place in the shadow of the growing Russia-NATO tensions over Ukraine, but it seemed evident that Mr. Jaishankar did not share U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s assessment of an imminent “invasion”. New Delhi chose not to join the decision by the U.S., Japan and Australia to tell their citizens to evacuate immediately from Ukraine; nor was any mention of the situation allowed into the joint statement. Mr. Jaishankar’s strong tone the next day at a press conference (dominated by questions on Russia), on China’s amassing of troops at the border with India was also a subtle reminder to Quad partners that while they may have similar concerns and share many core values, they do not have an identical world view, and the Quad remains very much a grouping that is “for something, not against somebody”.
📰 A dipping graph in occupational safety
There is a need for a comprehensive review of labour inspection and the labour statistical system
•It is a fact that while industrial accidents occur often, only major accidents — say in construction or in a hazardous industry — are reported. Recently, the CRUSHED Report 2021 released by Safe in India (SII), reported in this daily, portrays a dismal picture concerning occupational safety and health in the auto sector. However, occupational safety and health (OSH) has not received due attention from law-makers and even trade unions in India. OSH is an existential human and labour right. There are two primary requirements to ensure safe workplaces, viz. a strong monitoring (inspections) and comprehensive database to frame corrective actions and policies. It becomes important then to understand the statistical profile relating to industrial accidents in India and the quality of inspections.
Many shortcomings
•Statistics concerning industrial accidents are produced by the Labour Bureau. It compiles and publishes data on industrial injuries relating only to a few sectors, viz. factories, mines, railways, docks and ports. But the data suffer from several shortcomings. It is inexplicable why the Labour Bureau has not considered expanding the scope of statistics on injuries by adding sectors such as plantations, construction, the service sector, etc.
•Even the data it produces is not representative of the situation in India as several major States default in the provision of data to the Labour Bureau. For example, during 2013-14, several major States such as Delhi, Gujarat, Kerala, Odisha, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal defaulted; then the all-India statistics was reduced to that extent. It is not surprising that the number of non-fatal injuries declined from an average of 21,370 during 2010-2015 to 5,811 during 2016-2019. Hence, we get a ridiculous statistic of average total injuries per factory at 0.02 (5,562/353,226) during 2017-2019. However, it may be added here that the drop is far higher in the case of non-fatal injuries than for fatal ones.
Data on States
•Since data reporting is volatile, we may get some idea of the shares of some of these States by looking at their shares in some years. In this article, data on industrial injuries published in the Indian Labour Statistics, by the Labour Bureau (various issues) has been used. Gujarat's share for 2006 was 14.98% of total fatal and 25.70% of total nonfatal injuries; Kerala's shares for 2005, respectively, were 2.94% and 6.73%; Tamil Nadu's for 2005 shares, respectively, were 8.16% and 11.11%; Maharashtra's shares for 2004 were 25.65% and 36.78% and for 2014, respectively, were 12.62% and 57%; Odisha's shares for 2006 were 37.73% and 21.99%. Thus, considering the fact of fluctuations in injuries’ incidence, we can make a guarded statement that the reported figures for fatal injuries for all-India would be less by around 40%-50% and that for nonfatal injuries by at least 50%.
There is under-reporting
•Even if States sent their data to the Labour Bureau, the States’ data are more likely to suffer from underreporting. As is well-known, under-reporting is more likely to be in case of non-fatal injuries than fatal ones for obvious reasons. The SSI’s report, among others, shows massive under-reporting of industrial injuries occurring in Haryana. Its report covering a segment of the auto sector in Gurugram and Faridabad showed that since 2017, on average 500 workers have received nonfatal injuries. The under-reporting of industrial injuries, unlike for strikes and lockouts, is a far more serious issue and cause for grave concern.
•According to the Directorate General, Factory Advice and Labour Institutes (DGFASLI)’s Standard Reference Note for 2020 in 2019, the proportion of working in sanctioned posts for factory inspectors (employment rate) for India was 70.60%. But major States such as Maharashtra (38.93%), Gujarat (57.52%), Tamil Nadu (58.33%), and Bihar (47.62%) had poor employment rates of inspectors. In 2019, there was an inspector for every 487 registered factories: this reveals the heavy workload of inspectors. The inspector per 1,000 workers employed in factories is a meagre 0.04; put differently, there is an inspector for every 25,415 workers. The sheer inadequacy of the inspectorate system is telling.
Factory inspections, convictions
•The proportion of registered factories inspected (inspection rates) for all-India declined from 36.23% during 2008-11 to 34.65% during 2012-2015 ( Standard Reference Notes; for various years) and further to 24.76%. While Kerala and Tamil Nadu had higher inspection rates at 63%-66%, Gujarat and Kerala had lower rates at 26%-30% and Haryana the lowest at 11.09% during 2008-2019. However, inspection rates declined in all five States. The decline over the three sub-periods noted above for Maharashtra (31% to 12%) and Haryana (14% to 7%) was much higher (50% and over) than for others. So, the factory inspectorates were inadequately equipped and worse, the inspection rates fell in almost all the States over the last 12 years.
•While the pejorative term ‘inspector-raj’ is a crude exaggeration, there is some merit in the criticisms against the inspection system. Inspectors cannot feasibly inspect every factory, so they used their “discretion” to target the “easy” factories to demand compromising payments. Many of them belong to the powerful industry groups which have successfully lobbied against the inspection system. Otherwise, inspector-raj is a cultivated myth.
•For all India, the conviction rates (percentage of convictions in total cases decided) for 2015-2019 stood at 61.39% and the average fine per conviction was ₹12,231 (not good enough to be a deterrent). However, the efficiency of the penal system is low as the percentage of decided cases out of total (cases pending at the beginning of the year plus those raised during the year) cases is a poor 15.74% during 2015-19. The SII’s findings are similar to these. Contrary to popular (even academic) opinion, during the four of five years of 2015-19, some imprisonments took place primarily in Tamil Nadu (an astonishing figure of 11,215 in 2017 and 45 in other three years; still higher rates), Chhattisgarh (17 in two years), Telangana (3 in 2016) and one each in Kerala and Punjab. But in Haryana or in other States, there were no imprisonments.
•Given the above statistical facts, two major issues are pertinent to legal and labour policy aspects. First, mindless liberalisation of the inspection system as has been effected during the last 20 years will not promote sound labour market governance. Second, simplifying the annual returns and self-certification systems weakens the already poorly placed labour statistical system regarding all variables — especially industrial injuries — thanks to low reporting by firms to State labour departments and the latter to the Labour Bureau. India has ratified International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions, the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (C081) and Labour Statistics Convention, 1985 (C160); and thus these defects violate the conventions. So against these tenets, the labour codes, especially the OSH Code, the inspection and the labour statistical systems should be reviewed as the Government is in the process of framing the Vision@2047 document for the Labour Ministry.
📰 The era of combative federalism
Instead of engaging in unnecessary conflicts, the Centre and the States have to strive to work in coordination
•The proposed amendments to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) (Cadre) Rules of 1954 have triggered another round of conflict between the Centre and the States. The amendments proposed by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, will take away the liberty of the States to deny consent for handing over civil servants for Central deputation. Further, if there are differences between the Centre and the States, the Centre’s decision will have to be accepted by the States within a specified time period. Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Telangana have objected to the amendments. whe proposed changes are the latest examples in the ivolution of the combative nature of federalism in India where the States and the Centre are always at loggerheads.
Shifting tides
•The shift of Indian federalism from co-operative to combative has been one of the major changes in Indian polity since the Narendra Modi-led government assumed power at the Centre with a brute majority. The expression ‘combative federalism’ was used by former Uttarakhand Chief Minister Harish Rawat immediately after his government was dismissed under Article 356 of the Constitution by President’s proclamation. Immediately thereafter, the Centre started wielding power by interfering with the affairs of the States using the Governor’s office.
•In 2016, when the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh decided to advance the Assembly elections, which led to political crisis in the State and then President’s Rule, the Supreme Court had to intervene and set right the constitutional crisis by holding that the Governor’s discretion did not extend to the powers conferred under Article 174. The Governor cannot not summon the House, determine its legislative agenda or address the legislative Assembly without consulting the Chief Minister or the Speaker, the Court said. In Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra, we saw examples of the Governor acting beyond his constitutional brief by inviting parties and formations which did not have an adequate majority to form the governments. In Rajasthan, the Governor refused to summon a session as desired by the Council of Ministers. This again brought to light how the Centre interferes in State affairs.
•The question of who should have control of the National Capital Territory of Delhi was resolved by the Supreme Court in 2018, but the dispute continues to linger in one form or the other before the courts. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the power of the Lieutenant-Governor of Delhi to differ from the Delhi government and make reference to the President is only with respect to exceptional matters like land, police and public order. However, the Supreme Court had to again remind the Delhi government and the Centre in Ajit Mohan v. Legislative Assembly, National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors (2021) that for the system “to work well, the Central Government and the State Government have to walk hand in hand or at least walk side by side for better governance.”
Overt conflicts
•Apart from more common occurrences of the Centre usurping States’ powers in the fields of legislation, overt conflicts and stalemates have surfaced in the areas of All-India Services and law and order. Such conflicts came to the fore when former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay was summoned to Delhi immediately after Prime Minister Modi’s visit to West Bengal following Cyclone Yaas. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s reluctance to accede to the Centre’s demand and the subsequent disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Bandyopadhyay snowballed into a major litigation that is now pending before the Delhi High Court.
•The deployment of central investigative agencies in the States, much to the displeasure of the States, has also caused trouble for our federal principles. The drama that unfolded with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s attempted arrest of Kolkata Commissioner of Police Rajeev Kumar without a warrant in early 2019 was only the beginning of a series of conflicts. he unfortunate death by suicide of actor Sushant Singh Rajput triggered a round of Mumbai Police-CBI disputes, as various FIRs were registered in Patna that were transferred to the CBI by the Bihar government. The resultant legal dispute was ultimately settled by the Supreme Court which directed the Mumbai Police to hand over the investigation to the CBI. The protracted investigations at the instance of Customs, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in issues arising from a gold-smuggling case in the Kerala saw a major State-Centre face-off, after the Customs, NIA and ED charge-sheeted the former Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister’s Office of Kerala. Soon thereafter, the Kerala government decided to take on the Centre by ordering a judicial inquiry against central investigating agencies and their overreach in the State. Kerala also witnessed another controversy surrounding Centre-State conflict when the CBI registered an wIR for blleged infractions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act. It said the State government had received ovreign contributions from the United Arab Emirates byr a Gousing project. There is no doubt that such investigations, purportedly for political reasons, into the functioning of the State governments have caused considerable dent in the federal architecture of the country. This is why Itrious States live withdrawn the general consent for functioning of the CBI in their respective jurisdictions.
Collaborative federalism
•Combative federalism is anathema to the Constitution which prescribes cooperation and collaboration between the Centre and the States. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018) that the idea behind the concept of collaborative federalism is negotiation and coordination so that differences which may arise between the Centre and the State Governments in their respective pursuits of development can be ironed out. The Court said: “Union Government and the State governments should endeavour to address the common problems with the intention to arrive at a solution by showing statesmanship, combined action and sincere cooperation.” The Constituent Assembly, while framing our Constitution, never envisaged a situation where the Central and the State governments would stand in the way of each other. Encroachment by either of the constituent units is strictly prohibited and expressly held abhorrent by the Constitution. Rather than wasting time and energy in unnecessary conflicts, the Centre and the States have to strive to work in coordination in the best interests of the people.
📰 India’s semiconductor dream
While the government has already provided incentives for manufacturing, more needs to be done to make India self-reliant
•The pandemic has brought to the fore the fragility of the global supply chain of semiconductor manufacturing. The situation is exacerbated by the overdependence of the world on East Asia for fab manufacturing, the rising price of silicon, and the China-U.S. trade war. No wonder, countries are scampering to safeguard their interests by introducing attractive packages to attract more chip manufacturing. The U.S. has announced a $50 billion package to create foundries there. Intel is adding two more foundries to its Arizona campus and also developing its own foundry business to compete with chip-makers such as TSMSC and UMC. TSMC, which controls 24% of the semiconductor supply chain, is setting up a $12 billion facility in Arizona. Japan and Germany have got TSMC to start specialty technology fabs in their respective countries.
•It is timely, therefore, that India has approved a $10 billion package to incentivise the manufacturing of semiconductors in the country. The government has drawn out a list of incentives to get leading international manufacturers to set up their manufacturing unit in India either by themselves or with the help of a local partner. Considering the current geopolitical dynamics and the fact that semiconductors are at the core of fourth industrial revolution technologies, this is a welcome first step.
Fab manufacturing
•Getting fab manufacturing will also build on India’s strength in design. We have the largest number of chip designers outside of the U.S. who are working on state-of-the-art systems and technologies. For example, Karnataka boasts of over 85 fabless chip design houses of various global companies. The strong expertise of our semiconductor design professionals in EDA (Electronic Design Automation) tools provides solid ground to move towards manufacturing. To create the ecosystem for fab manufacturing, it is important to lock in the demand for semiconductors produced within the country. The total demand for semiconductors stands at $24 billion. This is expected to grow to $80-90 billion by 2030. However, this demand is for different categories of semiconductors used in various electronic devices and applications. Considering that initial manufacturing would be in mature tech, it would be ideal to enter into an agreement with the consumers of such semiconductors like automotive manufacturers to ensure that whatever is produced is consumed. Better still is to get established fab companies to come on their own as they bring with them their demand base.
•Similar work needs to be done to develop raw material supply capabilities. The India Electronics and Semiconductor Association is exploring the opportunity to start supplying processed raw materials like minerals and gases to the fab and ATMP (Assembly. Testing, Marking, and Packaging) industry. This will give a fillip to the Indian gas, materials, and mines industry and also expand opportunities for semiconductor equipment, spares, and service industry.
•Fab clustering, where key semiconductor supply chains and related businesses are in one place to create backward and forward linkages, would also play a key role in creating an ecosystem for the semiconductor industry. Such a site should be chosen purely on the ability of the location to act as a force multiplier for the development of such an ecosystem. It needs to ensure high-quality infrastructure along with uninterrupted power availability with more than 99.7% uptime, connected to two different grids to ensure redundancy. The availability of semiconductor grade Ultra Pure Water to the extent of 10 MLD per fab is also a key requirement. Additionally, a conducive environment needs to be created for women to work night shifts along with zero labour disputes.
•Apart from incentivising more FDI in electronics to deepen our supply chains through incentive schemes, we need to focus on encouraging Indian manufacturers and start-ups to enter and master complex R&D and manufacturing verticals. We can then ensure that valuable Intellectual Property is created and owned by Indian companies. The semiconductor industry is changing fast as new-age technologies require innovation at the design, material, and process levels. Indian engineers have contributed immensely to this area in multinational companies. We must encourage them to set up their design start-ups with handsome government grants and tax incentives. Premier research institutions such as the Indian Institute of Science should also be asked to work aggressively on R&D in chip designing and manufacturing. Further, the government must focus on emerging technologies like LiDAR and Phased Array in which incumbents do not have a disproportionate advantage and the entry barrier is low. By working aggressively in new cutting-edge technologies, India can ensure that it becomes atmanirbhar.
