India's manufacturing sector has struggled to grow significantly since the country's independence, despite repeated government efforts. At the time of independence, agriculture was the main driver of the economy, contributing about half of the Gross Domestic Product, while manufacturing made up only 11%.

Early economic plans, starting with the first Five Year Plan (1951-56), focused on increasing domestic savings and then on developing a capital goods sector to support investment. The second Five Year Plan (1956-61) emphasized government investment in capital goods production, with smaller enterprises handling consumer goods. This period saw the rise of the public sector, with government-owned companies dominating key industries like steel, aircraft, and telecommunications. Industrial policy also relied on licensing to direct resources and protected domestic industries through high tariffs and import restrictions.

By 1980, manufacturing's share in India's GDP had reached approximately 16-17%. Some economists suggest that significant growth in this sector occurred before the 1991 liberalization, due to policy changes that allowed for capacity expansion and relaxed price controls. The 1991 reforms, which opened the economy to private and international competition, further boosted manufacturing, maintaining a steady 15-18% contribution to GDP until around 2015.

However, the share of manufacturing in GDP began to decline after 2015. A major factor was the non-performing assets crisis in the banking sector, which led to a sharp reduction in lending to large industries. This, combined with over-capacity from previous loan-fueled expansion, meant companies had less need and ability to invest in new production. Increased reliance on imports, particularly from China, also contributed to some Indian manufacturing becoming primarily assembly and repackaging operations. The COVID-19 pandemic further impacted demand and investment.

Despite the "Make in India" initiative, the manufacturing sector's contribution to GDP fell from 15.6% in 2015-16 to 12.6% in 2024-25, the lowest in 71 years. A persistent challenge has been the need for reforms at the state level, with a lack of cooperation from many state governments hindering progress on land and labor policies. In contrast, the services sector has experienced substantial growth, driven by the IT boom, and now accounts for nearly 58% of India's GDP, a significant increase from its 37% share in 1950.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information provided in this article. It describes historical economic trends and challenges in India's manufacturing sector, but it does not offer any steps, tips, or instructions that a reader can implement in their own life.

Educational Depth: The article provides a good historical overview and explains some of the causes behind the trends in India's manufacturing sector. It details the focus of early Five Year Plans, the impact of liberalization, and the reasons for the post-2015 decline, such as the NPA crisis and increased imports. The inclusion of GDP percentages at different points in time adds some educational value by illustrating the sector's changing contribution. However, it could offer more depth by explaining the mechanisms of the licensing system or the specific policy changes that boosted growth before 1991.

Personal Relevance: The article has limited direct personal relevance for most individuals. While it discusses economic trends that could indirectly affect job markets or the availability of goods, it does not offer advice on personal finance, career choices, or consumer decisions. A reader might gain a general understanding of India's economic development, but it doesn't directly impact their daily life or future planning.

Public Service Function: This article does not serve a public service function. It is an informative piece about economic history and current challenges, but it does not offer warnings, safety advice, emergency contacts, or tools that the public can use. It is more of a news analysis than a public service announcement.

Practicality of Advice: As there is no advice given, this point is not applicable.

Long-Term Impact: The article does not provide advice or actions that have lasting good effects for the reader. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive, focusing on past and present economic performance without suggesting future strategies for individuals.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article is neutral in its emotional impact. It presents factual information about economic performance and challenges without attempting to evoke strong emotions like fear, hope, or anxiety. It is informative and analytical in tone.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not use clickbait or ad-driven language. The phrasing is factual and analytical, focusing on economic data and policy explanations. There are no sensationalized claims or attempts to manipulate the reader for clicks.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article missed opportunities to provide more practical guidance. For instance, when discussing the challenges of state-level reforms, it could have suggested ways for citizens to engage with or understand these processes. When mentioning the decline in manufacturing, it could have pointed readers towards resources for learning about investment opportunities or career paths in growing sectors like services. A normal person could find better information by researching reports from organizations like the Reserve Bank of India or the Confederation of Indian Industry, or by following economic news from reputable sources.

The shift away from a manufacturing base, particularly the reliance on assembly and repackaging, weakens the foundational duties of families and communities to cultivate and build. When production becomes superficial, it diminishes the opportunities for fathers and mothers to teach their children practical skills and the value of sustained effort in shaping the land and its resources. This reliance on external production erodes local self-sufficiency and fosters dependency, pulling individuals away from their ancestral lands and the responsibilities that come with their care.

The rise of a services-based economy, while bringing prosperity to some, can fracture kinship bonds by drawing individuals into distant, impersonal work environments. This can diminish the natural duties of extended kin to support each other, particularly in raising children and caring for elders. When the focus shifts to abstract services, the tangible, daily care and responsibility for the vulnerable within the clan can be neglected. Trust erodes when economic survival becomes dependent on external systems rather than the strength and cooperation of the local community.

The decline in manufacturing, especially when linked to reduced lending and over-capacity, suggests a breakdown in responsible stewardship of resources. This can lead to a neglect of the land, as the focus shifts from tangible production to more ephemeral economic activities. The natural duty to preserve and pass on fertile land to future generations is undermined when the economic framework prioritizes short-term gains or external dependencies.

The lack of cooperation at the local level, hindering land and labor policies, directly weakens the ability of families and clans to manage their own affairs and protect their resources. This disunity breaks the trust and responsibility that should bind neighbors and kin together, making them vulnerable to external forces that do not prioritize their long-term survival.

The consequences of these trends spreading unchecked are dire: families will become increasingly fragmented, with fewer opportunities for shared work and mutual support. The care of children and elders will be further strained, as traditional support structures weaken. Community trust will erode, replaced by isolation and a diminished sense of collective responsibility. The stewardship of the land will suffer, leading to its neglect and degradation, jeopardizing the very foundation of future generations' survival. The continuity of the people is threatened when the structures that support procreation and the nurturing of the next generation are weakened.

The text uses strong words to describe the decline of manufacturing. It states the sector's contribution fell to "the lowest in 71 years." This phrasing emphasizes a negative outcome and might make readers feel more concerned about the manufacturing sector's performance. It highlights a specific negative statistic to create a strong impression.

The text presents a contrast between the manufacturing and services sectors. It notes the services sector "has experienced substantial growth, driven by the IT boom." This highlights the success of one sector while implicitly pointing to the struggles of another. The focus on the IT boom's success can make the manufacturing sector's issues seem more pronounced.

The text mentions "a lack of cooperation from many state governments hindering progress." This phrasing places blame on state governments for the lack of progress. It suggests that external factors, specifically the actions of these governments, are the primary cause of the problem. This can deflect attention from other potential causes or solutions.

The text uses passive voice when discussing the decline after 2015. It says, "the share of manufacturing in GDP began to decline after 2015." This phrasing does not specify who or what caused the decline to begin. It focuses on the event itself rather than assigning responsibility.

The text suggests a cause for the decline by stating, "A major factor was the non-performing assets crisis in the banking sector." This presents a specific event as a primary reason for the manufacturing sector's struggles. It implies that this crisis directly led to reduced investment and growth.

The text conveys a sense of disappointment and concern regarding the performance of India's manufacturing sector. This feeling is evident from the opening statement that the sector has "struggled to grow significantly" despite government efforts. The phrase "lowest in 71 years" further amplifies this sense of disappointment, highlighting a prolonged period of underperformance. This emotion serves to underscore the seriousness of the situation and to draw the reader's attention to the challenges faced. The writer uses this emotional tone to guide the reader's reaction by creating a sense of worry about the economic future and perhaps inspiring a desire for change or action to address these persistent issues.

The text also expresses a subtle undercurrent of frustration. This is particularly noticeable when discussing the "lack of cooperation from many state governments" which "hindering progress." This phrasing suggests an obstacle that is preventing positive outcomes, leading to a feeling of being held back. This frustration aims to persuade the reader by suggesting that external factors, beyond the control of national policy, are contributing to the manufacturing sector's struggles. It might also be intended to shift blame or highlight the need for greater governmental coordination.

In contrast, the text acknowledges a sense of achievement or progress in the services sector, noting its "substantial growth" and significant contribution to GDP. This is presented as a positive development, driven by the "IT boom." While not an emotion in itself, the positive framing of the services sector's growth serves as a point of comparison, indirectly highlighting the relative stagnation of manufacturing. This contrast is a persuasive tool, subtly suggesting that while one sector is thriving, another is lagging, thereby reinforcing the overall message of concern about manufacturing.

The writer employs specific language to evoke these emotions. Words like "struggled," "hindering," and "decline" carry negative emotional weight, painting a picture of difficulty and setbacks. The repetition of the idea that manufacturing's share has fallen, culminating in the "lowest in 71 years," emphasizes the severity of the situation and aims to create a stronger emotional impact. By presenting these facts in a clear, chronological manner, the writer builds a narrative of challenges and missed opportunities, guiding the reader to understand the gravity of the manufacturing sector's performance and fostering a more critical view of its current state.