Chethan Kumar in Parallax: Made in India isn’t enough. It has to be made by India

“Made in India” describes location. It tells us that a product was manufactured or assembled in India. “Made by India” describes technological ownership. It asks whether Indian companies or institutions invented the product, own its intellectual property and control its development.

The difference matters because manufacturing can happen without ownership. India may assemble smartphones, launch satellites or produce sophisticated equipment while relying on imported designs, components or technology. Such activity creates jobs and capabilities, but much of the value may remain elsewhere.

India therefore needs both manufacturing strength and intellectual ownership. Factories, production volumes and exports remain important. But progress should also be judged by Indian-owned technologies, commercialised research, licensing income and original products reaching global markets. The goal is not merely to manufacture products the world buys, but to create technologies the world needs.

Domestic value addition in mobile phones is only 22–23%, according to MeitY secretary S Krishnan in August 2026. This means the larger share of a phone’s value still comes from outside India, even when the device is assembled or exported from the country.

The figure exposes an important distinction. A factory can assemble a finished product at large scale without designing its components, owning its intellectual property or controlling the technology. Manufacturing creates jobs and supplier networks, but assembly alone does not establish technological independence.

India has made progress as a mobile-phone manufacturing and export base. Yet the low domestic share shows why success cannot be measured only by factories or shipment volumes. India must also develop original designs, technologies and businesses that increase domestic value and allow Indian companies to capture more of the product’s economic value.

When India assembles products or operates imported technology without owning the underlying designs, it gains useful manufacturing or operational experience but remains dependent. It may create jobs and meet immediate needs, yet essential decisions, intellectual property and much of the value can remain outside the country.

Smartphones illustrate the issue. India has become a manufacturing and export base, but domestic value addition is only 22–23%. Space provides another example: buying and successfully operating a payload, such as an atomic clock, can serve a strategic need. It does not equal creating that technology.

The consequence is limited control over future improvements, licensing and economic returns. Imported technology is not automatically a mistake. Partnerships and purchases can be sensible when they build domestic capabilities. The danger comes when they become permanent substitutes for Indian design, research, ownership and product development in strategic sectors.

Intellectual property is more than a patent number or legal certificate. It is an economic asset because it can give its owner control over technology, licensing decisions and revenue. Ownership helps determine who captures the value created by a product and who can build the next version.

The article connects IP with practical power. A country may assemble a phone or operate a space payload, but if another party owns the designs and technology, that party retains important control. India’s semiconductor effort reflects this concern, since domestic design capabilities need to become competitive products and sustainable businesses.

IP is especially strategic when technology affects national capabilities. India should welcome foreign investment, licensing and collaboration when they expand domestic skills. But these arrangements should not leave essential design and ownership permanently outside the country. Progress requires both factories and Indian-owned technologies that generate licensing revenues and global products.

India already has a large pool of engineers who design chips. This is a significant capability because semiconductor design and intellectual property can support products with much greater value than simple assembly. The challenge is converting skilled people into globally competitive companies and technologies.

The government’s Design Linked Incentive scheme supports domestic companies and startups working on semiconductor design and IP. Its mechanism is practical: provide support so Indian teams can develop designs, build businesses and eventually create products that compete internationally. The scheme recognises design talent as an asset worth developing.

Results will take time. The article warns against judging progress only by announcements, investment commitments or factories inaugurated. India needs a long-term strategy that connects design skills with research, prototypes, commercial products and sustainable businesses. If that ecosystem develops, chip-design capability can strengthen both Indian ownership and manufacturing.

India’s gross expenditure on research and development stood at about 0.8% of GDP in 2023–24, according to government figures. This investment matters because technological power depends on sustained research, not only factories or imported equipment. India already has a substantial scientific and engineering workforce.

The key mechanism is translation. Research needs an ecosystem that moves an idea from a laboratory to a patent, then to a working prototype, and finally to a product customers will buy. A patent alone does not prove commercial success. Companies, universities and investors must connect these stages.

India’s central challenge is turning research into internationally competitive products. Deep technology often requires longer timelines and accepts failure along the way. A long-term strategy, stronger university-industry links and greater company investment can help convert R&D into Indian-owned technologies, licensing revenues and original products for global markets.

An idea begins in a research laboratory and must first become a patent or other protectable intellectual asset. It then needs development into a working prototype. The prototype must solve a real problem well enough for customers to buy it. Only then can it support a commercial product and a sustainable business.

Each step needs connections. Researchers need companies that can develop and manufacture products. Universities need stronger industry links. Investors must accept that deep technology often takes longer and may involve failure. A patent is useful, but it is not evidence that customers will buy the resulting product.

The article says India lacks an ecosystem that reliably connects these stages. Its scientific and engineering workforce is substantial, but research is not consistently becoming globally competitive products. Building that pipeline requires patience, investment and long-term strategy, along with measures tracking commercialised research and original products reaching global markets.