‘Cope harder’: Vaishnaw defends India's iPhone PLI scheme

India’s Production Linked Incentive scheme supports companies that manufacture mobile phones domestically. Its basic idea is to connect government incentives with production performance. This matters because financial support can make India more attractive as a manufacturing base and encourage companies to expand local operations.

The article reports that the government paid Rs 19,000 crore in incentives under the mobile manufacturing scheme. In return, the sector generated direct tax collections of Rs 25,000 crore and GST collections of Rs 3 lakh crore, according to Ashwini Vaishnaw. These figures are central to the government’s argument that the scheme is producing economic returns.

The PLI scheme has helped India attract growing electronics production, including iPhone assembly. However, incentives alone do not create a complete technology ecosystem. India still needs more local component production, suppliers, research, and design capabilities to capture greater value from each phone made there.

Apple’s iPhone assembly operation in India has become large and strategically important. The country assembled around 55 million iPhones in 2025. That represented about a quarter of Apple’s global iPhone output, strengthening India’s position as an alternative manufacturing base to China.

The growth was rapid. India assembled 36 million iPhones in 2024, then reached approximately 55 million in 2025. That was a 53% increase in one year. Apple also began assembling every model in its iPhone 17 lineup in India, including the Pro and Pro Max versions.

This expansion shows that India can attract production at major global scale. It does not yet prove complete manufacturing independence, because several important components remain imported. The next challenge is turning high assembly volumes into a deeper network of Indian suppliers, component makers, researchers, and designers.

Ashwini Vaishnaw used tax revenue, government incentives, and employment to defend India’s PLI-backed manufacturing model. His argument was that the public support given to electronics production is generating wider economic returns. These measures form the government’s case for continuing domestic manufacturing incentives.

Vaishnaw said the government had paid Rs 19,000 crore in incentives. He reported direct tax collections of Rs 25,000 crore and GST collections of Rs 3 lakh crore. He also said electronics manufacturing supported 25 lakh jobs, including 12 lakh jobs in mobile phone manufacturing.

The figures strengthen the case that manufacturing growth has effects beyond factory output. However, they do not settle questions about imported components or the depth of India’s technology capabilities. The country’s next test is building more of the supply chain, along with stronger research and design capacity.

Assembling a finished iPhone and manufacturing its technology are different achievements. Assembly puts parts together, but genuine high-tech independence requires producing more of those parts and developing the capabilities behind them. This distinction matters because the economic and industrial benefits depend on how much of the device’s value is created locally.

India’s iPhone output is rising quickly, yet it still imports several critical components. These include processors, memory chips, displays, camera lenses, and batteries. The article notes that the country can therefore produce a large number of finished phones while remaining dependent on overseas manufacturers for essential technology.

India has shown that it can attract large-scale production, but the supply chain remains incomplete. More domestic component manufacturing, research, and design would deepen its capabilities. Without that progress, higher assembly volumes may not translate into lasting high-tech strength or maximum economic value.

When key components are imported, India captures the value created by assembling the phone but not all the value created across its supply chain. The article links manufacturing’s economic impact partly to how much production happens inside the country. This makes component localization important, not merely higher final-output numbers.

Processors, memory chips, displays, camera lenses, and batteries remain among the imported parts used in iPhones assembled in India. Foreign manufacturers therefore continue to supply major pieces of the product. Indian factories can assemble the finished device, while overseas companies capture value from producing those essential components.

Developing local component makers could change that balance. Indian suppliers would capture more value, and the country would become less reliant on overseas manufacturers. The shift would also create a stronger industrial base, although the article presents it as a future challenge rather than an achievement already completed.

Moving beyond final assembly means building the wider capabilities behind each device. India would need more companies making components, more suppliers operating locally, and stronger research and design capabilities. These steps matter because they would let Indian firms participate in more stages of electronics production.

The article identifies several imported components, including processors, memory chips, displays, camera lenses, and batteries. Bringing more suppliers into India could reduce this dependence. At the same time, stronger research and design would help the country contribute to the technology and development of products, rather than mainly putting together parts made elsewhere.

India has already demonstrated that it can attract large-scale iPhone manufacturing. The next test is whether that production can support a deeper domestic ecosystem. If local capabilities expand, India could capture more value and build a more substantial presence in global electronics supply chains.

A global supply chain is the connected system through which different countries and companies make parts, develop technology, assemble products, and move them to market. For electronics, that system can include component production, research, design, and final assembly. It matters because production is spread across many stages, not concentrated in one factory.

The iPhone illustrates this distinction. India assembles millions of phones, but processors, memory chips, displays, camera lenses, and batteries are still imported. If Indian companies also made more of these components and developed more product knowledge, a larger share of the phone’s economic value would be created locally.

Controlling more stages can also build skills, suppliers, and industrial capabilities over time. India’s assembly growth is therefore an important starting point, but not the endpoint. The country’s longer-term success depends on expanding from final assembly into components, research, design, and deeper supply-chain participation.