Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has long framed his leadership around the theme of Atmanirbhar Bharat-a self-reliant India. On September 20, during an event in Gujarat where he inaugurated maritime projects worth over $40 billion, Modi sharpened this message further, declaring that India’s greatest adversary is not another country, but the nation’s deep reliance on external powers.

“In the true sense, if we have any enemy, it is dependence on other countries,” he said, emphasizing that genuine prosperity and security can only come through self-sufficiency. His comments highlight a recurring theme in his rhetoric: the danger of leaving India’s economy vulnerable to foreign policy shocks and global market fluctuations.

What makes Modi’s declaration striking is the implicit rejection of conventional adversarial framing. India has historically viewed its security challenges through the lens of hostile neighbors, particularly Pakistan and China. Yet Modi’s statement reframes the debate, suggesting that dependency itself-whether economic, technological, or industrial-is a greater long-term threat than cross-border disputes.

By doing so, Modi sought to link national security with economic independence. His message reflects a broader worldview: that a nation vulnerable to external supply chains or foreign monopolies is inherently at risk, regardless of military strength.

Modi’s remarks were delivered against the backdrop of an ambitious maritime development push. Five decades ago, Indian-owned ships carried 40% of the nation’s overseas trade. Today, that figure has dwindled to just 5%. Instead, the vast majority of India’s shipping needs are fulfilled by foreign companies, costing the nation billions in foreign exchange annually.

To dramatize the scale of the problem, Modi compared these payments to India’s defense budget-suggesting that what India spends on hiring foreign shipping companies nearly equals the funds it allocates to protect its borders. For a country aspiring to be a global power, this level of dependency represents, in his words, an “erosion of self-respect.”

“Whether chips or ships, we need to make them in India,” Modi declared, linking maritime revival to the broader push for domestic high-tech and manufacturing industries.

India’s reliance on foreign powers is not confined to shipping. In sectors like semiconductors, electronics, defense equipment, and energy, the country remains heavily dependent on imports. Despite years of government initiatives such as “Make in India” and the production-linked incentive (PLI) schemes, domestic capacity in critical technologies is still limited.

This vulnerability becomes acute when geopolitical tensions flare. Modi’s comments came shortly after the United States imposed new penalties on India, including a 25% tariff on most imports in response to New Delhi’s ongoing purchase of discounted Russian oil. The White House also announced a $100,000 annual fee on H-1B visa applications, a move that disproportionately impacts Indian IT professionals-the backbone of India’s tech outsourcing industry.

These developments underline Modi’s point: economic dependence leaves India exposed to political and diplomatic pressures beyond its control.

For Modi, self-reliance is not simply an economic strategy but a national security imperative. By reducing foreign dependence, India would shield itself from sanctions, tariffs, and restrictions that could derail its growth trajectory.

“If we remain at the mercy of others, our self-respect will also be hurt… We cannot risk our future generations on others,” he warned.

This narrative aligns with his broader push for an India that is both a global partner and an independent actor. Modi has often described India as a “Vishwaguru” (world teacher) and “Vishwabandhu” (global friend). Yet this global positioning, he argues, cannot be credible if India remains excessively reliant on external sources for its basic needs.

The timing of Modi’s remarks is significant. Indo-US relations have grown increasingly strained over the past year. While Washington continues to view India as a critical counterweight to China in the Indo-Pacific, trade disputes have cast a shadow over the partnership.

India’s decision to continue purchasing Russian oil at discounted rates has particularly angered Washington, which views the practice as undermining Western sanctions on Moscow. In retaliation, the Biden administration imposed sweeping tariffs on Indian goods, a move that could affect sectors ranging from textiles to pharmaceuticals.

The additional visa fee has also sparked outrage within India’s IT industry, with Nasscom, the country’s leading tech lobby, calling it a direct attack on Indian workers. These developments have fueled debates within India about whether the US is a reliable partner-or whether it represents another form of dependence that carries hidden costs.

Critics of Modi’s approach argue that in an interconnected world, complete self-reliance is neither realistic nor desirable. India benefits significantly from foreign investment, international trade, and global supply chains. Overemphasizing self-sufficiency, they warn, risks fostering protectionism that could harm competitiveness.

Yet Modi’s framing is less about autarky and more about resilience. His message reflects a concern that overdependence leaves India vulnerable to external coercion—whether in shipping, energy, or technology. By reviving sectors like shipbuilding and encouraging domestic semiconductor production, he hopes to reduce these vulnerabilities without abandoning global engagement.

The challenge for Modi will be translating rhetoric into reality. India’s manufacturing sector has struggled to take off despite numerous government incentives. Infrastructure gaps, bureaucratic red tape, and skill shortages remain major obstacles. Reviving the shipbuilding industry, for example, will require not only financial investment but also technological expertise and labor force training.

Moreover, Modi’s critics note that his government has often relied on foreign investment to drive growth, raising questions about whether true independence is achievable under current policies. The reliance on global tech giants in India’s digital ecosystem, as well as the dependence on foreign defense suppliers, demonstrates how far India remains from Modi’s vision of complete self-reliance.

By naming dependence as India’s “true enemy,” Modi has reframed the debate about national security and economic development. His message is both a warning and a call to action: unless India can revive its domestic industries and reduce reliance on foreign powers, it risks undermining both its prosperity and its sovereignty.

Whether this vision can be realized will depend on the government’s ability to implement reforms that not only attract investment but also build genuine domestic capacity. For now, Modi’s words serve as a reminder that in the 21st century, a nation’s strength is measured not just by military might, but by the resilience of its economy and the independence of its supply chains.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

The post Modi declares India’s ‘true enemy’: Dependence on foreign powers appeared first on BLiTZ.

[Read More]

—–
Source: Weekly Blitz :: Writings