Influence of Government Policies On Industry Development: The Case of India's Automotive Industry

econstor
A Service of
zbw
Leibniz-Informationszentrum
Wirtschaft
Make Your Publications Visible.

Leibniz Information Centre
for Economics
Ranawat, Mahipat; Tiwari, Rajnish
Working Paper
Influence of government policies on industry
development: The case of India's automotive industry
Working Paper, No. 57
Provided in Cooperation with:

Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and
Innovation Management
Suggested Citation: Ranawat, Mahipat; Tiwari, Rajnish (2009) : Influence of government

policies on industry development: The case of India's automotive industry, Working Paper,
No. 57, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation
Management (TIM), Hamburg,
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:830-tubdok-5600
This Version is available at:

http://hdl.handle.net/10419/55450
Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use:
Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your
Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes.
Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial
Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them
machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise
use the documents in public.
Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen
(insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open
gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you
genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated
licence.
www.econstor.eu
Technology and
Innovation Management
WORKING PAPER
Influence of Government Policies on

Industry Development:
The Case of India’s Automotive Industry
Mahipat Ranawat
Rajnish Tiwari
March 2009
Working Paper No. 57
Hamburg University of Technology
Schwarzenbergstr. 95, D-21073 Hamburg, Germany

Tel.: +49 (0)40 42878-3777; Fax: +49 (0)40 42878-2867
www.tu-harburg.de/tim www.global-innovation.net
Influence of Government Policies on Industry Development:
The Case of India’s Automotive Industry
By Mahipat Ranawat and Rajnish Tiwari
Hamburg University of Technology
Institute of Technology and Innovation Management
Schwarzenbergstr. 95, 21073 Hamburg (Germany)
Tel. +49 – (0)40 – 428 78 – 3776, Fax: +49 – (0)40 – 428 78 – 2867
[email protected]; [email protected]
www.tuhh.de/tim; www.global-innovation.net
Abstract
The automotive industry in India has come a long way from its nascent state at the time of
India’s independence in 1947 to its present day dynamic form. As compared to the production
of mere 4,000 vehicles in 1950, the production of the industry crossed the historic landmark
of 10 million vehicles in 2006. Today, the industry produces a wide range of automobiles and
auto-components catering to both the domestic as well as foreign markets. The development
of the industry has been shaped by the demand on the one hand and the government
interventions on the other; the influence of the latter being considerable.
The evolution of India’s automotive industry is identified to have occurred in four phases. In
the first (1947-1965) and second phase (1966-1979), the important policies identified were
related to protection, indigenisation and regulation of the industry. On the one hand, these
policies helped India to build an indigenous automotive industry, while on the other it led to
unsatisfactory industry performance. In the third phase (1980-1990), the single most
important policy identified was the one with regard to relaxation in the means of technology
acquisition. The foreign competition inducted into the industry transformed its dynamics.
Lastly, in the fourth phase (1991 onwards) the liberalisation with regard to foreign investment
had a significant influence on the Indian automotive industry as we see it today.
This work traces the evolution of the automotive industry from its inception to present day
and identifies the important policies made by the Indian government. The work also studies
the influence of important policies on the development of the industry.
Keywords: Government Influence; Government Policies; Indian Automotive Industry

Ranawat and Tiwari (2009) Influence of Govt. Policies on India’s Automotive Industry 3
1. Introduction
The automotive industry in India has come a long way from its nascent state at the time of
India’s independence in 1947 to its present day dynamic form. As compared to the production
of mere 4,000 vehicles in 1950, the production of the industry crossed the historic landmark
of 10 million vehicles in 2006. Today, the industry produces a wide range of automobiles and
auto-components catering to both the domestic as well as foreign markets. The development
of the industry has been shaped by the demand on the one hand and the government
interventions on the other; the influence of the latter being considerable.
The automotive industry in India was heavily regulated until the 1970s. The automotive firms
were obliged to obtain licenses from the Indian government for various firm activities. The
1980s witnessed some relaxation in the regulations and the entry of Japanese firms. In the
early 1990s, India undertook historic economic reforms under which the automotive industry
was liberalised. Various government interventions in the form of policies, existing at various
points of time, have influenced the development of India’s automotive industry over these
phases.
This working paper makes an attempt at identifying policies that have influenced or are
influencing the industry’s development and at understanding their influences on the same. It is
also of interest to understand the considerations made on the part of the Indian government
that underlie such policies and to explore the role played by the government in the
development of the industry.
The paper is organised in the following way: Section 2 provides the current overview of
India’s automotive industry whereas section 3 describes the present industry structure and
industry clusters. Section 4 makes a general discussion about the role ought to be played by
the government in different stages of industry’s competitive development. In section 5 we
discuss the evolution of India’s automotive industry under the influence of various
government interventions providing background on considerations made. The influence of
important policies on the development of the automotive industry is analysed in section 6.
Here we also discuss the role played by the Indian government in each of the developmental
phase of the industry. Finally, section 7 provides a summary of the work.

Research Project Global Innovation Working Paper 57 / March 2009 TIM/TUHH

2. Current overview of India’s automotive industry
The automotive industry in India has been witnessing an impressive growth since the
country’s economic liberalisation in the early 1990s. In contrast to the 1.5 million units
produced in the year 1993-94, the production of vehicles in the country crossed a historic
landmark of 10 million units in the year 2006-07 (refer Appendix A). Rising demand owing to
the strong growth of Indian economy post liberalisation and the changing landscape in the
global automotive industry have fuelled such a growth. India is currently the world’s second
largest market for 2-wheelers (IBEF 2008) and is considered to be one of the fastest growing
passenger car markets (GOI 2006a). In the year 2007, India ranked 8th in the production of
commercial vehicles and 9th in the production of passenger cars worldwide, moving up from a
rank of 13th and 15th respectively in the year 2000 (OICA 2008a). 1 India is also home to the
world’s largest 2-wheeler manufacturer and the 11th largest commercial vehicle manufacturer
(Hero Honda 2008 and OICA 2008b).
Indian automotive industry, which comprises of the automobile and the auto-component
industries, is one of the largest industries in India. 2 In the year 2005-06, the turnover of the
Indian automobile industry was United States Dollar (USD) 28 billion and that of the Indian
auto-component industry was USD 10 billion (GOI 2006a). The automotive industry with its
deep backward and forward linkages in the economy has been identified by the Government
of India as an important industry with a high potential to increase the share of manufacturing
in gross domestic product, exports and employment (GOI 2006b). As a result, the Indian
government has paid special attention to the investment and growth within the industry.
Favourable investment conditions and the changing scenario of global competition have
attracted world’s major auto manufacturers into India. Be it market-seeking or low-cost
sourcing, India has emerged as an attractive automotive location to offer (global) automotive
sector firms strategic advantages.
Increased competition on the home turf as well as the growing acceptance of their products in
the foreign markets have encouraged the Indian auto manufacturers to upgrade their
technological capabilities, either through in-house research and development (R&D) efforts or
through other means of technology acquisition. The industrious efforts of Indian auto
manufacturers are earning acclaim worldwide. For example, the world’s cheapest car recently
unveiled by the Indian 4-wheeler manufacturer Tata Motors received attention of auto
manufacturers around the world (Time 2008). The Indian automotive industry with its large
number of domestic and foreign players is operating in terms of the dynamics of an open
market. The growing installed capacity of the industry reached a figure of 2.24 million 4-
wheelers and 12.69 million 2-/3-wheelers in the year 2006-07 (SIAM 2008a). The
competitive conditions within the industry have substantially benefited the Indian consumers,
who now have access to a wide variety of vehicles with affordable price tags.
The subsequent sub-sections in this section elaborate upon some of the important aspects of
the Indian automotive industry like domestic sales, exports and R&D.
1
Ranking in terms of the number of units produced.
2
Indian tyre industry with a turnover of USD 4.4 billion and exports of USD 0.6 billion in the year 2007-08, is
also a part of the Indian automotive industry (ATMA 2008). For the purpose of this work, the discussion shall be
limited to the Indian automobile and auto-component industries.
2.1. Domestic sales
Indian consumers have at their disposal a broad array of automobile models to choose from.
The well-developed Indian automobile industry produces nearly all kinds of vehicles, which
are broadly categorised as shown in Table 1 below. For a detailed classification of automotive
vehicles in India, please refer to Appendix B.
Vehicle types Segments

Passenger Passenger Cars
Vehicles Utility Vehicles (UVs)
4-wheelers Light Commercial Vehicles (LCVs)
Commercial
Medium Commercial Vehicles (MCVs)
Vehicles (CVs)
Heavy Commercial Vehicles (HCVs)
Passenger Carriers
3-wheelers
Goods Carriers
Scooters/Scooterette
Motorcycles
2-wheelers
Mopeds
Electric 2-wheelers
Table 1: General classification of automotive vehicles in India 3
The Indian automobile market provides a strong demand base for the growth of the
automotive industry. Figure 1 below shows the domestic sales trend for different vehicle types
from the year 2003-04 to 2007-08.
9.000.000
8.000.000
7.000.000
6.000.000
No. of Units
5.000.000
4.000.000
3.000.000
2.000.000
1.000.000
0
2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08
Year (April/March)
Passenger vehicles CVs 3‐wheelers 2‐wheelers
Figure 1: Domestic sales trend for different vehicle types 4
3
Source: Self-construction based on SIAM (2008b).
4
Source: SIAM (2008c).
As seen in Figure 1, the sales of 2-wheelers dominate the Indian automobile market. This can
be attributed to the country’s poor mass transport system and the need for cheaper and
efficient means of individual mobility (BajajAuto 2007).
Another striking characteristic of the market is the rapidly growing demand for passenger
vehicles and CVs. These segments grew at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14%
and 17% respectively in contrast to 6% for 3-wheelers and 8% for 2-wheelers for the period
2003-04 to 2007-08. In value terms, the market for passenger vehicles and CVs exceeds that
of the 2-wheelers (GOI 2006a). Further, a look into the sub-segment-wise demand for each of
the vehicle segments gives an idea about the preferences of Indian consumers. For instance, in
the 2-wheelers category, the sales of motorcycles currently exceed that of any other sub-
segment. Similarly, in the passenger vehicles category, the sales of small cars (mini &
compact) dominate other sub-segments; see for instance SIAM (2008b). Such a nature of
demand specific to the Indian consumers is explained by the country’s demographic (e.g.
highest number of people below the age of 35 years) and socio-economic (e.g. rising middle
class) factors.
Further, as indicated by Figure 1, the Indian automobile market has been registering a positive
growth annually. The average annual growth rate of the market calculated for the years 2004-
05 to 2007-08 has been 9%. A low ownership of 8 vehicles per 1000 persons (ACMA 2008a)
and the presence of strong demand drivers have identified India as an attractive automobile
market. The commonly cited growth drivers of the market and their direct influence on
different vehicle segments are summarised in Table 2 below.
Sr. Passenger 3- 2-
Growth drivers CVs
no. vehicles wheelers wheelers
1. Rising industrial and agricultural output - 9 9 -
2. Growth in road infrastructure 9 9 - -
3. Rising per capita income 9 - - 9
Favourable demographic distribution with rising
4.
working population and middle class
9 - - 9
5. Urbanisation 9 - - 9
6. Increasing disposable income in rural agri-sector 9 - - 9
Availability of variety of vehicle models
7.
meeting diverse needs and preferences
9 - - 9
8. Greater affordability of vehicles 9 - - 9
9. Easier finance schemes 9 9 9 9
10. Favourable government policies 9 9 9 9
Table 2: Growth drivers of the Indian automobile market 5
The import of automobiles in completely-built unit (CBU) form generally attracts high
custom duties in India. Even though the import duties have been progressively reduced, they
are still high enough to discourage a significant market for imported CBUs. For example, the
total value of imported CBUs in the year 2005-06 was mere USD 130 million when compared
to the USD 28 billion of production within the country. 6 Thus, several foreign automobile
5
Source: Self-construction based on GOI (2006a), ACMA (2007) and IBEF (2008).
6
Import value obtained from the Export Import Data Bank (Tariff item no.: 8703 and 8711) of the Directorate
General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), Government of India. Website: www.dgft.delhi.nic.in.
manufacturers attracted by the growth prospects of the Indian market have resorted to setting
up production facilities in the country. The resulting increase in industry competition and the
availability of world-class technology products have further stimulated the domestic demand.
The market for auto-components in India has grown along the lines of the automobile market.
The domestic sales and imports of auto-components serve the rising demands of both the
original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and the replacement market. Increasing number of
vehicle models being introduced in the country combined with shorter product life-cycles
have meant growing Indian auto-component market not only in size, but also in terms of
product diversity. Figure 2 below shows the size of the Indian auto-component market over
the years 2003-04 to 2007-08.
25.000
20.000
Value in USD million
15.000
10.000
5.000
0
2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08
(Estimated)
Year (April/March)
Domestic sales Imports
Figure 2: Size of Indian auto-component market (2003-04 to 2007-08) 7
As could be seen in the figure above, the Indian auto-component market has witnessed a steep
growth. It expanded at an impressive CAGR of 29% over the period 2003-04 to 2007-08. This
growth was constituted by increase in both the domestic sales (27% CAGR) as well as the
imports (36% CAGR) of auto-components. While growth in domestic sales of auto-
components could be understood by the general trends in the Indian automobile industry, the
growth in imports could possibly be explained by a) progressive reduction of import tariffs on
auto-components and semi-knocked down (SKD)/ completely-knocked down (CKD) kits of
automobiles, and b) newly established foreign automobile manufacturers commencing their
operations by assembling SKD/CKD kits.
7
Source: Calculated from ACMA (2008a).
2.2. Exports
Indian automotive industry has been registering a healthy growth in terms of its exports as
well. The industry crossed an exports turnover of USD 8 billion in the year 2005-06, with the
share of exports in industry turnover being around 24% (GOI 2006b). India exports both
automobiles as well as auto-components to markets around the world. The key destinations
include South Asian neighbours, European Union (Germany, UK, Belgium, The Netherlands
and Italy), Middle East and North America (GOI 2006a). Increasing pressure in the global
competition to source from low-cost countries combined with the skills and quality
advantages of India, is the commonly cited explanation for the growth in India’s automotive
exports; see for instance Singh (2004) and GOI (2006a). Additionally, supporting policy
measures of the Indian government such as export-linked fiscal incentives, establishment of
export-processing zones, bilateral or multilateral trade agreements with other countries, etc.
have furthered this growth.
Figure 3 below shows the export trend of different vehicle types within the Indian automobile
industry over the years 2003-04 to 2007-08.
900.000
800.000
700.000
600.000
No. of Units
500.000
400.000
300.000
200.000
100.000
0
2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08
Year (April/March)
Passenger vehicles CVs 3‐wheelers 2‐wheelers
Figure 3: Export trend for different vehicle types 8
As observed in the above figure, the Indian automobile industry is witnessing rising exports in
all vehicle types. The exports grew at a CAGR of 14% for passenger vehicles, 36% for CVs,
20% for 3-wheelers and 33% for 2-wheelers for the period 2003-04 to 2007-08. Both
domestic as well as foreign automobile manufacturers have been instrumental in such a
growth, by making either direct or indirect exports. 9 The domestic manufacturers are forging
partnerships with foreign players or are making outward foreign investments for developing
and strengthening their sales overseas.
8
Source: SIAM (2008d).
9
Indirect exports imply that the vehicles exported by the automobile manufacturer are sold in the target market
under a different brand name, probably that of the foreign collaborator.
On the other hand, several foreign manufacturers have made India the manufacturing base for
some of their products meant for regional or global exports; see for instance IBEF (2005). In
value terms, the exports of the Indian automobile industry crossed USD 2 billion in the year
2005-06 (GOI 2006a). All this testifies to the fact that the ‘Made in India’ brand is gaining
increasing acceptance in the global export markets.
With regard to the Indian auto-component industry, the export performance has been even
better. Figure 4 below shows the export trend of auto-components from India over the years
2003-04 to 2007-08.
4.000
3.500 CAGR
Exports in USD million
3.000 30%
2.500
2.000
1.500
1.000
500
0
2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08
(Estimated)
Year (April/March)
Figure 4: Export trend for auto-components 10
As seen in the figure above, the exports of the Indian auto-component industry grew at an
impressive CAGR of 30% (value-wise) over the period 2003-04 to 2007-08. The
improvement in export performance is also reflected in the shift in composition of customer
base for exports made by the industry. In the year 2007, India shipped 75% of its auto-
component exports to global OEMs/Tier-1 suppliers and 25% to the aftermarket, in contrast to
65% to aftermarket and 35% to global OEMs/Tier-1 suppliers in 1990s (ACMA 2008a). Such
a shift has manifested itself in several foreign OEMs and Tier-1 suppliers establishing their
purchasing offices or subsidiaries in India for the purpose of component sourcing. 11
Also, foreign OEMs and suppliers are increasingly integrating the Indian auto-component
manufacturers into their global sourcing strategies. All this attests to the fact that the Indian
auto-component industry has been able to establish a cost-competitive and quality-conscious
image in the global auto industry. With the continuing trend of global outsourcing, the exports
of Indian auto-component industry are estimated to reach USD 25 billion by 2015 (ACMA
2008a).
10
Source: ACMA (2008b).
11
Some foreign players have established exclusive export-oriented units (EOU) in India for this purpose. For
example, the global Tier-1 supplier Visteon has a 100% EOU near Chennai in India.
2.3. Research and development
According to OECD (2002), the term R&D encompasses basic research, applied research and
experimental development. It covers both formal R&D in R&D units and informal or
occasional R&D in other units. In India’s automotive industry, both domestic as well as
foreign automotive firms undertake some or other form of R&D either in their formal or
informal R&D units. 12 Most of the R&D efforts of the domestic automotive firms are directed
towards value engineering or tweaking the designs to improve performance. The domestic
automotive firms have primarily been relying upon the foreign partners for product and
process technologies, with R&D efforts mainly employed to adapt the designs for in-house
production and local demand conditions. However, the threats and opportunities brought
about by globalisation (wherein foreign collaborator becomes competitor and exports become
necessary to sustain growth) have encouraged the domestic auto firms to develop core R&D
skills (Knowledge@Wharton 2005).
The domestic automobile firms are increasing their R&D spending on in-house product
design and development. This is evident from the indigenous product development efforts
undertaken by the domestic firms. Tata Motors launched India’s first indigenously developed
car ‘Indica’ in the year 1999, an important milestone in the history of India’s automotive
industry. Subsequently, commercially successful models such as Tata Indigo, Mahindra
Scorpio, TVS Scooty, Bajaj Pulsar and Tata Ace have been indigenously developed and
introduced by the domestic firms (ACMA 2008a). The success met with the indigenously
developed products has led to higher confidence in the domestic firms with regard to the
development of core R&D capabilities. Nevertheless, the domestic automotive firms still
spend a relatively low amount on R&D as percentage of sales as compared to that of the
global auto majors (Knowledge@Wharton 2005).
The investments made by foreign automotive firms in India have primarily been market-
seeking (Singh 2004). Accordingly, the R&D efforts undertaken by foreign automotive firms
in India have mainly been directed to adapt the proprietary designs to Indian market
conditions. However, the foreign firms are gradually realising the attractiveness of India for
carrying out their offshore R&D activities. Low-cost scientific talent, growing IT skills with
sound automotive domain knowledge and strong base for prototyping, testing and validating
of auto-components are some of the factors that are furthering such a trend (ACMA 2007).
Moreover, the characteristic demand of Indian consumers for low-cost and fuel-efficient
means of transport, especially small cars, is compelling the global auto majors to undertake
product development in India for the purpose of acquiring new set of capabilities. Such a
consideration is driven by the global trend in shift from big cars to small cars due to
recessionary trends and rising fuel costs.
The policies and programmes of Indian government have also played an important role in
stimulating the R&D efforts of the industry. Apart from providing fiscal and monetary
incentives for firm-level R&D activities, the government is playing an active role in the
development of common R&D infrastructure. In the year 2005, the government along with
industry players launched an initiative for the establishment of world-class testing,
homologation and certification facilities, along with nine R&D centres under the National
Automotive Testing and R&D Infrastructure Development Project (NATRiP) (GOI 2006a).
12
A list of domestic automotive firms with R&D units formally recognised by Department of Science and
Technology (DST), Government of India could be found on its website. TIFAC (2006) provides a list of foreign
automotive firms with investment in India’s R&D sector.
3. Present configuration of the industry
3.1. Industry structure
The competition in India’s automotive industry has become more intense with the growing
number of domestic and foreign firms operating in its automobile and auto-component
sectors. The liberalisation of automotive industry in early 1990s in tandem with country’s
favourable macroeconomic trends has contributed to such a development. The entry of foreign
firms into the industry has been further encouraged by the advancements in India’s foreign
investment and trade policies. The rising trend of foreign direct investment (FDI) in India’s
automotive industry depicted in Figure 5 below testifies for this fact. 13
800
700
600
FDI in USD million
500 CAGR
77%
400
300
200
100
0
2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08
Year (April/March)
Figure 5: FDI trend in Indian automotive industry 14
The automobile industry in India comprises a good balance of domestic as well as foreign
players. Appendix C provides a list of domestic and foreign automobile manufacturers
currently operating in India. As could be observed in the list, most of the domestic firms were
established in the pre-liberalisation period and are currently operational in more than one
vehicle segments. In case of foreign firms, the entries into the Indian market were mainly
observed after the year 1993. Firms like Suzuki and Yamaha who had established joint
ventures with Indian partners in the pre-liberalisation period, acquired majority stake in their
ventures subsequently. Among different vehicle segments, the foreign players are
predominantly concentrated in the passenger car and CV segments. Thus, a good mix of
seasoned domestic players and renowned foreign players has rendered healthy competition in
the Indian automobile industry. The automobile models produced by the industry fill up
13
Foreign investment in a country can take place in the form of either portfolio or direct investment. India adopts
the ’10% rule’ to classify foreign investment into portfolio or direct, wherein ownership of 10% or more of the
ordinary shares (or equivalent for the unincorporated enterprises) by a foreign investor is recognised as FDI
(OECD 1996 and RBI 2002).
14
Source: GOI (2008a).
nearly all the price points addressing varied consumer preferences, and thereby further
stimulating the industry growth.
The market shares of key players in different segments of the Indian automobile market for
the year 2006-07 are presented in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6: Market shares of key players in the Indian automobile market 15
The Indian auto-component industry comprises of around 500 firms in the organised sector
and more than 10,000 firms in the unorganised sector (GOI 2006a). The diverse firms produce
a comprehensive range of auto-components, which include engine parts, drive transmission &
steering parts, body & chassis parts, suspension & braking parts, equipments and electrical
parts amongst others (ACMA 2008a). In line with the global trend, the auto-component
industry in India has also undergone tierisation, with Tier-1 suppliers at the apex and
unorganised players at the base of the supply pyramid. 16 For meeting the present day
challenges of lean and responsive supply, the auto-component manufacturers in India work in
close cooperation with their customers both at home and abroad. The rising level of
technological and management capabilities among the Indian auto-component manufacturers
have made such collaboration possible.
15
Source: IBEF (2008).
16
Tier-1 suppliers are understood as the ones who make direct supplies to the OEMs or in other words directly
invoice the OEMs.
As in the case of automobile industry, the structure of Indian auto-component industry also
exhibits a good mix of domestic and foreign players. Appendix D provides a list of some of
the top domestic and foreign auto-component manufacturers in India. As could be observed in
the list, the prominent domestic players in the industry exist in the form of group companies.
Some of these auto-component powerhouses are promoted by Indian OEMs themselves. In
general, most of the domestic players in the industry have some form of technological
collaboration with the foreign counterparts. Further, the entries of foreign OEMs into India
have been accompanied by the entries of their requisite suppliers, which entered into JVs with
Indian partners and/or established subsidiaries. On the other hand, several foreign auto-
component firms have voluntarily entered the subcontinent to cater to the growing demand of
the Indian automobile industry.
The growing potential for exports is making the auto-component companies in India to
increase their production capacities (ACMA 2008a). As a result, the investment in the
industry has risen from USD 3.1 billion in 2003-04 to USD 7.2 billion in 2007-08, growing at
a CAGR of around 23% over the period (ACMA 2008a).

3.2. Industry clusters
The Indian automotive industry has been noticed to have grown in clusters, which are evident
in and around Manesar in North, Pune in West, Chennai in South, Jamshedpur-Kolkata in
East and Indore in Central India (GOI 2006a). ACMA (2008a) describes such a pattern of
investments in the country as ‘regionally balanced’. Figure 7 below indicates the distribution
of manufacturing plants of major automobile players across different states and union
territories in India.
Figure 7: Distribution of automobile plants across Indian states 17
17
Source: Self-construction based on the authors’ own study of the location of manufacturing plants of major
automobile and auto-component players in India.
The manufacturing plants of auto-component players in India are usually located near their
OEM customers. Figure 7 therefore also indicates the major auto clusters in India. As could
be observed in the figure, the automotive clusters in India span across different states, with a
certain state having the lead in attracting auto investments. Location advantages such as
infrastructure, access to pool of educated workforce and supportive state government policies
are some of the factors that help explain such a difference between the states within a cluster.
Table 4 below provides a district-wise distribution of manufacturing plants of major
automobile and auto-component players across the three leading auto states in India. 18
No. of automobile No. of auto-component

Sr.
State District mfg. plants mfg. plants Total
no.
(SIAM members) (ACMA members)
Pune 10 94 104
Aurangabad 2 31 33
1. Maharashtra
Mumbai 1 17 18
Nashik 3 15 18
Total 16 157 173
Gurgaon 7 116 123
2. Haryana Faridabad 1 40 41
Rewari 1 13 14
Total 9 169 178
Kanchipuram 5 39 44
Tiruvallur 3 35 38
3. Tamil Nadu Krishnagiri 5 21 26
Coimbatore 0 17 17
Chennai 2 10 12
Total 15 122 137
Table 3: District-wise distribution of major auto players’ plants in leading auto states 19

18
Major automobile and auto-component players in India are members of the Society of Indian Automobile
Manufacturers (SIAM) and Automotive Components Manufacturers’ Association (ACMA) respectively.
19
Source: Self-construction based on authors’ own study of the location of manufacturing plants of major
automobile and auto-component players in India.
4. Industry development and the role of government
This section provides a general discussion on government influence on industry development.
4.1. Government’s role in the development of an industry
The role the government should play in the development of a nation’s industries has been a
topic of much discussion; see for instance Porter (1990) and Lall (2003). With economic
liberalisation and globalisation gaining pace in present day times, the development progress of
a nation’s industry is increasingly gauged by its ability to endure and excel against
international competition – at the home turf as well as in the export markets. The
competitiveness of an industry has become synonymous to its international competitiveness,
and the mere comparison among industries within the same nation is no longer sufficient. In
his comprehensive work reasoning the international competitive success of industries in
certain nations, Porter (1990) identifies government as an important variable that influences
the competitive advantage of an industry by influencing the national environment in which it
operates. The national environment, which is explained by the country’s characteristic
demand, basic and advanced factors of production, industry structure and related and
supporting industries, could be influenced both positively as well as negatively by various
government decisions.
Based on his findings, Porter (1990) suggests a varying role for the government as an industry
progresses through consecutive stages of competitive development. In early investment- and
factor-driven stages, the government could play a more direct role by providing capital,
subsidies or temporary protection to help stimulate the investment and create factors such as
infrastructure and basic technological base. However, as the industry progresses to a more
innovation-driven stage, the firms themselves must become the source of advancement. The
role of government should then be just an indirect one, continuously challenging and pushing
the firms to upgrade and innovate by raising demand standards. Thus, along with progressive
reduction of interventions, the role of government ought to shift from actor and decision
maker to that of a facilitator. While the direct role of government articulated above has been
in the context of relatively advanced nations; that for the developing nations in early stages of
economic development could be more intense.
The principal economic goal for any nation ought to be high and rising standard of living for
its citizens (Porter 1990). Further, it has been factually accepted that there is a strong and
positive relation between the standard of living of a country and the extent of its
industrialisation (Chettri 2002). Thus, these premises suggest that a developing nation in its
early stages of economic development should strive for rapid industrialisation. The underlying
principle in the gains in economic prosperity through industrialisation is the increase in
national productivity, and thereby the increase in national per capita income. In their drive for
industrialisation, the governments in the developing countries are posed with the question as
to whether build the economy largely by indigenous companies or by wide-spread foreign
investments (Porter 1990). While the latter has obvious attractions of swift and easier
economic development, the sustainability of such economic growth and national advantage
over a longer period is uncertain. On the other hand, economic development based largely on
indigenous companies is a slow and riskier process, but rewarding in the long-term if it
succeeds. Indigenous companies consider the nation as a home base and invigorate the
creation of advanced and specialised factors of production as they progress (Porter 1990).
When competitive at international level, a largely indigenous industry could help the
developing nation move beyond factor driven advantage to the innovation-driven advantage
involving higher productivity.
However, the path to competitive indigenous industries for a developing nation is not an easy
one. To start with, the nation must decide the industries that need to be focused upon. With
scarce resources available at its disposal, the developing nation needs to be highly selective
with the industries that it intends to foster. Porter (1990) recommends the use of principle of
clustering for setting the development priorities. He notes that the development of competitive
industries in a country occurs in industry clusters and therefore recommends the government
to aim for building entire clusters. According to the principle, as a starting point the
government should identify industries in which the country has some competitive advantage
today owing to factor conditions, and also the fertile underlying national circumstances like
favourable demand conditions are present. Such industries, especially the ones with extensive
backward and forward linkages to rest of the economy, should become the centres of
development. Subsequently, the government should accelerate the efforts for upgrading the
advantages in these industries beyond the basic factor ones. The objective then would be to
develop upstream, downstream or related industries in which the advantages are less factor-
sensitive. In parallel, the government should concentrate its investments in education,
research and infrastructure over these clusters. Eventually, the government should encourage
the indigenous firms to explore export options.
In yet another consideration, most of the developing nations in their early stages of economic
development lack even a basic industrial base. The fragile and often fleeting ability to export
of such nations is derived from primary industries relying on factor endowments such as
abundant natural resources, cheap labour, location factors, etc. (Porter 1990). Considerable
foreign currency spending on diverse and growing demands of the developing economy
combined with inadequate exports maintains a continuous pressure on the foreign exchange
reserves of such countries. As a remedy, some developing nations adopt the industrial strategy
of import substitution during the initial phases. This involves establishment of core industries
like steel, cement, communications, etc. in the country. The underlying justification is that
making the country self-sufficient in goods of mass consumption could help to reduce the
imports, and thereby free up substantial foreign exchange (Chettri 2002). The freed up foreign
exchange could then be utilised for advanced purchases. Another belief that supports the
adoption of import substitution strategy is the political ideology of self-reliance for the
purpose of national sovereignty. Porter (1990) here cautions that obsession of import
substitution could drive a nation into industries that are unattractive with regard to their future
competitiveness and that the government must make sound decisions with its selection of the
target industries. Further, while import substitution can help in saving upon the foreign
exchange, the government must eventually aim at fostering advanced industries that compete
in international markets and earn back home foreign currency.
Thus, the challenges involved in indigenous industry development warrant a more direct role
from the governments in developing nations. Government interventions that control or
influence the economy as opposed to the free market outcomes might be necessary to offset
the disadvantages faced by such nations. Interventions in the form of protection, regulation or
direct State support are common tools available at the disposal of government. Infant industry
theory developed by Friedrich List, a leading German economist of the 19th century, has been
the pervasive theoretical ideology among the developing nations around the world for

protecting and nurturing their immature industries. 20 Porter (1990) asserts that the infant
industry argument, which advocates restrictions on free foreign trade and foreign investment,
is legitimate only in developing nations lacking a basic industrial base. The nascent
indigenous firms in such nations are at a disadvantage to the mature foreign firms possessing
better technology, higher quality and lower price offerings. A time-bound protection and
encouragement from the government could provide the indigenous firms with sufficient
breathing space for attaining competitive capabilities.
Porter (1990) suggests that protection bestowed upon the indigenous industry works only
under the following three conditions: a) presence of effective domestic rivalry that substitutes
for international competitive pressure, b) presence of favourable home demand that promises
international competitive position in the future and c) that the protection should be limited in
duration. Apart from protection measures such as tariff barriers, import quotas or foreign
investment regulation, the governments in developing countries sometimes opt for regulating
the domestic rivalry. The rationale usually employed behind such a regulation of the industry
structure is the perceived need to ensure sufficient demand for each indigenous firm in order
for it to achieve economies of scale, and therefore maintain the prices within an acceptable
level. However, an absence of strong domestic rivalry and assurance of sustained profits could
make the indigenous firms to underinvest in upgrading their capabilities. Porter (1990) thus
cautions that without effective domestic rivalry the protected industry shall never emerge at
all to become internationally successful. Also, it is important that the duration of protection is
set and communicated to the local firms in advance, so that more time is spent by them in
developing competitive capabilities instead of lobbying for extending the protection.
Another important aspect of industry development is technological progress (Kathuria 2000).

Therefore, despite the concern of national sovereignty, the government might need to allow
adequate inflow of foreign technology into the nascent indigenous industry. Indigenous firms
could be allowed to enter into licensing agreements and financial-cum-technical
collaborations for technology acquisition, the latter being more enticing for the foreign
collaborator. Moreover, the government could encourage independent R&D efforts as the
indigenous industry progresses, since the future competitive advantage would be more
technology- rather than factor-driven. Eventually, the government must reduce its
interventions substantially and leave decision making to the commercial judgment of the
firms. Additionally, the government might also allow investment by foreign companies to
inject new vigour into the industry competition. Porter (1990) suggests that such a move by
the government might be required as part of the reciprocal behaviour for gaining access to
foreign markets. Nevertheless, the reduction in interventions should be gradual and not
abrupt, so as to allow adequate time for the indigenous firms to adapt to the changing
competitive conditions. Ultimately, the role of government during the innovation-driven stage
should be to maintain an environment in which firms are and continue to be innovative and
dynamic (Porter 1990).
4.2. Policies as the means for government interventions
Government intentions for intervening in industry development are usually articulated in
some policy forms such as industrial policy, trade policy, fiscal policy, etc. Torjman (2005, p.
4) defines policy as “a deliberate and (usually) careful decision that provides guidance for
20
The infant industry theory could be found described and discussed in Friedrich List’s book ‘The National
System of Political Economy (1841)’ available online at:
http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/List/lstNPECover.html.
addressing selected [..] concerns”. Policy development is therefore a decision making process,
which generally involves identifying the objective and determining pathway to the objective
based on criteria such as effectiveness, costs, resources required for implementation and
political context (Torjman 2005). The outcome of policy development is usually a policy
statement that outlines the objectives of the policy and the measures to realise the same.
Further, the measures for implementation of the policy may necessitate new legislation,
amendment to existing legislation, modification of institutional context or design of specific
programme initiatives (Torjman 2005). Additionally, depending upon the form of government
in a nation (for instance, the federal form of government) the policy formulation might also
take place separately at the regional or local level, apart from that at the national level.
The objectives that government seek to achieve are usually complex and therefore involve
several ministerial departments. As a result, the pathway to the objective is reflected in
various policies from different departments. The policies are generally interlinked and the
choices made in one policy area have effects on the other. For instance, an R&D policy
decision to promote in-house R&D might be reflected in fiscal policy as tax-break to firms for
their expenditure on R&D. There also exists a sort of hierarchical relationship between
policies that collectively address a particular concern. With regard to industry development,
an industrial policy forms the core of the policy framework. Other policies such as trade
policy, foreign investment policy, monetary policy, fiscal policy, education policy and
infrastructure policy basically support the decisions made in industrial policy within their
respective policy areas. Nevertheless, the policies interact in a complex integrated manner and
a policy could both influence and be influenced by other policies. For example, shortage of
foreign exchange might require a nation to liberalise its foreign investment policy, which in
turn has implications on the industrial policy.
Thus, so far the section discussed the role government ought to play in the development of an
industry, both for developed as well as developing nations (with more emphasis laid on the
latter). Based primarily upon the authoritative work of Porter (1990) on the subject matter, the
section discussed a changing role for the government through successive stages of industry
development – from a more direct one in the factor-driven to an indirect or partial one in the
innovation-driven stage. Further, policies as the means for orchestrating government
interventions on industry development were explained. While the whole discussion made was
to an extent idealistic and therefore prescriptive in nature, the role that government actually
plays in the evolution of an industry might be a differing one. The difference is basically
explained by the political and social pressures under which a government operates. For
example, the political pressure on the government to save jobs in the short-run might result in
a policy decision that extends the duration of protection given to an industry, thereby
compromising on its long-term competitiveness. Moreover, a sound government policy might
not be able to generate the desired outcomes, if the institutional structure like the bureaucratic
apparatus is not in sync with the policy objectives.

5. Evolution of India’s automotive industry under State
interventions
History of automobiles in India could be traced back to the import of first motor car into the
country in 1898. Subsequently, completely-built cars and commercial vehicles were being
imported into the country by British officials and other prominent Indians, either directly or
through dealers/agents. By the end of World War I, the number of such vehicles imported per
year was around 4,000 (Narayana 1989). Envisaging a promising demand for automobiles in
India, General Motors and Ford established their assembly plants in the country in late 1920s
and early 1930s respectively. General Motors began its operations in the Mumbai plant in
1928 by assembling CKD kits of cars and trucks imported from abroad. This was followed by
the commencement of similar assembly operations by Ford in its Chennai plant in 1930, and
later also in Mumbai and Kolkata in 1931. The number of automobiles imported/assembled in
India grew significantly in the 1920s and crossed 30,000 units per year by 1930 (Narayana
1989).
In 1936, Sir M. Visvesvaraya, an eminent Indian engineer and statesman, presented a detailed
report to the then central government regarding formation of an indigenous automotive
industry in India. The proposal, which included establishment of a factory with a production
capacity of 11,000 vehicles per year and a capital outlay of Indian Rupee (INR) 22.5 million,
was however turned down by the government (Ghosh 1941). Nevertheless, as a by-product of
Sir Visvesvaraya’s efforts, the beginning of automotive industry in India was marked in early
1940s with the establishment of automobile companies by two Indian industrial houses –
Hindustan Motors Ltd. (HML) founded by the Birlas and Premier Automobiles Ltd. (PAL) by
the Walchand Hirachand Group in 1942 and 1944 respectively. Both the companies were
established with foreign technical collaboration and a programme for progressive manufacture
of complete vehicles. However, due to their slow progress initially, the production of
automobiles by these companies started only after India’s independence.
The drive for India’s independence had already intensified in the country since 1930s.
Various deliberations that shaped India’s post-independence development strategy were being
carried out during this period. National Planning Committee, set up in 1938 by the then
dominant political party Indian National Congress, considered nearly all the aspects of
economic planning for an independent India and generated a series of studies, ultimately
proposing a set of socioeconomic policies and programmes for India after independence. The
committee acknowledged the long-term importance of setting up an automotive industry in
the country by recognising its place in the planned economy. In a separate effort, seven
leading Indian industrialists prepared a set of proposals in 1944/45 for the development of
post-independence economy of India. This set of proposals, also known as the ‘Bombay
Plan’, suggested state intervention in the development of the nation’s economy after
independence. Eventually, recommendations of both the National Planning Committee and
the Bombay Plan resulted in the original attempt of planned development after India’s
independence. The development of the nascent Indian automotive industry thus took a
different path of planned approach in the years following India’s independence in August
1947.
Today, the Indian automotive industry has come a long way on its path of development. From
a mere production of 4,077 vehicles in 1950-51 (GOI 1951), the production of the industry

reached 10,833,948 vehicles in 2007-08 (SIAM 2008e). The industry is now working in terms
of the dynamics of an open market with a multitude of automobile and auto-component
manufacturing firms. Various socioeconomic and political factors have shaped the
development course of the industry along its way through inception to the present-day
dynamic form. The evolution of India’s automotive industry under the influence of these
factors could be identified to have occurred in different phases.
The first phase (1947-1965) is characterised by protection from foreign competition, push for
indigenisation and emergence of licensing regulations. The second phase (1966-1979)
witnessed increased regulations and disparate growth among different segments of the
industry. The third phase (1980-1990) saw relaxation in regulations and entry of several
Japanese collaborators. Finally, the fourth phase (1991 onwards) began with the historic
economic reforms in India and the ensuing liberalisation of the automotive industry.
Subsequent influx of foreign players and the resulting access to global markets have begun
the global integration of the industry. The historical account of these four phases along with
the State interventions that shaped them is presented in the following sub-sections. 21
5.1. Protection, indigenisation and regulation: 1947 to 1965
The realisation of the dream of an independent India had brought along with itself the
challenge of nation building for its leaders. The dismal performance of country’s agricultural
and industrial sector under the shackles of colonial rule had led to abject levels of poverty
within the population. Among other things, the leaders of the nation had to decide upon the
type of economic system that would set the pace of India’s economic development promoting
welfare of all its citizens. In light of the socioeconomic conditions then existing within the
country, the newly formed government under the prime ministerial leadership of Jawaharlal
Nehru preferred a mixed economy for the nation. This implied that the decision making of
‘what to produce’, ‘how to produce’ and ‘how to distribute’ was to be shouldered by both the
State and the market. In consideration of the vast social and economic inequalities then
prevailing within the Indian society, the State decided to assume a bigger role for itself in the
nation’s economic development.
In line with the intentions of the State to intervene in economic development, Industrial Policy
Resolution (IPR) was passed in the Indian Parliament in 1948. IPR of 1948 outlined the
approach that the government proposed to pursue in the industrial growth and development.
The resolution divided the nation’s industries into different categories depending upon their
strategic importance and specified the role of State in the development of each category of
industries. Accordingly, the automotive industry was classified under the category of ‘basic
industries of importance’. As mentioned in IPR of 1948, these industries of basic importance,
whose “location must be governed by economic factors of all-India importance, or which
require a considerable investment of a high degree of technical skill” (GOI 2008b, p. 3), were
subject to regulation and control by the central government. 22 Further, the initiatives within
21
The historical account of the evolution of India’s automotive industry presented in this section relies mainly on
the works of GOI (1971), Narayana (1989), Sumantran et al. (1993), Kathuria (1996), Pinglé (1999), Singh
(2004) and Narayanan & Vashisht (2008). Appropriate citations to the aforementioned literature as well as to
additional sources have been provided where necessary. An attempt has been made to provide a broader
perspective on the development of the industry under the influence of government interventions, while limiting
details of individual firm-level developments.
22
Since independence, India has adopted a federal structure of governance, wherein the political powers are
distributed primarily in two levels of government: central government at the national level and state government
at the level of individual states.
the automotive industry were left to the private enterprises, with State playing only the role of
a controller. However, the State reserved its right to intervene and progressively participate in
the industry when deemed necessary.
In addition to outlining the role of State in promoting industrial development, IPR of 1948
hinted at the State’s disposition of raising tariff barriers for preventing unfair foreign
competition and for ensuring judicious use of nation’s precious foreign reserves. The
resolution also proposed central regulation on new foreign investments and stipulated that
effective control in future foreign equity collaborations ought to rest in Indian hands. In
accordance with the objectives laid by IPR of 1948, the Ministry of Industry prepared its first
policy for the automotive industry in 1949. As determined in the policy, the tariff on import of
fully-built vehicles was heightened the same year, virtually banning their import into the
country. The foreign assemblers assembling CKD vehicles were allowed to continue to
operate nevertheless. Meanwhile, PAL and HML had already commenced their operations in
1947 and 1948 respectively. PAL started assembling Dodge-Fargo trucks, whereas HML
assembled Studebaker trucks. The number of vehicles assembled/produced in the country
reached a figure of 21,577 in 1951 (Narayana 1989). The large number of on-road vehicles in
the country by this time had led to the development of a sizeable repair and replacement
sector.
In pursuance of IPR of 1948, the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act (IDRA) was
promulgated in 1951. 23 The Act provided the government with means to implement its
industrial policy. While IPR of 1948 articulated the intentions of the government, IDRA
orchestrated the complex implementation of rules and regulations for the planned
development. According to the Act, “an industrial license was required for a unit with 50 or
more workers (100 or more without power) in order to establish a new unit, expand output by
more than 5% annually, change location, manufacture a new product, and to conduct business
if a change was introduced in policies” (Kathuria 1996, p. 88). The bureaucratic process for
obtaining the licenses was also stated in the Act. Thus, IPR of 1948 along with IDRA 1951
created an elaborate licensing system surrounding the Indian industries, including the
automotive industry. IDRA 1951 with subsequent amendments owing to policy changes
continued to apply to the Indian industry till early 1990s.
In the mean time, the Constitution of India came into force in January 1950. Subsequently, the
Planning Commission was set up in March 1950 to oversee the formulation and
implementation of India’s Five-Year Plans (FYP). 24 The commission had the responsibility of
assessing all the resources of the country, augmenting deficient resources and making plans
for the deployment of the resources in the most effective and balanced manner in
consideration to the nation’s priorities. With respect to the automotive industry, the
commission planned the total number of vehicles (per vehicle type) that were to be produced
in the given plan period depending upon country’s needs and the resources at disposal. For
instance, the First FYP covering the period 1951-1956 and introduced in April 1951, targeted
to raise the production of vehicles in the country from 4,077 in 1951 to 30,000 in 1956 (GOI
1951). Accordingly, the Ministry of Industry administered the capacity licenses to the
automobile firms.
23
Accessible online at: http://www.indiacode.nic.in/rspaging.asp?tfnm=195165.
24
Like many other developing countries, India also borrowed its concept of the Five-Year Plan for economic
planning from USSR.
In March 1952, the government decided to replace its hitherto ‘gut-reaction’ policy for the
automotive industry with a more studied and comprehensive approach to the industry
(Kathuria 1996). It referred to Tariff Commission the question of providing
protection/assistance for the encouragement of automotive industry. 25 The Tariff Commission
submitted its report in 1953 recommending that only units with a plan for progressive
manufacture of components and complete vehicles may be allowed to operate. It also
recommended against any price controls and advised the government to maintain a watch on
the prices. Subsequently, the recommendations of the commission were adopted by the
government. Foreign assemblers like General Motors and Ford who considered the domestic
demand too low to warrant a local manufacturing programme were obliged to close down
their operations within three years. Thus, the exit of foreign assemblers by 1956 and the ban
on import of fully-built vehicles since 1949 effectively protected the Indian automotive
industry from foreign competition.
The push for indigenisation by imposing a progressive manufacturing programme on the

automobile firms was in alignment with the overarching goal of ‘self-reliance’ emphasised by
the leaders of the nation. 26 As per Tariff Commission’s recommendation, a minimum 50%
indigenous content requirement was introduced. The commission endorsed the already
existing manufacturing plan of HML and PAL who had established units for manufacturing
some of the components. With the exit of foreign competition, both HML and PAL who had
so far restricted themselves to CVs entered into the production of cars. HML had technical
collaboration with Morris (UK) for cars, whereas PAL with Fiat (Italy) for the same. In
addition to these two firms, the manufacturing programme of Automobile Products of India,
Ashok Motors and Standard Motor Products for cars and CVs was also approved by the
commission. Ashok Motors established in 1948, renamed itself as Ashok Leyland based on its
equity collaboration with British Leyland (UK). Standard Motor Products was in
collaboration with Standard Motors (UK) for the production of cars and CVs. Subsequently,
manufacturing programme of one more firm Mahindra & Mahindra (M&M) was approved for
the manufacturing of UVs Willys Jeeps.
After adoption of the Constitution and the integrated socioeconomic goals, the industrial
policy was revised and adopted in May 1956. Known as the Industrial Policy Resolution of
1956, the revised industrial policy described ‘socialist pattern of society’ as the objective of
Parliament’s social and economic policy (GOI 2008b). Accordingly, the IPR of 1956
signalled higher level of State participation for accelerating industrial development. The
resolution grouped the industries into Schedule-A, Schedule-B and the remaining. Schedule-A
industries were either exclusive monopolies of the central government or were industries in
which any new undertaking was solely reserved for the State. 27 Schedule-B included
industries in which the State would establish new undertakings for accelerating the future
development, and in which the private enterprises had equal opportunity for the same. The
remaining industry list, which included the automotive industry, was left to the initiatives and
enterprise of the private sector. However, the State reserved its right to participate in the
25
Set up in 1951, the Tariff Commission had the functions of: adjusting duties of customs or any other duties in
relation to any industry; actions relating to the dumping of goods for imports or otherwise; granting protection
for the encouragement of industry and action in cases where industry has been taking undue advantage of tariff
protection (GOI 2008c).
26
It is understandable that a country recently freed from foreign domination would give importance to the goal
of ‘self-reliance’ to avoid any foreign interference in the nation’s sovereign matters.
27
State herein is considered to be constituted of the central, provincial and state governments as well as public
authorities such as municipal corporations.
future. Thus, the automotive industry under IPR of 1956 had been provided with necessary
autonomy for functioning.
The IPR of 1956 was followed by the introduction of Second FYP (1956-1961). In contrast to
its predecessor, which focused on the development of agrarian sector, the Second FYP had
ambitious programmes for rapid development of the industrial sector. Massive investments
were planned for the public sector and the amount of deficit financing was around INR 1,600
million per year (GOI 1993). The plan targeted a production capacity of 40,000 trucks, 12,000
cars and 5,000 jeeps for the automotive industry by end of the year 1960-61 (GOI 1956). As
evident, more emphasis was laid on the production of trucks with regard to the nation’s
priorities. Also, the plan aimed at stepping up the indigenous content of the automobiles to
80% by end of the year 1960-61. Meanwhile by 1956, Tata Engineering & Locomotive
Company (TELCO) and Bajaj Tempo with programmes of CVs entered the industry. TELCO
was in collaboration with Daimler-Benz of Germany and Bajaj Tempo initially produced 3-
wheelers under the license of Vidal & Sohn Tempo Werke of Germany. Additionally, Enfield
India with a programme of manufacturing motorcycles also entered the industry.
In order to encourage the domestic production and to keep the automobile prices low, the
government in early 1950s had maintained lower import duties on the components still being
imported. However, a steep rise in the prices made the government to approach the Tariff
Commission for the second time in August 1955. The commission was asked to enquire into
and recommend a price policy for the automobiles. In its report submitted in October 1956,
the commission maintained its initial recommendation against the price controls, as they
might undermine the development of the industry. It also suggested reviewing the whole
question of protection granted to the automotive industry after a period of ten years.
The situation however changed very soon with the balance-of-payments crisis that sprang up
in 1956-57. The ambitious Second FYP with massive outlays on industrial development had
strained the nation’s foreign reserves. Immediate measures required to counter the economic
crisis included cuts on foreign exchange allocated to the automobile manufacturers.
Moreover, these firms were permitted to produce only one model each. The ensuing reduction
in import of vital components compelled the firms to reduce the production. As a result,
severe backlogs were generated for the production orders. The decrease in supply of
automobiles resulted in steep price increases owing to supply-demand economics. At this
juncture, the government decided to impose ‘informal price control’ on automobiles, which
was accepted by the manufacturers. The informal price control mechanism required the
customer to place the order with the dealer and submit a partial payment to the Indian Postal
Service. The manufacturer then had to deliver the automobiles in the sequence of the orders
registered with the Indian Postal Service. The government also fixed the dealer commission to
a maximum of 10% and asked the manufacturers to intimate any decision of raising ex-works
prices in advance.
The government by its mechanism of informal price control countered the negative effects of
providing protection to the automotive industry to some extent. However, the performance of
the automotive industry (especially passenger cars) throughout the 1950s had been
unsatisfactory. The growing criticism about the quality and price of the automobiles made the
government to appoint L. K. Jha Committee to look into these issues. The committee was
asked to review the progress of the industry and recommend measures in the matters of
reduction of costs, etc. In its report submitted in January 1960, the L. K. Jha Committee
observed that the high costs of automobiles were attributable to the neglect and inefficiencies
in production owing to the lack of domestic competition. It was also noted that the in-house
manufacture of components had resulted in an industrial structure devoid of supplier

bargaining power, which further reduced the competition. As a result, in order to reduce costs
and improve quality, the committee recommended the encouragement of an indigenous
ancillaries sector. The subsequent adoption of these recommendations by the government
marked the evolution of a separate auto-component industry in India.
The auto-components so far had mainly been produced by the in-house manufacturing units of
the automobile manufacturers. The requirement of a progressive manufacturing programme
coupled with the foreign exchange allocation incentives of in-house manufacture resulted in a
primarily vertically-integrated industry structure. Some large/medium-size auto-component
manufacturers like L. G. Balakrishnan & Bros. Ltd. and Motor Industries Company Ltd.
appeared during this period with appropriate foreign collaborations. The participation of
small-scale sector, however, was limited to the replacement market and to the small-scale jobs
from automobile and bigger auto-component manufacturers. This was in part attributable to
the lack of required skills in the small-scale sector and in part to the provisions in foreign
collaboration agreements. The latter prevented the larger firms from locally procuring the
components, either by explicit clauses or by giving too small concessions on content not
procured from the foreign collaborators.
The government with its socialistic ideals gave importance to the development of small-scale
sector from the very beginning. Apart from special credit and fiscal concessions, the
government provided protection rates of tariff on a number of ancillary items used in the
replacement market since 1956. Further, both small-scale units (fixed assets upto INR 2
million) and ancillary units (fixed assets up to INR 2.5 million) were exempt from licensing
requirements under IDRA 1951 (GOI 2008b). Additional encouragement for the small-scale
sector came in 1965, with some 60 to 80 components being exclusively reserved for
manufacture by the small-scale units following the recommendations of the L. K. Jha
committee. In general, the auto-component industry saw good development during this phase
due to the emphasis laid on indigenisation within each of the three FYPs.
In order to achieve the increased automobile production targets of the plan period without
putting strain on country’s foreign exchange reserves, the Third FYP (1961-1966) had
stressed on the efforts of indigenisation. The plan noted that “investment designed to increase
the indigenous content has to take precedence over investment for establishing new units or
expanding existing” (GOI 1961, p. 15). The indigenisation content to be achieved by 1965-66
was set at 85% as compared to 50% and 60% in First and Second FYP respectively. The
target production for automobiles by end of 1965-66 was 60,000 CVs, 60,000 2-/3-wheelers,
30,000 passenger cars and 10,000 UVs (GOI 1961). As evident, priority was given to the
production of CVs and 2-wheelers.
In summary, the Indian automotive industry in the years 1947 to 1965 was the one wherein
the foreign competition was highly restricted by means of protective rates of tariff and foreign
investment licensing requirements. Foreign collaborations were permitted only after diligent
considerations and were subject to effective control by Indian entities. The domestic
competition was also regulated by means of industrial licensing, foreign exchange allocations
and other governmental decrees. The nation’s overarching goal of self-reliance was reflected
in the indigenisation requirements imposed on the domestic automotive firms. Intentions of
protecting and nurturing the nascent automotive industry were accompanied by side-effects of
high prices and low quality levels. Even though the consumer interests were safeguarded to
some extent by informal price controls, the overall performance of the industry in terms of
quality, consumer choices and the ready availability of vehicles was unsatisfactory. Further,
this phase witnessed increasing bias of the developmental efforts towards CV and 2-wheeler
segment as opposed to that of passenger cars. With regard to the auto-component segment, the
industry structure was largely characterised by in-house manufacturing units and
large/medium-size firms. Efforts to encourage small-scale sector were being attempted by the
government during this phase. Auto-related institutions like Development Council for
Automobiles, ACMA, SIAM and Vehicles Research & Development Establishment also got
established during this period.
5.2. Increased regulation and disparate segmental growths: 1966 to 1979
India’s war with China in 1962 and with Pakistan in 1965, along with poor agricultural
production due to successive severe droughts had led to financial crisis in the country by mid-
1960s. The financial situation improved to some extent with the help of a loan from
International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1966. However, the formulation and implementation of
Fourth FYP was put down and instead three annual plans were drawn up for the period 1967
to 1969. On the political front, the void created by sudden death of India’s fourth Prime
Minister in 1966 was filled by Mrs. Indira Gandhi. In the general elections of 1967, Mrs.
Gandhi was re-elected as India’s fifth Prime Minister and this to an extent deflected the
development path of India’s automotive industry.
During her rule till 1977, the populist stance taken by the government perceptibly altered the
automotive policy. The first change was initiated in May 1966 with government directing the
Tariff Commission to look into the whole question of continuance of grant of protection to the
automotive industry. The government also asked the Tariff Commission to enquire into the
cost structure and fair selling price of different type of automobiles. Although the review was
already due as mentioned in Tariff Commission’s earlier report in 1956, Pinglé (1999, p. 96)
however suggests that “the increasingly dominant populist ideology with its anti-big industry
emphasis within the political leadership” had actually led to the third-enquiry. Based on its
report submitted in the same year, the Tariff Commission recommended the government: a) to
help industry attain minimum efficient scale by limiting the number of models to an absolute
minimum b) to impose price controls on passenger cars. Subsequently, the government
imposed statutory price controls on passenger cars in September 1969.
Meanwhile, India’s first competition law known as the ‘Monopolies & Restrictive Trade
Practices Act’ (MRTP) was passed in 1969. 28 The law was prepared to keep a check on the
concentration of economic power in private hands by preventing monopolistic and restrictive
trade practices in important economic activities. The MRTP Act classified companies with
more than INR 200 million in fixed assets and/or having a dominant market share of one-
fourth or more as ‘MRTP companies’. Such companies were required to obtain additional
clearances (apart from those specified by the IDRA) in order to enter, expand, relocate, merge
or acquire. The cumbersome process of obtaining MRTP clearances, which involved public
notification of investment plans and semi-public hearings, acted as a deterrent for the
companies. Subsequently, MRTP Commission was set up in 1970 for monitoring
monopolistic practices in the industrial sector. Thus, many automotive firms owing to their
high levels of investment came under the purview of MRTP Commission. TELCO was one of
the first companies to come under the scrutiny of the commission when it applied for
increasing its licensed capacity from 24,000 to 36,000 units in December 1970 (Kathuria
1996).
28
Government policies related to foreign collaboration and foreign investment also underwent
changes during Mrs. Gandhi’s regime. In the wake of growing criticisms regarding influx of
foreign equity collaborations and the dependence on foreign technology, the government
appointed Mudaliar Committee in 1968 to look into the whole question of foreign
collaborations. The stricter approach to foreign equity collaboration recommended by the
committee was adopted by the government. Subsequently, Foreign Investment Board was
established in 1968 to critically review the acquisition of foreign technology by allowing
foreign equity participation. In line with its stricter approach, the government enacted Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) in September 1973 consolidating and amending the then
existing laws on foreign exchange transactions. 29
With its objective of conserving country’s foreign exchange reserves and ensuring judicious
use of the same as per nation’s priorities, the FERA regulated the import of foreign supplies
and the functioning of foreign collaborations. The provisions of the Act created additional
constraints on the import of technology, raw materials and components for the industrial
sector in general and the automotive industry in particular. The maximum foreign equity
participation was brought down to 40% under FERA, with exceptions permitted only at
State’s discretion. Also, FERA classified the companies with more than 40% foreign equity as
‘FERA companies’. These companies were subject to greater scrutiny in their operations.
Thus, the enactment of MRTP and FERA in the early-half of this phase strengthened the
regulations surrounding the Indian automotive industry.
The fourth FYP (1969-1974) was introduced in 1969. The financial crunch combined with
populist ideology of the ruling party manifested itself into reduced plan outlays for the
industrial sector. With regard to its policy for automobiles, the government was very clear in
its preference for means of affordable personal and public transport as against to luxurious
passenger cars. From an actual production of 35,300 CVs and 84,600 2-/3-wheelers in 1968-
69, the fourth FYP targeted to reach an annual production of 85,000 CVs and 210,000 2-/3-
wheelers by the end of 1973-74 (GOI 1969). On the other hand, no additional capacity was
planned for the passenger cars. Between 1970 and 1975, Kinetic Engineering and state-owned
Scooters India made their entry into the 2-wheeler segment. Kinetic Engineering began
producing mopeds, whereas Scooters India commenced production of scooters.
A further setback to the automotive industry came during this phase with the beginning of the
Oil Crisis in October 1973. The substantial rise in the import bill of crude oil led to the
balance-of-payments crisis. As a result, India approached IMF for a monetary loan to dampen
the oil shock effects. The financial woes of the country made the bureaucrats of the Ministry
of Finance and the Ministry of Industry to take a closer look at the development of the
automobile industry, especially the low fuel-efficiency of the Indian automobiles. This study
led to the division of automobile industry into luxury (passenger cars) and non-luxury (rest of
the industry) segments. The ministries decided to provide encouragement for the growth and
technological development of non-luxury segment, leaving out the luxury segment.
Accordingly, CVs were added to the ‘Appendix-I’ list in 1973, which meant that the
applications for capacity licenses, foreign collaborations, etc. from the CV manufacturers
(including MRTP/FERA companies) were to be treated more favourably. 30 Furthermore,
significant capacities were being licensed for the 2-wheeler segment.
29
30
In 1970, the govt. came out with a list of 9 core industries including tractors that were designated as national
priorities. This list revised in 1973 with the addition of CVs was colloquially referred to as ‘Appendix-I’.

The aftermath of Oil Crisis led to a steep rise in prices of the common goods, thereby
affecting economic well-being of the country. As a result, the growth of most of the
automobile segments slowed down over the next few years. The accompanying rise in fuel
prices resulted in a noticeable decline in the demand for already troubled passenger car
segment. Some relief came for the segment in 1975 with the court’s judgement against the
statutory price controls on passenger cars. Subsequently, the informal price controls on 2-/3-
wheelers were also removed. Meanwhile, the Fifth FYP (1974-1979) was introduced in 1974.
The plan outlays were kept at modest levels and no new projects in the industrial sector were
planned. With regard to the automotive industry, the plan targeted an annual production of
60,000 CVs, 320,000 2-wheelers and 32,000 passenger cars by end of 1978-79 as against the
actual production of 42,900 CVs, 150,700 2-wheelers and 44,200 passenger cars in the year
1973-74 (GOI 1974).
As is evident from the Fifth FYP, the government concentrated on the policy of encouraging
the growth of 2-wheeler segment from mid-1970s. This was done to provide mobility to the
country’s growing middle-class without incurring higher petroleum consumption on cars. As
a result, the period between 1976 and 1980 saw new entries as well as diversification by the
existing firms in the 2-wheeler segment. Maharashtra Scooters entered into the production of
scooters. Sundaram Clayton and Majestic Auto commenced the production of mopeds. Bajaj
Auto diversified into the production of motorcycles with its indigenously developed models.
Scooters India also diversified into the production of 3-wheelers. As an exception, Sipani
Automobiles entered into the passenger car segment with a small car model.
From 1975 onwards, minor relaxations were being made to the licensing regulations. For
instance, since 1975 ‘automatic growth rule’ was applicable to CVs, ancillaries and tractors.
According to this rule, an automatic capacity expansion of 5% per year (25% in total for 5
years) was permitted over and above the 5% automatic growth permitted under IDRA 1951.
Another relaxation that was made for non-MRTP and non-FERA automotive firms producing
CVs, tractors, ancillaries and scooters was the one that allowed expansion without limit.
However, these relaxations were subject to certain conditions. The product in consideration
could not be the one reserved for the small-scale sector. Moreover, the requirements of
imported machinery and raw-materials/components arising out of the undertaken expansion
required additional clearances. Further, in 1978 the government also dismantled some of its
stricter controls on foreign equity collaborations.
Thus, this phase of the development of Indian automotive industry witnessed tightening of
regulations with the introduction of MRTP and FERA. The macroeconomic setbacks along
with populist policies undermined the development of passenger car segment. The average
annual growth rate of this segment over the period 1966 to 1979 was quite low at 2.8%. 31 On
the other hand, government policies to encourage the development of non-luxury segment
helped it to sustain growth through otherwise difficult times. The CVs and the UVs segment
saw moderate average annual growth rates of 3.3% and 3.8% respectively over this phase.
The average annual growth rates over the same period for 2-wheeler and 3-wheeler segment
were relatively high at 13.5% and 26.2% respectively. Nevertheless, all the segments within
the industry experienced noticeable year-to-year fluctuations in demand within this phase.
The Indian automotive industry produced 275,624 2-wheelers, 59,700 CVs, 29,235 cars,
16,947 3-wheelers and 12,340 UVs in the year 1979 (refer Appendix A).
31
All calculations in section 5.2 are based on the production statistics; refer Appendix A.
The government policy towards the auto-component industry remained more or less the same.
With minor amendments to the list, the auto-components reserved for the exclusive
manufacture by small-scale sector continued to persist. The protective rates of tariff on
components were preserved. By early 1970s substantial progress had been made in the
indigenisation of components and the domestic content of almost all automobiles was above
90% (Narayana 1989). Lastly, the automotive industry in co-operation with the Ministry of
Industry established the Automotive Research Association India in 1966 for supporting R&D
efforts within the industry.
5.3. Limited liberalisation and foreign collaborations: 1980 to 1990
The beginning of this phase was marked with the re-election of Mrs. Indira Gandhi as the
eighth Prime Minister of India in January 1980. The poor performance of Indian industries
exacerbated by the demand problems arising out of unexpected oil shocks of the 1970s had
created resentment about the regulatory policies of the government. As a result, the
government thought it necessary to review its existing policies and undertake measures for
making the industries more competitive. It therefore decided to ease licensing controls and
other restrictive/protective rules administering the industrial sector. It also decided to allow
adequate import of technology required for modernisation. The Industrial Policy Statement
presented in July 1980 gave an expression to this shift in government policy. 32 Additionally,
the statement emphasised the optimum utilisation of installed capacities, promotion of exports
and regionally-balanced economic development. The Sixth FYP (1980-1985) introduced in
early 1981 reflected these changes to the industrial policy. One striking feature of this plan as
compared to its predecessors was the strong emphasis on exports.
The overall policy shift in the industrial sector brought about important changes within the
automotive industry. Various relaxations were made to the regulations pertaining to capacity
licensing and foreign collaborations. Imports of capital goods, technology and raw-
materials/components required for the modernisation were also treated more liberally. The
encouragement for the development of CV segment continued in this phase as well. In 1981,
the government gave Letter of Intent to four Indian firms for the manufacture of LCVs. All of
the four firms were in technical-cum-financial collaboration with Japanese players and were
licensed a production capacity of 12,500 vehicles per year (Pinglé 1999). The four firms:
Swaraj Mazda, DCM-Toyota, Allwyn-Nissan and Eicher Mitsubishi commenced their
production in 1985.
The passenger car segment also witnessed a major change during this phase. The policy shift
of 1980 intended to favour consumers by providing them with free choice regarding all types
of consumer products including luxuries. Accordingly, despite of being classified in 1970s as
a luxury segment, the passenger car segment was added to the Appendix-I list in 1982 along
with UVs and 2-/3-wheelers.
Thus, the segment came to be classified as a core industry of national economic importance,
whose development was to be favoured by the upcoming government policies. Reviewing the
development that the passenger car segment had made so far under the existent firms, the
government deemed it necessary to increase the competitiveness of the segment by actively
32
Intermediate to IPR of 1956 and Industrial Policy Statement of 1980, an industrial policy statement was also
introduced by the Janata Party government in 1977. The statement, inter alia, emphasized upon relaxation of
import controls and efforts to increase industrial exports.
participating in it. 33 Consequently, state-owned enterprise Maruti Udyog Ltd. (MUL) entered
into collaboration with Suzuki (Japan) in 1982. The Japanese collaborator offered the best
deal with three latest car models, 26% equity stake and indigenisation content level agreement
of 95% by 1988-89. The first car rolled out of MUL’s factory in 1984 and with this changed
the face of India’s automotive industry.
Meanwhile, the government also relaxed the import regulations to encourage the existing
firms to upgrade their technology. Fiscal incentives were provided to the passenger car
manufacturers in 1984 to enable them to import technology and improve the fuel efficiency of
their vehicles. The domestic firms took advantage of these opportunities and upgraded their
technology base, either by direct imports of technology or by foreign equity collaborations.
PAL bought a license from Fiat (Italy) for the manufacture of its Fiat 124 model and
reengineered it to receive a fuel-efficient Nissan engine produced under license from Nissan
(Japan). Similarly, HML purchased the rights to manufacture phased-out Vauxhall Victor
model of Vauxhall Motors (UK) and modified it to receive a fuel-efficient Isuzu engine
licensed from Isuzu (Japan). Sipani Automobiles obtained a license to manufacture the British
Reliant Kitten. On the other hand, Standard Motors which had shelved its passenger car
production in late 1970s made a bid to re-enter the market with a new car model based on the
Rover 3500 (UK) and its own engine.
Under the competition from MUL’s newly launched UV model, M&M which had enjoyed
monopoly in the UV segment so far was also compelled to upgrade its model with a new
Peugeot engine licensed from Peugeot (France). The 2-wheeler segment also saw the entry of
new players: Kinetic Honda and Hero Honda in collaboration with Honda Motors (Japan) and
LML in collaboration with Vespa (Italy). The existing players entered into collaborations with
Japanese automotive firms: Bajaj Auto with Kawasaki, TVS Motors with Suzuki and Escorts
with Yamaha. In the face of competition from new Japanese motorcycles, Enfield India
introduced new models based on the designs bought from Zundapp (Germany). With regard
to the CV segment, Ashok Leyland collaborated with Hino (Japan) for new engines. TELCO
on the other hand made greater investments in its internal R&D capability. Thus, the entry of
new players accompanied by import relaxations in early 1980s brought about fundamental
changes to the structure of Indian automotive industry.
Indian consumers who had hitherto been restricted to a few models with outdated technology,
were made available a variety of choices of better-technology and fuel-efficient vehicles in
1980s. In order to make sure that the new automobiles are affordable and therefore having
sufficient demand, the government continued its ‘automatic growth’ and ‘regularisation of
excess capacity’ schemes of the late 1970s. With the addition of all the automotive segments
to Appendix-I list by 1982, the usage of automatic growth rule became easier for
MRTP/FERA companies. Further, the government in 1980 allowed non-MRTP and non-
FERA companies in CV and 2-/3-wheeler segment to automatically expand up to their
installed capacities so as to achieve efficient scale. This was renewed in 1982 as re-
endorsement of capacity up to 133% of the best production of the previous five years, given
that the capacity utilisation had reached 94% (reduced to 84% in 1986) and was available to
33
The historical account provided in this section does not intend to discuss the political and personal interests of
stakeholders influencing the government decisions at that time. For instance, Pinglé (1999) asserts that the policy
shift of 1980 and the offering of licenses to LCV manufacturers were the outcome of Mrs. Gandhi’s political
calculations of getting aid from IMF in 1981 and her political obligations to the industrial houses for their
support during elections. Moreover, the decision of government to nationalize MUL and collaborate with Suzuki
was strongly influenced by Mrs. Gandhi’s personal interest of salvaging the reputation tainted by her son’s failed
endeavor – MUL.
Appendix-I MRTP/FERA companies as well. For an initial period, the government also
lowered the custom duty on import of components for fuel-efficient vehicles.
However, in 1984 all automotive segments were brought under ‘Schedule IV’, i.e. “industries
requiring special regulation, on the grounds of raw material shortage, likelihood of high
pollution, or infrastructure constraints” (Kathuria 1996, p. 89). This meant that the
aforementioned relaxations were to an extent nullified with the requirement of an additional
clearance under Schedule IV for substantial expansion. New entry of firms and JVs with
foreign collaborators that was witnessed in the period 1982-84 was virtually banned for the
rest of the phase, except in the auto-components segment. Few more relaxations for the
automotive industry made their way through the appointment of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi as the ninth
Prime Minister of India in October 1984. 34
The fresh economic ideology and political perspective of the new Prime Minister was
reflected in the Seventh FYP (1985-1990), with its focus on exports and liberalisation in the
industrial production. Subsequently, in January 1985 the government announced a policy of
‘broad-banding’ encompassing the entire industrial sector that allows manufacturers to use the
installed machinery flexibly. Under broad-banding scheme, the production licenses were
issued for a broader product group as opposed to the single-product licenses issued
previously. The manufacturers were not required to take any additional clearances for
diversifying within their product groups as long as the diversification did not necessitate any
new investment in machinery. The scheme was conceived to liberalise production by
providing the manufacturers with freedom to select the right product mix to be produced, and
thereby make optimal use of their capital investments.
In 1985, the broad-banding grouped passenger cars, CVs and UVs into one product group
named ‘on-road four-wheelers’. This entailed that any firm operational in the aforementioned
segments, within its overall capacity, had the opportunity to diversify into any other segment
within the group or vary the product mix over the segments based on the demand conditions.
TELCO seized this opportunity by diversifying into the LCV segment with an indigenously
developed model in 1986. It also entered into the UV segment with its pick-up truck in 1988.
Similarly, broad-banding grouped all the 2-wheelers up to 350cc engine capacity into one
group, which was later expanded in 1986 to include 3-wheelers. A similar broad-banding
group was announced for automobile ancillaries as well. In addition to broad-banding policy,
Mr. Rajiv Gandhi’s regime also brought some other relaxations. From May 1985, all the
automobile and component manufacturers were exempted from sections 21 and 22 of the
MRTP act, which meant that the large industrial houses were no longer required to take
MRTP approvals. 35 In 1986, ‘minimum economic scale’ scheme was announced under which
the government promised to actively encourage firms to achieve economic scale of
operations.
By the end of this phase, the limited de-regulation drive for industrial production came to a
halt due to the growing opposition from within the ruling party. In fact, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was
compelled to undo some of the newly introduced modifications. Nevertheless, the limited
liberalisation that took place during this phase had a considerable impact on the development
of India’s automotive industry. The modernisation programme of early 1980s intensified
competition in the industry and upgraded its technological base. The relaxations in the form of
new entries, foreign collaborations, automatic growth, re-endorsement of capacity, liberal
34
Rajiv Gandhi was elected as the Prime Minister following Mrs. Gandhi’s assassination on 31st October 1984.
35
FERA continued to be applied where required.
MRTP/FERA implementations and broad-banding facilitated in driving the change. The drive
for indigenisation continued during this phase with all the vehicle and component JVs
required under the phased manufacturing programme to achieve 95% indigenisation within
five years of start of production. Indian consumers were given a free choice to select among a
higher variety of better-technology and fuel-efficient vehicles, including luxuries. Passenger
cars, a non-priority sector in 1970s, came to be identified as a core industry of national
importance. The production of cars in the year 1989-90 at 179,278 exceeded that of CVs at
125,051 (refer Appendix A). The production of 2-wheelers, 3-wheelers and UVs in the same
year was 1,731,686, 83,752 and 44,309 respectively (refer Appendix A).
The auto-components segment also underwent considerable changes during the second-half of
this phase. The influx of foreign collaborations in the vehicles segment, and thereby ingress of
diverse product designs necessitated technological upgrade from the side of auto-component
manufacturers as well. As a result, many domestic manufacturers entered into collaborations
with foreign players. Moreover, the foreign collaborators in the vehicles segment were
followed by their local suppliers who also entered the Indian market forging collaborations
with the domestic players. Thus, this was the time wherein the Japanese best practices made
their way into the Indian automotive industry. Consequently, the insistence for higher quality
components and timely deliveries, coupled with the heterogeneous demand created unrest
within the segment. Additionally, the Motor Vehicles Act passed in 1988 mandated the
components used in the Indian vehicles to be certified under the standards laid by Bureau of
Indian Standards.
The components segment was given due attention since its development was considered
critical for the modernisation drive. The relaxations pertaining to relatively liberal entry,
growth and imports of foreign supplies were also available to the auto-components segment.
The broad-banding product categories for auto-components were quite large, enabling
sufficient diversification by the existent players. In March 1985, the auto-component segment
was delicensed under IDRA for non-MRTP and non-FERA companies with the condition that
the firm was not located within urban or municipal limits. Further, for MRTP/FERA
companies the delicensing was applicable for investment in backward areas. Encouragement
to the small-scale sector was also continued during this phase with the government raising the
investment limit INR 1 million to INR 2 million for small scale units and INR 1.5 million to
INR 2.5 million for ancillary units (GOI 2008b).
The export performance of the automotive industry between the years 1951 and 1980 had
been mediocre. Being a net user of foreign exchange, the automotive industry was given
much attention during the sixth plan period for improving its export performance.
Accordingly, various export promotion measures were implemented by the government. As a
consequence, the export of Indian automotive industry nearly doubled from INR 1561 million
in 1984-85 to INR 3041 million in 1988-89 (ACMA 1991-92 cited after Chugan 1995).
5.4. Liberalisation and ensuing globalisation: 1991 onwards
The economic crisis of 1990-91 followed by a major shift in the country’s overall economic
policy framework marked the beginning of this phase. Increased governmental expenditure
combined with poor performance of the public undertakings had led to growing budget
deficits throughout the 1980s. The financial woes of the country were exacerbated by the
commencement of the Gulf War in August 1990. The steep hike in import bill of crude oil
coupled with decreasing remittances from Indian expatriates in the Gulf led to a sharp decline
in country’s foreign exchange reserves. By the end of 1990, the reserves dropped to levels that
were not sufficient for even a fortnight and there was a serious possibility of default. In
January 1991, the government accepted a loan from IMF’s Compensatory and Contingency
Financing Facility. Subsequently in July 1991, the new government headed by Prime Minister
P. V. Narasimha Rao approached IMF for another loan. The availed loan was accompanied by
conditionalities regarding control measures for budget deficit as well as the implementation of
economic structural reforms.
In line with its agreement to the conditionalities laid by the international financial institutions,
the government adopted a new economic policy in July 1991. The new policy proposed wide
ranging economic reforms in an attempt to liberalise and open up the economy. Structural
reforms encompassing deregulation of industrial sector, trade and investment policy reforms,
financial sector reforms, tax reforms and foreign exchange reforms were envisaged for this
purpose. Accordingly, a new Industrial Policy Statement was introduced by the government in
July 1991. The thrust of the new industrial policy was towards creating a more competitive
environment in the sector and removing the barriers to entry and growth of firms. Some
important policy decisions made by the government in this regard were as follows (GOI
2008b):
• Abolishment of the industrial licensing system for all except a few industries related to
strategic and security concerns.
• Automatic approval of FDI upto 51% equity in high-priority industries. 36
• Automatic clearance for imported capital goods with the condition that the foreign
exchange required is available through foreign equity.
• Automatic permission for foreign technology agreements in high-priority industries
subject to the prescribed royalty rates or a lump-sum payment not exceeding INR 10
million.
• Amendment of MRTP Act to remove the threshold limit of assets for MRTP companies
and large dominant undertakings, which effectively eliminated the need for such
companies to obtain MRTP clearances any further.
• Review of the existing portfolio of public investments with greater realism and
progressive disinvestment in public enterprises where private sector had developed
sufficient expertise and resources.
The sweeping changes in overall industrial policy had a significant impact on the
development course of India’s automotive industry. Though a few liberalisation measures had
already been introduced in 1980s, the policy reforms initiated in 1991 were much more
comprehensive. All the vehicles segment (except passenger cars) and the auto-component
segment were delicensed in July 1991. The passenger car segment was delicensed in May
1993. Along with abolition of the need for MRTP clearances, this meant that the automotive
firms were free to enter, expand, diversify, merge or acquire based on their commercial
judgements. The liberalisation concerning foreign investment encouraged several global
players to enter into the Indian market establishing JVs with domestic players. While FDI
upto 51% was allowed on an automatic basis, the same for more than 51% required
governmental clearances which were approved on a case-to-case basis depending upon the
projected exports, sophistication of technology brought in, etc. The phased manufacturing
programme requiring time-bound indigenisation was dropped in 1991 for the new units and in
1994 for the existing units.
36
High priority industries, requiring large investments and advanced technology, have generally been known as
the ‘Appendix-I industries’. Since 1982, all segments of the automotive industry had been on the Appendix-I list.
While the aforementioned structural reforms benefited the automotive industry over a longer
term, the short-term stabilisation measures adopted by the government to counter the crisis
adversely affected the industry’s growth. As an immediate measure to improve the country’s
balance-of-payments situation, the government discouraged the consumption of oil by
imposing a surcharge of 25% on petroleum products. It also imposed a heavy excise duty on
selling price of all the automobiles. For instance, the excise duty on passenger cars was
increased from 42% to 53% in August 1990, and further raised to 66% in July 1991
(Sumantran et al. 1993). Additionally, in order to reduce the trade deficit the rupee was
devalued and the auxiliary customs duty was increased. The escalation of the yen-rupee
exchange rate combined with the increased costs of production of the newer import-dependent
components undermined the performance of firms with recent Japanese collaborations. On the
demand side, the overall hike in fuel prices and the credit squeeze to curb the inflation stifled
the demand for automobiles in the country. The change in allowed rate of depreciation from
33% to 20% was an additional discouragement for the market (Sumantran et al. 1993).
The automotive industry, which saw a negative annual growth rate of 10.1% in the vehicles
segment in the year 1991-92, recovered in the subsequent years of the post-reforms period. 37
The excise duty on passenger cars was reduced from 66% to 55% and that on LCVs from
15% to 10% in June 1992 (Sumantran et al. 1993). The excise duties on other vehicle
segments were also rationalised. The tariff structure for auto-related imports also underwent
changes with the peak tariff rate reduced from 150% in 1991 to 110% in 1992, 85% in 1993,
65% in 1994 and 50% in 1995 (Kathuria 1996). The tariff rate for capital goods also
underwent similar reductions. Additionally, the rupee was moved to full convertibility in
March 1993, and the imports and exports were to be made at market-determined exchange
rate. Thus, the lowering of trade barriers, the possibility of making direct investments and the
promising growth potential of the domestic market, brought India onto the radar of
international automotive players.
The passenger car segment with the highest untapped growth potential saw the most hectic
activities from the foreign automotive firms. By mid-1990s, several foreign players had
entered into the Indian passenger car market by mainly setting up JVs with the local firms –
Mercedes-Benz with TELCO (1994), General Motors with HML (1994), Peugeot with PAL
(1994), Daewoo with acquisition of DCM-Toyota (1995), Honda Motors with Siel Ltd.
(1995), Ford with M&M (1996), Hyundai with a 100%-owned subsidiary (1996), Fiat with
Tata Motors (1997) and Toyota with Kirloskar Group (1997). In the CV segment, Tatra in
collaboration with Vectra Motors (1997) and Volvo with its 100%-owned subsidiary (1997)
made their foray into the Indian market. Most of these new ventures proposed to initially only
assemble SKD/CKD kits. As a result, for balance-of-payments reasons the government in
1995 asked these companies to individually commit an equivalent amount of exports.
In 1997, the Ministry of Industry in its policy for automotive industry placed import of capital
goods and auto-components under Open General License (OGL), but regulated the import of
automotive vehicles in CBU form or in SKD/CKD condition. The vehicle manufacturing units
were allowed to import vehicles only in SKD/CKD condition and were required to obtain a
license for the same. The availability of license was subject to execution of Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) signed with the DGFT. As described in GOI 2002 (pp. 2, 3), such a
MoU required the companies to:
37
Annual growth rate calculated based on production statistics. Refer Appendix A.
i. Have a plan for actual production and not just merely assemble SKD/CKD kits.
ii. Bring in at least USD 50 million for having operations as a subsidiary.
iii. Reach an indigenisation content level of 50% in the third and 70% in the fifth year from
the date of clearance of the first lot of imports.
iv. Neutralise foreign exchange outgo on imports by equivalent exports. Such an obligation
commences from the third year of the start of operations.
Eleven companies had signed such MoUs with the DGFT (GOI 2002) by April 2001.
Meanwhile, the passenger car segment saw the entry of Skoda in 1999. In the 2-/3-wheeler
segment, the trend was for the earlier foreign collaborators of 1980s to either acquire majority
stake in the JVs or establish independent subsidiaries into the country. Accordingly, Yamaha
(1995), Piaggio (1998) and Honda (1999) made their independent foray into the Indian
market. With the need for being more investor-friendly, subsequent improvements have been
introduced into the automotive policy from time to time. For instance, in Jan. 2000 the
requirement of foreign exchange neutrality was done away with for the new investors. Since
April 2001, the SKD/CKD and even CBU imports were put on the OGL list, thereby
eliminating the need for obtaining license under MoU with DGFT for the new investors. The
quantitative restrictions on imports were therefore effectively removed. The export
commitments for the already-existing foreign investors were abolished in August 2002.
With a vision of establishing a globally competitive automotive industry in India and doubling
its contribution to the economy by 2010, the Ministry of Industry presented for the first time a
separate auto policy document in March 2002. Known as ‘Auto Policy 2002’, the document
supersedes the auto policy adopted in 1997 by addressing emerging problems, being more
investor friendly and ensuring compatibility with World Trade Organisation (WTO)
commitments. Auto Policy 2002 sets itself for making the Indian automotive industry globally
competitive. It aims at promoting modernisation and indigenous design and development
within the country as well as establishing domestic safety and environmental standards at par
with the international ones. Furthermore, it targets at making India as an international hub for
manufacturing of small cars as well as a key centre in the world for 2-wheelers and tractors.
Accordingly, the policy proposed various initiatives relating to investment, tariffs, duties and
imports in order to achieve these objectives.
Auto Policy 2002 allowed automatic approval of foreign equity investment upto 100% for the
manufacture of automobiles and auto-components. With regard to the tariff structure, the
policy proposed to fix the import tariffs in a way that the actual production within the country
was facilitated over mere assembly, without providing undue protection at the same time. This
was mainly applicable to the WTO-unbound segments (passenger cars, UVs and 2-/3-
wheelers). 38 For WTO-bound segments (CVs and auto-components), the policy proposed to
encourage the domestic players by providing adequate accommodation for attaining global
standards. The thrust for automotive R&D continued in this policy, but with renewed vigour.
Suitable fiscal and financial incentives were planned for promoting industry R&D efforts. For
instance, a weighted tax deduction of more than 125% was decided for R&D activities of
vehicle and component manufacturers (GOI 2002). The policy also planned to increase the
allocations to the automotive cess fund created for R&D of automotive industry and to expand
the scope of activities covered under it. Auto Policy 2002 also stressed upon strengthening the
environmental and safety standards.
38
Unlike WTO-bound goods, WTO-unbound goods do not have a WTO-committed ceiling on the custom duty
rates.
The policies laid by Auto Policy 2002 have continued to apply till date with minor
modifications. Within a decade of introducing structural reforms into the country, the
production of India’s automotive industry had increased from 1,603,736 2-wheelers, 165,309
cars, 144,248 CVs, 76,750 3-wheelers and 31,530 UVs in 1991-92 to 4,271,327 2-wheelers,
564,052 cars, 162,508 CVs, 212,748 3-wheelers and 105,667 UVs in 2001-02 (refer
Appendix A). Along with reductions in the overall tariff level to open up India for
international trade, the government has also progressively rationalised its domestic taxation
structure to provide a fair competition ground for its domestic manufacturers against the
international competition. For instance, the excise duty on passenger cars has been brought
down from its peak rate of 66% in 1991-92 to 24% in 2008-09. 39 With regard to the import
tariffs in the year 2008-09, the custom duty on WTO-bound segments (CVs and auto-
components) has been reduced to 10%, whereas that for the WTO-unbound segments
(passenger cars, MUVs and 2-/3-wheelers) has been 10% for CKD units and 60% for
SKD/CBU form (SIAM 2008g).
Thus, during this phase, the increasingly investor friendly as well as liberal trade measures
adopted by the government led to a momentous increase in the number of foreign players
active in the country. The dismantling of licensing controls also encouraged the domestic
players to undertake entrepreneurial endeavours. This furthered competition within all the
segments of the automotive industry. The market for automotive vehicles in India, which had
earlier been virtually a seller’s market, was transformed into a buyer’s market. The Indian
consumer benefited the most from the intensified competition, which brought his
requirements of a cost-effective, technologically-competent, fuel-efficient and reliable means
of transport into perspective. Strong macroeconomic base of demand growth drivers along
with convenient credit facilities have ensured rising demand for vehicles in the country.
Hence, the bold attempt of the government in making a major shift in its economic policy
framework in early 1990s, along with its continued support to the automotive industry has put
the industry on a fast track of development. 40
Also, environmental and safety standards as an integral and important part of modern
automotive industry received due attention during this phase. First state emission norms came
into force for petrol vehicles in 1991 and for diesel ones in 1992. Euro I, Euro II and Euro III
norms have subsequently been introduced in India in 1996, 2000 and 2005 respectively.
Efforts are being made to align Indian safety standards with the global ones. With its
accession to United Nations Working Party-29 in 2005, India has been making efforts towards
the harmonisation of auto standards world-wide and therefore integrating its auto industry into
the global automotive industry. On the technology front, the liberalisation concerning foreign
technology agreements and foreign collaborations infused world-class technology into the
industry. The government has encouraged efforts for latest foreign technology assimilation
and indigenised design and development. Fiscal incentives as well as institutional support
have been provided for encouraging industry R&D efforts. The domestic R&D efforts came
to fruition with the launch of India’s first indigenously developed car ‘Indica’ by Tata Motors
in 1999. Over years, many domestic as well as foreign firms have set up R&D facilities in the
country.
39
The excise duty on automotive vehicles and auto-components in the year 2008-09 ranges between 14% and
24% in general (SIAM 2008f).
40
With the liberalisation of economy and accompanying de-emphasis of public sector, the role of Planning
Commission had become less pronounced and mainly of indicative nature. The role of government for the
automotive industry has therefore been that of a facilitator.
With regard to the auto-component segment, the phase witnessed the entry of several foreign
auto-component firms mainly following their global OEM customers into the Indian market.
By the end of year 2000, all major global Tier-1 suppliers had their presence in India. The
spurred competition on the home turf as well as the expanding domestic and international
market for their products, made the domestic auto-component producers to upgrade their
technology and management practices. Further, the cost-effective and quality auto-
components produced in India are increasingly gaining acceptance in international markets.
There is an increasing trend in the number of Indian auto-component firms getting integrated
into the global supply chains of automobile and auto-component majors worldwide. On the
other side, the automobiles produced in India are increasingly making their way to the foreign
markets through either direct or indirect exports. Also, the domestic automobile
manufacturers are teaming up with foreign auto-component firms for bringing out new
vehicle models. Hence, such increased interaction and interdependence between the Indian
automotive firms and their foreign counterparts is leading to globalisation of India’s
automotive industry.


6. Influence of government policies on the development of
India’s automotive industry
This section aims at discussing the influences various government policies had on the
development of India’s automotive industry, from its inception to the present-day form. Such
a discussion, in its true semantic sense, would necessitate identification of all the policies that
have influenced the development of India’s automotive industry and an understanding of their
impact on the industry’s development. Having mentioned that, it is important to realise the
complexities involved in such an attempt, and thereby the need for rationalising the scope of
the discussion.
With regard to the identification of relevant policies, one experiences complexity with the
vast array of government policies that potentially influence the development of the
automotive industry. A list of such policies may include industrial policy, foreign investment
policy, trade policy, fiscal policy, monetary policy, science & technology policy,
environmental policy, labour policy, education policy, transport policy, small-scale sector
policy and so on. The reason behind generation of such an overwhelming list of policies is the
complex functioning of the automotive industry influenced by several policy areas. For a
country like India, another consideration that expands such a list of policies (and thereby the
complexity) is the formulation of additional policies at the regional level by the state
governments. Additionally, the complexity is compounded by the fact that policies change
over time owing to changing government agendas, and that an understanding of the impact of
a certain policy over the development period of India’s automotive industry would necessitate
an understanding of each version of that policy. Hence, in order to be within the scope and
nature of this work, it is inevitable to focus the discussion on only those policies that had the
most influence on the development of India’s automotive industry.
Further, with regard to understanding the impact of relevant policies, it is ideally required to
ascertain the influences of relevant policies on the development of the automotive industry
using quantitative and/or qualitative means. However, this poses certain challenges for the
effort possible within the scope and nature of the present work. Firstly, in order to comment
upon the development of an industry, one needs to consider several aspects of industry
development – size, structure, investment, growth, performance, competition, product variety,
product quality, technology base, R&D, environmental & safety standards, imports, exports,
international competitiveness and so on. Therefore, a study of the influence of a particular
policy on the development of the industry would ideally require a consideration of its impact
on several above-mentioned aspects. However, it is beyond the scope of this work to
academically establish influence of all the relevant policies for multiple aspects of industry
development. Secondly, within the policy space surrounding the automotive industry, some
policies (like industrial and trade policies) are more direct in their influence on industry
development than others (like education and labour policy). For the latter ones, while it might
be easier to identify the parts of policies that bear influence on the automotive industry, it is
difficult to ascertain their impact on the industry’s development. For example, an education
policy decision of increasing seats in engineering colleges is of relevance to the automotive
industry, but how it impacts the exports of the industry cannot be easily ascertained. Thus, in
order to manage the complexity highlighted above within the realm of this work, it is needed
to focus the investigation of the impact of policies to limited aspects of industry development
and to focus the discussion more on policies with direct influence than the others.

In consideration to the complexities expressed so far, this section shall discuss the influence
of government policies while maintaining the scope of discussion within modest levels. For
this purpose, the section focuses only on the key policies discussed within Section 5, with the
importance of these policies over others judged based upon the literature reviewed on the
subject matter. 41 It has to be made clear here that the term ‘policy’ in its academic usage does
not necessarily implies a ‘policy document’, and that it basically refers to a ‘decision’ that is
made by the government to provide guidance for addressing selected concerns. 42 Such an
understanding of the term ‘policy’ helps to explain its varied usage as referring to individual
government decisions (e.g. informal price control policy), decisions within a policy document
(e.g. licensing policy), the policy document itself (e.g. industrial policy) and decisions
spanning several policy documents (e.g. liberalisation policy). Based on the literature
reviewed for compiling the list of policies that shaped the development of India’s automotive
industry, it was observed that the policies described were usually individual government
decisions or decisions within policy documents as opposed to complete policy documents
themselves. Following the same, this section also restricts its focus on key individual
government decisions and the decisions within policy documents (referred together as ‘policy
decisions’) instead of considering each policy document separately. Furthermore, only policy
decisions made at national level are taken into consideration, while leaving out those at the
state level.
The influences of key policy decisions on the development of India’s automotive industry are
explained using the findings of veteran researchers on the subject matter, supplemented by the
authors’ own analysis. Quantitative means are used to the extent of exhibiting the impact of
policy decisions and cannot be compared to the complex econometric analysis with policy-
impact lag adjustment usually employed by policy researchers; see for instance Panda (2002).
Also, the impact of a particular policy decision is studied only on selective aspects of industry
development. Further, since the impact of a policy decision varies for different vehicle
segments of the industry as well as for different firms within the same vehicle segment, the
section attempts at providing a limited discussion of the important segment-wise and firm-
level influences.
Accordingly, subsequent sub-sections in this section discuss the impact of major policy
decisions made within different phases of the development of India’s automotive industry.
Finally, for each sub-section, the role played by the Indian government is reviewed on lines of
the discussion made in Section 4.
6.1. Influence of key policy decisions in the regulatory phases
The key policy decisions made by the Indian government towards the development of the
automotive industry during the regulatory phases (1947-1965 and 1966-1979) are presented in
Figure 8 below. The figure also shows the important events in the history of India’s
automotive industry that in a way shaped the context of the aforementioned policy decisions.
The influence of these policy decisions on the development of India's automotive industry
shall be discussed in the present sub-section.
41
Narayana (1989), Kathuria (1996), Pinglé (1999), and Singh (2004) amongst others
42
Based on the definition of policy by Torjman (2005) and the general observation regarding the usage of the
term among various literature sources
Policy decisions
Progressive manufacturing Emphasis on

obligation (Indigenisation) ancillaries development
IDRA promulgated Priority to CV 'Informal price
(Licensing system) production control' imposed
Virtual ban of Protection tariff for some Production restricted 60 to 80 components
CBU imports aftermarket ancillaries to single model reserved for small-scale
1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965
India's Exit of foreign India-China
Independence assemblers War
IPR of First report of IPR of Third FYP
1948 Tariff Commission 1956 (1961-1965)
Planning Commission Second FYP Report of L. K.
set up (1956-1961) Jha Committee
First FYP Second report of Balance-of-payments India-Pakistan
(1951-1956) Tariff Commission Crisis War Events
Policy decisions
Statutory price control Significant capacities Expansion relaxed for
on passenger cars for 2-wheelers non-MRTP/non-FERA
MRTP Act CVs added to 'Automatic growth rule'
promulgated 'Appendix-I' list for CVs and ancillaries
Industry segmented into Price controls withdrawn
luxury and non-luxury for cars and 2-/3-w.
Stricter controls on
foreign equity
FERA Act
collaborations Relaxations for foreign
promulgated
equity collaborations
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
Loan Fourth FYP Fifth FYP
from IMF (1969-1974) (1974-1979)
Indira Gandhi as Oil Crisis
Prime Minister (Yom Kippur war)
Third report of Balance-of-payments
Tariff Commission Crisis
Report of Mudaliar Loan
Committee from IMF Events
Figure 8: Timeline of key policy decisions and events in the regulatory phases 43
Virtual ban of CBU imports

In order to conserve foreign exchange and incentivise assembly over mere imports, the
government in 1948 raised the tariff barriers on vehicles imported in the CBU form. This
virtually eliminated the CBU imports, and thereby protected the final product i.e. the
complete vehicle from external competition. Such a policy decision, if it did not directly help
the domestic firms HML and PAL with their recently commenced assembly operations, it
clearly did not hurt. Even today in India, the tariffs on CBU imports are maintained high
enough to discourage any significant market for them.
IDRA promulgated (Licensing system)

In its IPR of 1948, the government recognised the strategic importance of automotive industry
and brought it under the purview of State regulation. Subsequently, IDRA of 1951 defined the
manner in which the industrial sector was to be regulated, including the automotive industry.
Under the Act, the automotive firms were obliged to obtain licenses from the government for
43
Source: Self-construction based on the findings in sub-section 5.1 and 5.2. Created using ‘Excel Timeline
Template’ tool available at http://www.vertex42.com/ExcelArticles/create-a-timeline.html.
the purpose of entry, diversification, capacity expansion, foreign collaborations, imports of

machinery and components. The licenses were issued in accordance to the developmental
objectives laid in the FYPs, which in turn were based on political agendas and projected
demands. By means of the licensing system, the government restricted the industry
competition (by regulating entry and diversification) to fewer firms in order to avoid
fragmentation of the industry, and thereby the uneconomic scales of production. 44 The
absence of strong internal competition provided the then existing firms with a protected
market, and thereby little incentives for undertaking R&D efforts. This manifested itself in the
obsolete designs and inadequate quality of the vehicles produced at that time.
Further, the industry’s output was controlled by capacity and product licensing. The IDRA of
1951 with minor modifications continued to apply to the automotive industry till early 1990s.
While the brunt of the licensing system was not felt in the initial years of industry’s
development, the resentment among the automobile manufacturers was becoming more
evident in the second-half of 1960s and the 1970s (Pinglé 1999). Narayana (1989) argues that
even though the capacity licensing policy was rigid in its form, it was not such an inflexible
policy as made out to be. Based on his analysis, he found that the installed capacities of the
automobile firms have been significantly lower than their licensed capacities. Whenever the
production of a firm neared its licensed capacity, it was licensed additional capacities. If the
capacity licensing affected any firms, then it was the market leaders Bajaj Auto and Escorts
that could have grown much more, had the regulatory policy been more relaxed. Nevertheless,
it has to be noted that the growth of licensed capacities of Bajaj Auto and Escorts were among
the highest in the industry in 1960s and 1970s (Narayana 1989).
Progressive manufacturing obligation (Indigenisation)

Following the recommendation of the Tariff Commission, the government in 1953 imposed
the requirement of progressive manufacturing on the automobile assemblers. The measure
used to implement the decision was restricted allocation of foreign exchange. The policy
decision with its intention of indigenising the production of vehicles in the country had a
significant impact on the development of India’s automotive industry. The immediate result
was the exit of foreign assemblers from the country. The domestic assemblers entered into
collaborations with foreign players for manufacturing vehicles in the country. Since the auto-
component segment was not well-developed at that time, the automobile firms undertook in-
house manufacture of components. This resulted in a vertically-integrated structure of the
industry. The government progressively increased the indigenisation content from 50% in
1950s to 80% in 1960s. Since the extent of indigenisation is subject to increasing costs (Singh
2004), this increased the price of automobiles. Low GDP per capita combined with high price
of automobiles had a negative influence on the demand development. The learning by doing
involved in local manufacturing of vehicle sub-assemblies certainly helped to improve the
manufacturing capabilities of the industry (Narayana 1989).
Emphasis on ancillaries development

The indigenisation policy had resulted into a vertically-integrated industry structure. Protected
market combined with the lack of supplier power had led to the concentration of bargaining
power with the automobile manufacturers. Furthermore, considerable amount of foreign
exchange was being spent on importing critical components. In order to address these
concerns, the government in 1960 adopted policies for encouraging the development of
ancillaries. This marked the beginning for the development of a separate auto-component
sector in India.
44
The exceptions were the scooters and mopeds segments where numerous entries were permitted.
60 to 80 components reserved for small-scale

In 1965, the government reserved between 60 and 80 components exclusively for the small-
scale units. This decision was in alignment with the government’s continuing policy of
supporting the small-scale units. Earlier, in 1956, the government implemented protection
rates of tariff on aftermarket ancillaries produced by the small-scale units. Pinglé (1999)
argues that such a strategy of the government based on socialistic principles, led to a
fragmented structure of the auto-component industry with inefficient units – a problem that
persists even today.
Stricter controls on foreign equity collaborations

Until the early 1960s, a number of foreign equity collaborations had made their way into the
Indian industry. The growing criticism towards the reliance on foreign technology made the
government to adopt stricter controls on foreign equity collaborations in 1968. Foreign
Investment Board was established to discourage the acquisition of technology through foreign
equity participation. The number of foreign collaboration approvals decreased strikingly, to be
restored only in early 1980s with the relaxation of controls. Narayana (1989) argues that such
a hiatus in the approval of foreign collaborations actually helped the automotive industry to
build limited design capabilities. In the absence of the possibility of introduction of any new
foreign designs, the domestic firms like Bajaj Auto and TELCO were incentivised to
introduce indigenously designed vehicles and capture market share of the competitors relying
on foreign designs. Accordingly, Bajaj Auto introduced an indigenously designed 50 cc
motorcycle.
Significant capacities for 2-wheelers

Fifth FYP onwards (1974), the government decided to give significant thrust to the production
of 2-wheelers in the country. The performance of the public transport system had been dismal.
In order to serve the rising transport needs of the growing population and to save on the
consumption of expensive petroleum at the same time, the government targeted the growth of
the 2-wheeler segment. Accordingly, the period 1976-80 saw entry of new players into
different segments of the 2-wheeler industry – Maharashtra Scooters and Scooters India in
scooter segment, Sundaram-Clayton and Majestic Auto in moped segment and Bajaj Auto in
motorcycle segment (based on Narayana 1989). Today, India is the world’s second-largest
market for 2-wheelers and this policy decision has certainly been an important milestone in
this journey.
Thus, several important policy decisions were made over the years 1947 to 1965. The thrust
was on protection, indigenisation and regulation of the automotive industry. The policy
decisions played a significant role in determining the initial structure, growth and
performance of the industry (Narayana 1989). The results however were mixed. On one hand,
the policy decisions led to a largely indigenous industry with strong manufacturing and
limited design capabilities, but on the other, they resulted in a mediocre industry performance.
Most of the automotive firms enjoyed monopolistic/oligopolistic benefits under the regulatory
regime and were little incentivised to make indigenous efforts for upgrading their
technological capabilities, an indispensable factor for building international competitiveness.
The exclusion of passenger car segment, the one considered most important in the world
automotive industry, from the developmental agenda of policies negatively impacted its
growth and demand conditions.

With regard to the role played by the Indian government over this period, it was more direct
and regulative in nature. In light of the dismal performance of industrial sector under the
colonial rule, the statist ideology adopted by the government post-independence was
seemingly reasonable. The importance of automotive industry in the nation’s economic
development was rightfully identified by the government from the very beginning. Even
though the public sector was expanded under IPR of 1948/1956, the automotive industry had
been given sufficient autonomy for its operations. Although the protection policy for
automotive industry seems justified in today’s context, it lacked a time constraint and failed to
generate sufficient domestic rivalry in most of the automotive segments. Moreover, the poor
development of important upstream industries like steel under the state ownership constrains
the local availability of critical raw materials to the automotive industry even today.
6.2. Influence of key policy decisions in the limited‐liberalisation phase
Figure 9 below shows the timeline of key policy decisions and events in the limited-
liberalisation phase (also known as the deregulation phase). The influence of important policy
decisions made during this phase on the development of India’s automotive industry is taken
up for further discussion.
Investment limit for All segments brought Motor Vehicles Act

Policy decisions
small-scale units raised under 'Schedule IV' promulgated
Promotion of Fiscal incentives on parts 'Minimum economic scale'
exports for fuel-efficient cars scheme announced
Relaxation of Re-endorsement of Components delicensed
licensing controls capacity upto 133% (for given conditions)
Modernisation programme Passenger cars, UVs, 2-/ Broad-banding policy
for automotive industry 3-w. added to Appendix-I for automotive segments
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Indira Gandhi re-elected
as Prime Minister
Industrial Policy JV between State Rajiv Gandhi as Production of cars
Statement of 1980 and Suzuki Corp. Prime Minister exceeded that of CVs
Free choice to consumers MUL produced
Gulf War
including luxuries its first car
Sixth FYP Seventh FYP
(1980-1985) (1985-1990) Events
Figure 9: Timeline of key policy decisions and events in the deregulation phase 45
Modernisation programme for automotive industry
In early 1980s, the Indian government made policy decisions for infusing fuel-efficient
technologies and competition into the automotive industry. These policy decisions,
collectively referred to as the ‘modernisation programme’, included relaxations in new
entries, foreign equity collaborations and imports of technology and machinery (Narayana
1989). The timing of relaxations coincided with the desire of Japanese firms to find new
markets (D’Costa 1995). As a result, several JVs were established between the Japanese and
Indian entities for technology transfer and equity participation. Other domestic firms formed
technology collaborations with western and Japanese manufacturers for introducing new fuel-
efficient vehicle models. The modernisation programme had a significant impact on the
development of India’s automotive industry. The programme transformed the industry with
45
Source: Self-construction based on the findings in sub-section 5.3.
mixed outcomes. The number of vehicle models available to the Indian consumer increased.
Both product technology and quality saw improvements. In order to reduce weight of the
vehicle for increased fuel efficiency, the product designs changed considerably to include
components made of aluminium, fibres and plastics (Narayanan 1998). This brought changes
to the manufacturing technologies of auto-components.
Further, the Japanese collaborators brought world-class manufacturing practices into the
country. The Japanese practice of subcontracting that involves establishment of vendor parks
in the geographical vicinity of automobile plants led to the creation of two new industrial sites
in the country – Gurgaon in Haryana and Pithampur in Madhya Pradesh (D’Costa 1995).
Many Japanese auto-component firms followed their customers into India and collaborated
with the Indian businesses. This resulted in an increase in the capabilities of the auto-
component segment. The programme changed the structure of the industry considerably,
especially the passenger car segment. The entries of new firms into the automotive segments
led to a significant change in the competitive position of the old players (Narayanan 1998).
The two big car manufacturers, HML and PAL, lost their market leadership to MUL, which
was able to capture more than 60% of the market in only a few years. On the negative side,
the industry experienced problems of higher concentration and greater fragmentation
(D’Costa 1995). A near-monopoly situation was created in the car segment, whereas the LCV
segment experienced low-economic volumes owing to the fragmentation of demand among
several manufacturers.
Promotion of automotive exports
The automotive industry had been a net user of foreign exchange. Moreover, the industry was
experiencing uneconomic production due to low domestic demand. Therefore, in 1980, the
government made a decision to promote exports of automotive products in order to attain a
favourable balance of trade and to support a higher utilisation of production capacities. The
promotion measures included simplified procedures for exports, easier availability of licenses
for 100% export-oriented units and easier expansion of existing units for the purpose of
exports, amongst others (GOI 2008b). The modernisation programme also helped indirectly to
increase the exports of the industry. For instance, the technical collaboration made with Iveco
under the programme, helped Ashok Leyland to make exports of its new line of CVs to
Mexico. Moreover, MUL started making indirect exports of the Japanese collaborator’s 800cc
car model to the European countries. The export of the automotive industry thus doubled over
the period 1984-85 to 1988-89. Even though the share of India’s automotive exports in the
global export market was much small (around 0.1%) in 1980s (D’Costa 1995), the
government’s policy decision to promote exports during this phase was an important initiative
in the development of India’s automotive industry.
Broad-banding policy for automotive segments
The ‘broad-banding’ policy introduced in 1985 was a continuation of the government’s

previous efforts to facilitate the fullest utilisation of installed capacities and the expansion of
Indian industries. The overarching objective behind this could be understood as the initiation
of a self-reinforcing interaction between low-cost production and demand stimulation. Under
the broad-banding policy, the government decided to issue licenses to the automotive firms
for broader product groups instead of licenses for just specific products. Within the broader
product group, the automotive firms were free to decide the product mix to be produced and
therefore, make optimum utilisation of their installed capacities. Also, the automotive firms
were allowed to diversify within their broader product groups. Narayana (1989) suggests that,
while the impact of broad-banding policy on the automobile segment was not much, it created
a potential for severe competition within the auto-component segment. The product groups for
auto-component segment defined under the policy were too broad to force the market leaders
of different sub-segments to compete with each other sooner or later. In case of the
automobile segment, the only firms that benefited from the policy were TELCO for
diversifying into LCVs and Lohia Machines for switching from 100 cc scooters to 150 cc
scooters (Narayana 1989).
The significance of policy decisions made during this phase is reflected in the growth of
automobile production witnessed in the country during the second-half of 1980s (see
Appendix A). Under the constraints of saving on imports of oil, improving the performance of
the industry and satisfying the growing demand of vehicles in the country, the government
decided to upgrade the technology base and competitiveness of the industry. This is in effect
the sum and substance of important policy decisions made during this phase. Narayana (1989)
argues that among all other policy decisions made during the limited-liberalisation phase, the
most important policy decision was the relaxations with regard to foreign collaborations. The
spate of technology agreements and foreign investment that followed, transformed the
industry considerably. The attainment of the government’s objective to induce competition in
the industry could be verified in the results of Narayanan (1998)’s econometric exercise,
which reveals a significant change in the relative position of the old and pioneering firms
since deregulation.
With regard to the role played by the Indian government during this phase, one could observe
the transition from statist ideology to pro-market orthodoxy. While there could possibly be
several reasons based on socioeconomic and political factors that help explain such a shift, the
one provided by D’Costa (1995) is interesting. He argues that the statist policies of the
government contributed to the rise of middle class in India. The past policies of curtailing
production of consumer durables like the automobiles, demanded by the rising middle class,
was no longer sustainable and that the shift became inevitable (D’Costa 1995). Therefore,
despite of the growing oil prices, the government had to facilitate the growth of vehicle
production in the country. Further, the transition effected by the government from a heavily
regulated industrial environment to the one in this phase was not abrupt. A full-blown
industrial restructuring was avoided under the political considerations of the established
producers and their employees (D’Costa 1995). Finally, the only contradiction to the State’s
facilitative role was its permission for only one new entry in the high growth car segment as
compared to four new entries in the LCV segment.
6.3. Influence of key policy decisions in the liberalisation phase
In 1991, substantial changes were made to the economic policy of India. The government did
away with most of the controls and regulations. It assigned central role to the market forces
for organising economic activities and also adopted a more liberal stance towards foreign
trade and investment. These policy changes, collectively known as ‘liberalisation of the
Indian economy’, had far reaching implications. Accordingly, the functioning of the
automotive industry also got liberalised, which significantly altered its development
trajectory. The important policy decisions made during this phase and their influence on the
development of the automotive industry becomes a subject matter of discussion in this sub-
section.

Figure 10 highlights the key policy decisions and events in the liberalisation phase. The key
policy decisions highlighted on the left are grouped together as ‘liberalisation policy’ and the
ones on right as ‘Auto Policy 2002’.
Need for MRTP Phased Mfg. Program Foreign exchange neutrality Policy decisions
clearances eliminated dropped for existing units dropped for new prod. units
Phased Mfg. Program
dropped for new units CBU & SKD/CKD imports
Foreign exchange neutrality also put under OGL
Relaxation in imports of reqd. for SKD/CKD imports
capital goods & technology Emphasis on safety &
Automatic approval for MoU (with indigenisation environmtl. standards
FDI upto 51%equity requirements) to be signed Higher fiscal incentives
Delicensing of all auto License required for import for R&D efforts
segments except cars of CBU & SKD/CKD kits Automatic approval for
Short-term stabilisation Import of capital goods & 100%foregin equity
measures Delicensing of passenger parts under OGL Foreign exchange neutrality
car segment dropped for existing units
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Economic
crisis AMP for the
Rupee moved to India's first indigenously auto industry
Loan from full convertibility designed & developed car
IMF Auto Policy 2002 - a Launch of NATRiP
New Economic separate policy document project
Policy
New Industrial Policy Set up of Core Group India's accession to UN's
Statement of 1990 on Automotive Research Working Party-29
Events
Figure 10: Timeline of key policy decisions and events in the liberalisation phase 46
Liberalisation policy
The important policy decisions of the liberalisation package were delicensing, 51% FDI via
automatic route, relaxations for critical imports and suspension of local content requirements.
The impact of these policy decisions over the developmental aspects of the industry was
visible by the mid-1990s. The policy decisions led to a second wave of restructuring of the
industry and resulted in a fiercely competitive domestic market, both in terms of price and
quality (Singh 2004). The policy decisions also altered the behaviour of the established firms
with respect to technology acquisition and performance (Narayanan 2001). Under the
delicensing policy, the firms were free to enter, expand, diversify and relocate based on their
commercial judgements. The delicensing of entry and diversification, combined with
automatic approval upto 51% FDI led to a spate of entries by the foreign players, establishing
JVs with the domestic players. GOI (2002) notes that after delicensing of cars in 1993, 17
new ventures had come up out of which 16 were for manufacture of cars. This transformed
the previously oligopolistic car segment into one of the most competitive sector in the
industry.
The delicensing of expansion was of no immediate help for the automotive industry in
general. As pointed out by Narayana (1989), the freer capacity licensing policies of 1980s
itself were of no help to the industry since the actual production of automotive firms was
usually below their installed capacities. The fragmentation of the market with the entry of new
players and the general recessionary conditions in the country simply exacerbated the
situation in early 1990s. The industry suffered from the problem of overcapacity and the
sales-capacity ratio of automobile manufacturers improved only after 1998 (Singh 2004).
Another important policy decision was the relaxations on imports of capital goods and
technology. The relaxations were in the form of simplification of bureaucratic procedures and
rationalisation of tariff duties, a trend which has continued till today. Compared to the 1980s,
46
Source: Self-construction based on the findings in sub-section 5.4.
the technology acquisition in the liberalisation phase was apparently better due to the
mechanism of technology transfer from the foreign entity to its Indian subsidiary as opposed
to a less than 40%-owned JV in the 1980s.
The Phased Manufacturing Programme introduced in 1980s, which required the automotive
firms to attain an indigenisation level of 95%, was dropped under the liberalisation regime.
While this was of not much help for the established automotive firms in India who had
already attained high levels of indigenisation, it certainly was an attractive proposition for the
foreign firms who could commence their operations in India by assembling SKD/CKD kits.
However, 1995 onwards, the foreign firms were obliged to maintain foreign exchange
neutrality. Further, from 1997, the new foreign firms were required to sign MoU with the
DGFT for importing SKD/CKD kits. The MoU necessitated export commitments and a plan
for production activities in the country. The FDI in India has primarily been market seeking
and not cost reducing (Singh 2004), and it is argued that such obligations made the foreign
firms to explore the potential of the country as an export base for automobiles and/or
components; see for instance UNCTAD (2003).
In general, liberalisation and the accompanying entry of foreign firms have raised the
technological competence level of India’s automotive industry. The international players
brought along with them world-class design and manufacturing practices that have percolated
into the domestic industry and is reflected in its quality offerings and increasing export
performance.
Auto Policy 2002
Auto Policy 2002 comprises several policy decisions that aim at making the Indian
automotive industry globally competitive and for raising its contribution to the economy.
Discontinuation of foreign exchange neutrality requirement and approval of 100% FDI via
automatic route are the policy decisions aimed at creating a more conducive environment for
the foreign investors. The influence of the policy decisions is strikingly visible in the
exponential growth in FDI received by the automotive sector over the period 2004-05 to
2007-08 (refer Figure 5). Premium car manufacturers like BMW and Volkswagen, who
previously could not have complied with the localisation commitments owing to their high
quality standards, have established their assembly facilities in India after the year 2002.
Further, incentives for R&D efforts planned by the government have incentivised car
manufacturers like Suzuki and Hyundai to undertake R&D in India. Finally, based on the
policy changes, Singh (2004) estimates some increase in the import intensity (total imports to
sales ratio) of foreign-owned vehicle manufacturers in the near future, and also an increase in
the export-output ratio of the auto-component industry.
With regard to the role played by the Indian government during this phase, it is the one of a
facilitator encouraging the firms to achieve higher capabilities and performance. By
undertaking liberalisation, the government did away with most of its direct influences
(controls and regulations) on the automotive industry. Higher foreign competition was
introduced in the industry. However, the induction was not sudden and allowed the
indigenous firms to adjust. The benefits from the foreign investment were reaped with the
imposition of export obligations and localisation commitments. Efforts are being made to
move beyond the factor-driven advantages by encouraging R&D efforts within the industry.
International competitiveness is eyed upon by encouraging small car production and design in
the country. The demand standards of the industry are being raised by adopting higher
environmental and safety standards.
7. Conclusion
This work attempted at identifying policies relevant to the development of India’s automotive
industry and at studying their impact on the industry’s development. The definition of policy
adopted for the work referred it as a decision made by the government to provide guidance for
addressing selected concerns. Such a usage was also observed in the literature discussing
government policies on the Indian automotive industry. In order to identify the relevant
policies, the evolution of India’s automotive industry under the influence of the government
interventions, was traced from its inception to the present day form. A detailed historical
account was made to provide the context and considerations under which the policies were
formulated by the Indian government.
With every major shift in policies made by the Indian government, the automotive industry
has come out stronger and better. While the shift in policies seems to have mostly been
brought by chance events, the Indian government has at least to be credited for making the
right decisions and implementing them correctly. It is paradoxical that the Indian middle
class, the most attractive feature for foreign investment in the liberalisation phase, was an
outcome of the statist ideologies in the regulatory phase. The product innovations of domestic
firms like Tata Motors and Bajaj Auto today are the fruits of indigenisation and protection
policies of the regulatory phases.

References
ACMA (1986): “Automotive industry of India. Facts and Figures”, various issues,
Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India (ACMA), New Delhi.
ACMA (1991-92): “Automotive industry of India: Facts and Figures”, Automotive
Component Manufacturers Association of India (ACMA), New Delhi.
ACMA (2004): “Industry statistics – Vehicle industry (1993-94 to 2004-05)”, Automotive
Component Manufacturers Association of India (ACMA), New Delhi.
ACMA (2007): “Indian Automotive Component Industry - Engine of Growth Driving the
Indian Manufacturing Sector”, Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India
(ACMA), New Delhi.
ACMA (2008a): “Global competitiveness of Indian auto component industry and its
sustainability”, Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India (ACMA), New
Delhi, online in internet: Format:
http://acmainfo.com/docmgr/Status_of_Auto_Industry/Status_Indian_Auto_Industry.pdf,
Enquiry: [08.11.08]; Time: [21:18].
ACMA (2008b): “Industry statistics – Auto component industry (1997-98 to 2007-08)”,
Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India (ACMA), New Delhi, online in
internet: Format:
http://acmainfo.com/docmgr/Industry_Statistics_Graphs/Industry_Statistics_Auto_Componen
ts_08.xls, Enquiry: [20.11.08]; Time: [10:30].
ACMA (2008c): “Industry statistics - Vehicle industry (1994-95 to 2007-08)”, Automotive
Component Manufacturers Association of India (ACMA), New Delhi, online in internet:
Format:
http://acmainfo.com/docmgr/Industry_Statistics_Graphs/Industry_Statistics_Vehicle_08.xls,
Enquiry: [20.11.08]; Time: [10:43].
ATMA (2008): “Overview of Indian Tyre Industry”, Automotive Tyre Manufacturers’
Association (ATMA), New Delhi, online in internet: Format:
http://www.atmaindia.org/ITI_Overview.htm, Enquiry: [08.12.08]; Time: [09:25].
BajajAuto (2007): “Bajaj presentation – October 2007”, Bajaj Auto Ltd., Pune, online in
internet: Format: http://www.bajajauto.com/1024/inv/Bajaj Presentation_October 2007.pdf,
Enquiry: [09.12.08]; Time: [10:50].
Chettri, P. (2002): “Industrialisation in India – Policy framework and development”, New
Delhi: Uppal Publishing House.
Chugan, P. (1995): “Foreign collaboration and export restrictions in Indian industry - A study
of automotive components industry”, Mumbai: Himalaya Publishing House.
D’Costa, A. (1995): “The restructuring of the Indian automobile industry: Indian State and
Japanese capital”, in: World Development, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 485-502.
Ghosh, J. C. (1941): “War efforts and the key industries of India”, in: Current Science, Jg. 10
(2/1), p. 57-63.
GOI (1951): “1st Five Year Plan (Chapter 29: Industrial Development and Policy)”, Planning
Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, online in internet: Format:
http://www.planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/1st/1planch29.html, Enquiry:
[04.11.08]; Time: [23:27].
GOI (1956): “2nd Five Year Plan (Chapter 19: Programme of industrial development)”,
Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, online in internet: Format:
http://www.planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/2nd/2planch19.html, Enquiry:
[06.11.08]; Time: [17:35].

GOI (1961): “3rd Five Year Plan (Chapter 26: Industries)”, Planning Commission,
Government of India, New Delhi, online in internet: Format:
http://www.planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/3rd/3planch26.html, Enquiry:
[07.11.08]; Time: [14:32].
GOI (1969): “4th Five Year Plan (Chapter 14: Industries and Minerals)”, Planning
Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, online in internet: Format:
http://www.planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/4th/4planch14.html, Enquiry:
[11.11.08]; Time: [13:20].
GOI (1971): “Premier Automobiles Ltd. and Anr. etc. vs. Union of India on 24 November,
1971”, Supreme Court of India, Government of India, New Delhi, online in internet: Format:
http://www.indiankanoon.com/doc/913471/, Enquiry: [01.11.08]; Time: [18:35].
GOI (1974): “5th Five Year Plan (Annexure 1: Chapter II, Para 2.9)”, Planning Commission,
http://www.planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planre/fiveyr/5th/5planch7.html, Enquiry:
[11.11.08]; Time: [22:23].
GOI (1993): “General Budget 1993-94 General Discussion”, Parliament of India,
http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/lsdeb/ls10/ses6/1926049304.htm, Enquiry: [01.11.08]; Time:
[23:45].
GOI (2002): “Auto Policy, March 2002”, Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises,
Department of Heavy Industry, Government of India, New Delhi, online in internet: Format:
http://dhi.nic.in/autopolicy.htm, Enquiry: [19.11.08]; Time: [10:43].
GOI (2006a): “Automotive Mission Plan 2006-2016”, Department of Heavy Industry,
Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Government of India, New Delhi, online
in internet: Format: www.siamindia.com/upload/AMP.pdf, Enquiry: [24.09.08]; Time:
[13:46].
GOI (2006b): “Report of working group on automotive industry – Eleventh Five Year Plan
(2007-2012)”, Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public
Enterprises, Government of India, New Delhi, online in internet: Format:
http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/committee/wrkgrp11/wg11_automaive.pdf,
Enquiry: [23.09.08]; Time: [11:48].
GOI (2008a): “Fact sheet on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) – From August 1991 to March
2008”, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Government of India, online in internet: Format:
http://dipp.nic.in/fdi_statistics/india_fdi_March2008.pdf, Enquiry: [17.12.08]; Time: [22:20].
GOI (2008b): “India’s industrial policies from 1948 to 1991”, Office of the Development
Commissioner (Small Scale Industries), Ministry of Small Scale Industries, Government of
India, New Delhi, online in internet: Format: http://www.laghu-udyog.com/policies/iip.htm,
Enquiry: [30.10.08]; Time: [17:19].
GOI (2008c): “History”, Tariff Commission, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government
of India, New Delhi, online in internet: Format: http://tc.nic.in/new/new_history.htm,
Enquiry: [31.10.08]; Time: [18:02].
Hero Honda (2008): “Corporate profile”, Hero Honda Motors Ltd., New Delhi, online in
internet: Format: http://www.herohonda.com/co_corporate_profile.htm, Enquiry: [08.12.08];
Time: [00:41].
IBEF (2005): “Automotive Industry on Fast Track”, India Brand Equity Foundation, New
Delhi.
IBEF (2008): “Automotive market & opportunities”, India Brand Equity Foundation, New
Delhi, online in internet: Format: http://ibef.org/download/Automotive_250608.pdf, Enquiry:
[03.12.08]; Time: [09:34].

Kathuria, S. (1996): “Competing through technology and manufacturing. A study of the

Indian commercial vehicles industry”, Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Kathuria, V. (2000): “Technical change, international competitiveness and role of the state:
Indian machine tool industry's experience”, Working Paper, Gujarat Institute of Development
Research, Ahmedabad, online in internet: Format: http://www.gidr.ac.in/gidr/pdf/WP-121.pdf,
Enquiry: [06.11.08]; Time: [14:23].
Knowledge@Wharton (2005): “How R&D is changing Indian pharma and auto companies”,
Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, online in internet: Format:
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1275, Enquiry: [13.12.08]; Time:
[22:10].
Lall (2003): “Reinventing industrial strategy: The role of government policy in building
industrial competitiveness”, International Development Centre, Queen Elizabeth House,
Oxford, UK, online in internet: Format: http://www.g24.org/slallgva.pdf, Enquiry: [08.11.08];
Time: [17:02].
Narayana, D. (1989): “The motor vehicle industry in India (Growth within a regulatory
policy environment)”, New Delhi and Trivandrum: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
and Centre for Development Studies.
Narayanan, K. (1998): “Technology acquisition, de-regulation and competitiveness: a study
of Indian automobile industry”, in: Research Policy, Vol. 27, pp. 215-228.
Narayanan, K. (2001): “Liberalisation and the differential conduct and performance of firms:
A study of the Indian automobile sector”, The Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi
University and United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies, online in internet:
Format: http://www.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/Common/publication/DP/DP414.pdf, Enquiry: [10.12.08];
Time: [14:05].
Narayanan, B./ Vashisht, P. (2008): “Determinants of competitiveness of the Indian auto
industry”, Working paper no. 201, Indian Council for Research on International Economic
Relations (ICRIER), online in internet: Format:
http://www.icrier.org/pdf/Working%20Paper%20201_final.pdf, Enquiry: [02.10.08]; Time:
[14:35].
OECD (1996): “OECD benchmark definition of foreign direct investment”, Third edition,
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, online in internet:
Format: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/16/2090148.pdf, Enquiry: [24.12.08]; Time: [10:00].
OECD (2002): “Frascati Manual: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and
Experimental Development”, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), Paris, online in internet: Format:
http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/browseit/9202081E.PDF, Enquiry: [13.12.08];
Time: [13:17].
OICA (2008a): “Production statistics”, International Organization of Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers, Paris, online in internet: Format: http://oica.net/category/production-statistics/,
Enquiry: [07.12.08]; Time: [23:41].
OICA (2008b): “World ranking of manufacturers – Year 2007”, International Organization of
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, Paris, online in internet: Format: http://oica.net/wp-
content/uploads/world-ranking-2007.pdf, Enquiry: [07.12.08]; Time: [23:54].
Panda, H. (2002): “Influence of government policies on demand for cars and commercial
vehicles in India in a comparative perspective of the experience of developing countries”, in:
Artha Vijnana, Vol. XLIV, No. 2, pp. 137-154.
Pinglé, V. (1999): “Rethinking the developmental state”, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Porter, M. E. (1990): “The competitive advantage of nations”, First Edition, New York: The
Free Press.

RBI (2002): “Report of the committee on compilation of foreign direct investment in India”,
Reserve Bank of India, Government of India, online in internet: Format:
http://www.dipp.nic.in/first_new/fdi.pdf, Enquiry: [24.12.08]; Time: [10:00].
SIAM (2008a): “Installed capacities”, Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM),
New Delhi, online in internet: Format: http://www.siamindia.com/scripts/installed-
capacities.aspx, Enquiry: [08.12.08]; Time: [15:00].
SIAM (2008b): “Production and sales flash report for March 2008”, Society of Indian
Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM), New Delhi, online in internet: Format:
http://www.automonitor.co.in/siam_data/index.html, Enquiry: [26.10.08]; Time: [13:39].
SIAM (2008c): “Domestic sales trend”, Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers
(SIAM), New Delhi, online in internet: Format: http://www.siamindia.com/scripts/domestic-
sales-trend.aspx, Enquiry: [09.12.08]; Time: [10:15].
SIAM (2008d): “Export trend”, Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM), New
Delhi, online in internet: Format: http://www.siamindia.com/scripts/export-trend.aspx,
Enquiry: [10.12.08]; Time: [09:10].
SIAM (2008e): “Production trend”, Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM),
New Delhi, online in internet: Format: http://www.siamindia.com/scripts/production-
trend.aspx, Enquiry: [04.11.08]; Time: [23:36].
SIAM (2008f): “Excise duty”, Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM), New
Delhi, online in internet: Format: http://www.siamindia.com/scripts/excise-duty.aspx,
Enquiry: [20.11.08]; Time: [11:46].
SIAM (2008g): “Custom duty”, Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM), New
Delhi, online in internet: Format: http://www.siamindia.com/scripts/custom-duty.aspx,
Enquiry: [20.11.08]; Time: [12:46].
SIAM (2008h): “Profile - Members”, Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM),
New Delhi, online in internet: Format: http://www.siamindia.com/Member/memberhead.aspx,
Enquiry: [19.12.08]; Time: [14:29].
Singh, N. (2004): “Strategic approach to strengthening the international competitiveness in
knowledge based industries: The case of Indian automotive industry”, Research and
Information Systems for the Non-Aligned and Other Developing Countries (RIS), New Delhi,
online in internet: Format: http://www.ris.org.in/Dp80_pap.pdf, Enquiry: [02.10.08]; Time:
[14:35].
Sumantran, V./ Ramchand, K./ Andrea, D. (1993): “The Indian automobile industry – A
primer describing its evolution and current state”, Office for the Study of Automotive
Transportation, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Michigan, online in
internet: Format:
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/1025/2/84827.0001.001.pdf, Enquiry:
[21.09.08]; Time: [23:27].
TIFAC (2006): “FDI in the R&D sector – Study for the pattern in 1998-2003”, TMS 179,
Academy of Business Studies, Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council
(TIFAC), New Delhi.
Time (2008): “The world’s cheapest car”, Time Inc., New York, online in internet: Format:
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1702264,00.html, Enquiry: [08.12.08]; Time:
[14:22].
Torjman (2005): “What is policy?”, Caledon Institute of Social Policy, Canada, online in
internet: Format: www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/544ENG.pdf, Enquiry: [22.09.08];
Time: [13:06].
UNCTAD (2003): “Foreign direct investment and performance requirements: New evidence
from selected countries”, U.N., New York and Geneva, online in internet: Format:
http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteiia20037_en.pdf, Enquiry: [05.01.09]; Time: [09:00]

M. Ranawat and R. Tiwari Influence of Govt. Policies on India’s Automotive Industry 53
Appendix A: Production of vehicles in India (1951 to 2007‐08)
Total Total 2-
Year Cars UVs LCVs M&HCVs Scooters Motorcycles Mopeds 3-wheelers Total Vehicles
CVs wheelers
1951-55 4,611* 1,300* 3,541* 1,146 4,687 106* 84* - 190 - 10,788
1956-60 12,949* 3,925* 4,890* 15,759 20,649 4,969* 2,548* 1,525* 9,042 599 47,164
1961 21,662 7,502 23,968 29,544 12,817 8,636 2,634 24,087 1,267 84,062
1962 23,326 7,597 25,364 30,940 14,318 8,828 513 23,659 1,426 86,948
1963 15,711 8,104 5,576* 27,285 32,861 15,419 9,456 5 24,880 1,701 83,257
1964 23,227 10,391 31,783 37,359 20,043 13,858 1,445 35,346 2,493 108,816
1965 24,790 10,488 35,649 41,225 20,316 21,364 7,444 49,124 1,884 127,511
1966 27,597 9,777 31,632 37,464 20,917 25,040 5,591 51,548 1,255 127,641
1967 33,395 5,561 28,367 34,199 30,302 23,338 9,108 62,748 3,995 139,898
1968 37,308 7,298 5,832* 30,338 36,170 35,942 29,411 9,553 74,906 4,317 159,999
1969 35,183 7,838 29,783 35,615 49,740 34,477 11,043 95,260 5,072 178,968
*Five-year annual average; Source: ACMA (1986) cited after Narayana (1989)
Apr/Mar
1970-71 36,032 9,846 7,837 34,009 41,846 58,117 38,855 11,604 108,576 4,743 201,043
1971-72 39,607 11,227 7,579 33,076 40,655 68,651 44,104 15,752 128,507 7,337 227,333
1972-73 36,990 12,998 9,127 30,561 39,688 68,657 47,983 24,063 140,703 10,710 241,089
1973-74 42,271 12,356 10,782 34,424 45,206 77,116 46,951 26,664 150,731 11,208 261,772
1974-75 30,903 9,628 5,609 35,448 41,057 88,400 61,243 32,536 182,179 12,210 275,977
1975-76 21,658 7,133 6,666 37,135 43,801 106,757 70,108 36,354 213,219 13,378 299,189
1976-77 36,331 8,365 8,249 38,644 46,893 155,008 72,369 36,432 263,809 20,037 375,435
1977-78 34,262 9,187 8,405 32,937 41,342 155,475 68,382 39,682 263,539 18,556 366,886
1978-79 33,330 11,501 12,662 46,617 59,279 165,139 87,427 48,756 301,322 19,621 425,053
1979-80 33,002 12,774 15,854 43,154 59,008 156,107 91,115 72,207 319,429 17,398 441,611
1980-81 31,275 15,667 20,338 53,836 74,174 212,039 104,223 124,048 440,310 26,930 588,356
1981-82 42,475 17,867 26,981 66,384 93,365 223,550 115,304 207,222 546,076 25,801 725,584
1982-83 43,558 20,234 26,989 60,769 87,758 264,540 135,810 232,115 632,465 31,881 815,896
1983-84 46,901 21,681 28,970 61,099 90,069 276,433 163,290 339,881 779,604 38,575 976,830
1984-85 76,090 23,208 33,378 62,626 96,004 314,748 187,147 396,053 897,948 43,508 1,136,758
1985-86 102,804 27,961 36,725 63,727 100,452 461,860 267,107 461,950 1,190,917 49,947 1,472,081
1986-87 125,866 28,784 38,992 60,161 99,153 642,038 302,520 449,688 1,394,246 54,566 1,702,615
1987-88 151,875 32,036 45,167 64,933 110,100 589,734 335,679 511,699 1,437,112 61,112 1,792,235
1988-89 165,798 35,754 46,274 70,173 116,447 725,305 429,017 482,001 1,636,323 79,361 2,033,683
Total Total 2-
Year Cars UVs LCVs M&HCVs Scooters Motorcycles Mopeds 3-wheelers Total Vehicles
CVs wheelers
1989-90 179,278 44,309 48,457 76,594 125,051 874,992 417,401 439,293 1,731,686 83,752 2,164,076
1990-91 181,818 37,369 57,763 86,831 144,594 910,315 470,359 440,092 1,820,766 89,162 2,273,709
1991-92 165,309 31,530 54,739 89,509 144,248 766,566 430,366 406,804 1,603,736 76,750 2,021,573
Source: ACMA (1991-92) cited after Chugan (1995)

1992-93 186,484 40,683 65,117 77,745 142,862 799,825 446,161 433,628 1,679,614 84,137 2,133,780
Source: Average of 1991-92 and 1993-94 production

1993-94 207,658 49,836 75,495 65,981 141,476 833,083 461,955 460,451 1,755,489 91,524 2,245,983
Source: ACMA (2004)
1994-95 264,468 49,675 92,805 101,994 194,799 1,030,803 647,521 516,936 2,195,260 128,895 2,833,097
1995-96 348,146 67,643 129,417 129,731 259,148 1,225,895 809,097 623,114 2,658,106 173,412 3,506,455
1996-97 407,539 134,594 85,069 152,185 237,254 1,322,928 988,709 668,666 2,980,303 221,679 3,981,369
1997-98 401,002 134,613 65,069 95,895 160,964 1,279,549 1,125,958 667,242 3,072,749 234,867 4,004,195
1998-99 390,355 113,440 55,371 80,452 135,823 1,315,055 1,387,276 671,699 3,374,030 209,033 4,222,681
1999-00 574,369 124,310 61,213 114,068 175,281 1,259,408 1,794,093 724,510 3,778,011 205,543 4,857,514
2000-01 517,907 125,938 63,869 88,185 152,054 879,759 2,183,430 694,974 3,758,163 203,234 4,757,296
2001-02 564,052 105,667 65,756 96,752 162,508 937,506 2,906,323 427,498 4,271,327 212,748 5,316,302
2002-03 608,851 114,479 83,195 120,502 203,697 848,434 3,876,175 351,612 5,076,221 276,719 6,279,967
2003-04 843,235 146,325 108,917 166,123 275,040 935,279 4,355,168 332,294 5,622,741 356,223 7,243,564
2004-05 1,027,858 182,018 138,896 214,807 353,703 987,498 5,193,894 348,437 6,529,829 374,445 8,467,853
2005-06 1,112,542 196,371 171,781 219,297 391,078 1,020,013 6,201,214 379,574 7,600,801 434,424 9,735,216
2006-07 1,238,021 222,495 225,724 294,258 519,982 943,944 7,112,281 379,987 8,436,212 556,126 10,972,836
2007-08 1,416,480 244,648 254,062 291,114 545,176 1,074,933 6,503,532 430,827 8,009,292 500,592 10,716,188
Source: ACMA (2008c)

Appendix B: Automotive vehicle classification in India
Automotive vehicles in India

Passenger Cars (No. of seats not over 6)
A1: Mini (Upto 3400 mm)
A2: Compact (3401 – 4000 mm)
A3: Mid-Size (4001 – 4500 mm)
A4: Executive (4501 – 4700 mm)
A5: Premium (4701 – 5000 mm)
A6: Luxury (5001 mm & above)
Utility Vehicles
B1: Max. mass upto 3.5 ton
B1(a): No. of seats not over 7
B1(b): No. of seats including driver exceeding 7 but not exceeding 9 (7+1 & 8+1) (M1(B2))
B2: Max. mass upto 5 ton
B2(a): No. of seats including driver not exceeding 13 (M2(A1))
C: Multi-Purpose Vehicles – Van type vehicles & mass not exceeding 3.5 ton (M1(C))
Commercial Vehicles
Medium & Heavy Commercial Vehicles
A: Passenger Carriers
A1: Max. mass not over 12 ton
A1(a): No. of seats including driver exceeding 9 but not exceeding 13 (M3(C1))
A1(b): No. of seats over 13
A2: Max. mass not exceeding over 16.2 ton
A2(b): No. of seats over 13
B: Goods Carriers
B1: Max. mass over 7.5 ton and less than 12 ton
B2: Max. mass not over 16.2 ton
B2(a): Max. mass 12 – 16.2 ton
B3: Max. mass over 16.2 ton
B3(a): Rigid vehicles
(i): Max. mass 16.2 – 25 ton
B3(b): Max. mass over 25 ton
B4: Max. mass over 16.2 ton – Haulage tractor
B4(a): Max. mass exceeding 16.2 ton but not exceeding 26.4 ton
B4(b): Max. mass exceeding 26.4 ton but not exceeding 35.2 ton
B4(c): Max. mass over 35.2 ton
Light Commercial Vehicles
A1: Max. mass upto 5 ton (M2(A2))
A1(a): No. of seats over 13
A2: Max. mass 5 – 7.5 ton
A2(b): No. of seats upto & over 13
B: Goods Carriers
B1: Max. mass not over 3.5 ton
B2: Max. mass 3.5 – 5 ton
B3: Max. mass 5 – 7.5 ton
Two Wheelers
A: Scooter/Scooterette (wheel size not over 12”)
A1: Engine capacity less than 75 cc
A2: Engine capacity 75 - 125 cc

A3: Engine capacity 125 - 250 cc

B: Motorcycle/Step-through (wheel size more than 12”)
B2: Engine capacity 75 - 125 cc
B3: Engine capacity 125 – 250 cc
B4: Engine capacity over 250 cc
C: Mopeds (engine capacity < 75 cc, wheels over 12”)
D: Electric 2-wheelers
Three Wheelers
A1: No. of seats including driver not exceeding 4 & max. mass not exceeding 1 ton
A2: No. of seats including driver exceeding 4 but not exceeding 7 & max. mass exceeding 1.5 t
B: Goods Carriers
B1: Max. mass not exceeding 1 ton
B2: Others
Source: Self-construction based on SIAM (2008b)

Appendix C: List of automobile manufacturers in India
Vehicle segments Turnover

Sr. Estd.
Automobile manufacturer Electric 2007-08
no. Cars UVs M&HCVs LCVs Scooters Motorcycles Mopeds 3-wheelers in
2-wheelers (in INR mi.)
Domestic OEMs*
1. Ashok Leyland Ltd. z z 1948 83,047.17
2. Asia Motor Works Ltd. z 2002 NA
3. Atul Auto Ltd. z 1986 1,407.02
4. Bajaj Auto Ltd. z z z 1945 113,899.10
5. Eicher Motors Ltd. z z 1982 18,844.40
6. Electrotherm (India) Ltd. z 2006 7,372.21
7. Force Motors Ltd. z z z 1985 12,313.00
8. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. z z 1984 115,420.40
9. Hindustan Motors Ltd. z z z 1942 8,064.00
10. International Cars & Motors Ltd. z 2003 219.68
11. Kinetic Engineering Ltd. z z 1970 832.20
12. Kinetic Motor Company Ltd. z 1984 2,542.82
13. LML Ltd. z z 1972 1,244.10
14. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. z z z z 1945 144,395.19
15. Majestic Auto Ltd. z 1973 1,103.30
16. Premier Ltd. z z 1944 891.66
17. Royal Enfield Motorcycles Ltd. z 1955 2,278.56
18. Scooters India Ltd. z 1972 1,901.99
19. Swaraj Mazda Ltd. z z 1984 6,902.00
20. Tata Motors Ltd. z z z z 1945 321,298.80

Vehicle segments Turnover

Sr. Estd.
Automobile manufacturer Electric 2007-08
no. Cars UVs M&HCVs LCVs Scooters Motorcycles Mopeds 3-wheelers in
2-wheelers (in INR mi.)
21. TVS Motor Company Ltd. z z z 1982 44,734.40
Foreign OEMs*
1. BMW India Pvt. Ltd. z z 2006 NA
2. Fiat India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. z 1997 NA
3. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. z z 1999 27,223.00
4. General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. z z 1994 22,815.40
Honda Motorcycle & Scooter
5. z z 1999 23,577.26
(India) Pvt. Ltd.
6. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. z z 1995 48,289.00
7. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. z z 1996 99,159.00
8. India Yamaha Motor Pvt. Ltd. z 1985 8,982.70
9. Mahindra Renault Pvt. Ltd. z 2007 NA
10. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. z z 1981 151,823.00
11. Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd. z z 1994 7,999.00
12. Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd z z 1998 14,495.80
13. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. z 2001 NA
14. Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd. z z 1997 NA
15. Tatra Vectra Motors Ltd. z 1998 471.17
16. Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. z z 1997 45,540.91
17. Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. z 2007 NA
18. Volvo India Pvt Ltd. z 1998 NA
* Classification of OEMs into ‘domestic’ or ‘foreign’ is done based upon current shareholding pattern of the company. If more than 50% of shares are owned by an Indian company then it is
classified as a ‘Domestic OEM’, and if owned by a foreign company then as a ‘Foreign OEM’. For a 50:50 JV and other uncertain cases, the classification is done based upon the perceived control.
Source: Based on SIAM (2008b), SIAM (2008h), company websites of respective automobile manufacturers and the website of Bombay Stock Exchange

Appendix D: Some of the top auto‐component manufacturers in India
Sr.
Auto-component manufacturer Description
no.
Domestic auto-component manufacturers*
1. Amalgamations Group Amalgamations Group is one of the reputed business groups in the Indian automotive industry. With its 43 companies, the
group serves diverse demands of the industry by supplying auto-components, diesel engines, batteries, forgings, copper alloy
powders and engineering plastics. Some of the well-known auto-component companies of the group are: Simpson & Co. Ltd.,
AMCO Batteries Ltd., Bimetal Bearings Ltd. and India Pistons Ltd.
2. Amtek Group Amtek Group consists of forging, iron casting, aluminium casting, automotive machining and ring gear divisions. The group
has 34 manufacturing facilities across North America, Europe & Asia. The flagship company of the group, Amtek Auto Ltd.,
made a net sales of INR 12,823 million in the year 2007-08.
3. Anand Group Anand Group consists of several foreign-JV companies: Behr India Ltd., Federal-Mogul Bearings India Ltd., Gabriel India
Ltd., Mahle Filter Systems India, Mando India Ltd., Spicer India Ltd. and Valeo Friction Materials India Ltd. to name a few.
The flagship company of the group, Gabriel India Ltd., made a net sales of INR 4,674 million in 2007-08.
4. Endurance Group The Endurance Group with its die casting and component divisions has a turnover of around INR 12,650 million from domestic
operations and INR 7,770 million from overseas operations. The group has 9 plants in India and 5 plants overseas. The flagship
company of the group is Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
5. Kalyani Group Kalyani Group is one of the leading industrial houses in India. It is much known for its flagship company Bharat Forge Ltd.,
which is the world’s second largest forging company and also happens to be the largest domestic auto-component player. The
company achieved a net sales of INR 46,522 million in 2007-08.
6. Rane Group Rane Group consists of 7 manufacturing companies serving market needs for power steering systems, manual steering &
suspension systems, valve train components and friction material products. The group achieved sales of INR 14,021 million in
2007-08. Rane (Madras) Ltd. is the flagship company of the group.
7. Sona Group Sona Group consists of 9 auto-components manufacturing companies and 3 service companies in the areas of engineering
design and mobility. The group has revenues a little in excess of INR 34,200 million. The flagship company of the group is
Sona Koyo Steering Systems Ltd.
8. TACO Group Tata AutoComp Systems Ltd., which is promoted by the Tata Group, is the holding company of the TACO Group. The
company has 15 JVs in partnership with leading companies from the global auto-component industry. The group provides
products and services to both Indian as well as global customers.
9. TVS Group TVS Group comprises around 30 companies, which operate in diverse fields that range from 2-wheeler (TVS Motors Ltd.) and
auto-components manufacturing to automotive dealerships, finance and electronics. The group has a number of JVs in
partnership with foreign auto-component majors. The combined turnover of the group is more than INR 180,000 million.

Sr.
Auto-component manufacturer Description
no.
10. Varroc Group Varroc Group comprises of Varroc Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (having electrical and metallic divisions) and Varroc Polymers Pvt.
Ltd. The group companies supply auto-components to both Indian as well as foreign customers. The total sales of the group is
around INR 20,250 million.
Foreign auto-component manufacturers*
1. Bosch Chassis Systems Ltd. Formerly known as Kalyani Brakes, the company was recently acquired by the Germany-based Bosch Group. It manufactures
hydraulic brake systems for automotive applications. Its turnover in the year 2007-08 was INR 5,403 million.
2. Delphi Automotive Systems Ltd. Delphi Automotive Systems Ltd. is the Indian subsidiary of US-based Delphi Corporation. The company manufactures heat
exchangers, catalytic converters, HVAC systems, steering columns, etc. Its annual turnover is around INR 6,000 million.
3. Denso India Ltd. Denso India Ltd. is the Indian subsidiary of Japan-based Denso Corporation. The company manufactures alternators, wiper
motors, engine cooling fans, washer pumps, ventilators, etc. Its net sales for 2007-08 were INR 4,657 million.
4. Federal-Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. Federal-Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. is majorly owned by the US-based Federal-Mogul Corporation. It manufactures piston,
piston rings, cylinder liners, light metal castings and sintered metal products. Its net sales were INR 6,228 million in 2007-08.
5. Motor Industries Company Ltd. MICO is majorly owned by the Germany-based Bosch Group. The company was established in 1951 and currently supplies
(MICO) common rail injectors, diesel fuel injection equipment, auto-electrical, etc. to the Indian as well as global automotive industry.
It achieved a net sale of around INR 40,000 million in 2007-08.
* Classification of auto-component manufacturers into ‘domestic’ or ‘foreign’ is done based upon the current shareholding pattern of the company. If more than 50% of shares are owned by an
Indian company then it is classified as a ‘Domestic auto-component manufacturer’, and if owned by a foreign company then as a ‘Foreign auto-component manufacturer’. For a 50:50 JV and other
uncertain cases, the classification is done based upon the perceived control.
Source: Based on company websites of respective auto-component manufacturers and the website of Bombay Stock Exchange

Influence of Government Policies On Industry Development: The Case of India's Automotive Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Influence of Government Policies On Industry Development: The Case of India's Automotive Industry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Influence of Government Policies On Industry Development: The Case of India's Automotive Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

econstor

Make Your Publications Visible.

Ranawat, Mahipat; Tiwari, Rajnish

Working Paper, No. 57

Provided in Cooperation with:

Suggested Citation: Ranawat, Mahipat; Tiwari, Rajnish (2009) : Influence of government

This Version is available at:

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use:

Influence of Government Policies on

Hamburg University of Technology

Schwarzenbergstr. 95, D-21073 Hamburg, Germany

Keywords: Government Influence; Government Policies; Indian Automotive Industry

Research Project Global Innovation Working Paper 57 / March 2009 TIM/TUHH

Vehicle types Segments

Table 1: General classification of automotive vehicles in India 3

Passenger vehicles CVs 3‐wheelers 2‐wheelers

Figure 1: Domestic sales trend for different vehicle types 4

Figure 2: Size of Indian auto-component market (2003-04 to 2007-08) 7

Passenger vehicles CVs 3‐wheelers 2‐wheelers

Figure 3: Export trend for different vehicle types 8

Figure 4: Export trend for auto-components 10

Figure 5: FDI trend in Indian automotive industry 14

Figure 6: Market shares of key players in the Indian automobile market 15

Research Project Global Innovation Working Paper 57 / March 2009 TIM/TUHH

Figure 7: Distribution of automobile plants across Indian states 17

No. of automobile No. of auto-component

This section provides a general discussion on government influence on industry development.

Research Project Global Innovation Working Paper 57 / March 2009 TIM/TUHH

Another important aspect of industry development is technological progress (Kathuria 2000).

Research Project Global Innovation Working Paper 57 / March 2009 TIM/TUHH

Research Project Global Innovation Working Paper 57 / March 2009 TIM/TUHH

The push for indigenisation by imposing a progressive manufacturing programme on the

manufacture of components had resulted in an industrial structure devoid of supplier

Research Project Global Innovation Working Paper 57 / March 2009 TIM/TUHH

Research Project Global Innovation Working Paper 57 / March 2009 TIM/TUHH

Research Project Global Innovation Working Paper 57 / March 2009 TIM/TUHH

Progressive manufacturing Emphasis on

Virtual ban of CBU imports

IDRA promulgated (Licensing system)

the purpose of entry, diversification, capacity expansion, foreign collaborations, imports of

Progressive manufacturing obligation (Indigenisation)

Emphasis on ancillaries development

60 to 80 components reserved for small-scale

Stricter controls on foreign equity collaborations

Significant capacities for 2-wheelers

Research Project Global Innovation Working Paper 57 / March 2009 TIM/TUHH

Investment limit for All segments brought Motor Vehicles Act

Modernisation programme for automotive industry

Promotion of automotive exports

Broad-banding policy for automotive segments

The ‘broad-banding’ policy introduced in 1985 was a continuation of the government’s

Research Project Global Innovation Working Paper 57 / March 2009 TIM/TUHH

Auto Policy 2002

Research Project Global Innovation Working Paper 57 / March 2009 TIM/TUHH

Research Project Global Innovation Working Paper 57 / March 2009 TIM/TUHH

Research Project Global Innovation Working Paper 57 / March 2009 TIM/TUHH

Kathuria, S. (1996): “Competing through technology and manufacturing. A study of the

Research Project Global Innovation Working Paper 57 / March 2009 TIM/TUHH

Research Project Global Innovation Working Paper 57 / March 2009 TIM/TUHH