top of page

By:

Akhilesh Sinha

25 June 2025 at 2:53:54 pm

Nadda's strategic meet signals urgency for chemical sector

New Delhi: As war simmers across the volatile landscape of West Asia, whether in the form of a direct confrontation between Israel, United States and Iran, or through Iran's hybrid warfare involving groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis, the tremors are no longer confined to the region's borders. They are coursing through the arteries of the global economy. India's chemicals and petrochemicals sector, heavily dependent on this region for critical raw materials, finds itself among the earliest...

Nadda's strategic meet signals urgency for chemical sector

New Delhi: As war simmers across the volatile landscape of West Asia, whether in the form of a direct confrontation between Israel, United States and Iran, or through Iran's hybrid warfare involving groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis, the tremors are no longer confined to the region's borders. They are coursing through the arteries of the global economy. India's chemicals and petrochemicals sector, heavily dependent on this region for critical raw materials, finds itself among the earliest and hardest hit by this geopolitical turbulence. It is in this backdrop that the recent meeting convened by Union Minister for Chemicals and Fertilisers J. P. Nadda at Kartavya Bhavan must be seen not as a routine consultation, but as a signal of strategic urgency. India's ambition to scale this sector from its current valuation of $220 billion to $1 trillion by 2040, and further to $1.5 trillion by 2047, will remain aspirational unless the country confronts its structural vulnerabilities with clarity and resolve. India today ranks as the world's sixth-largest producer of chemicals and the third-largest in Asia. The sector contributes 6-7 percent to GDP and underpins a wide spectrum of industries, from agriculture and pharmaceuticals to automobiles, construction, and electronics. It would be no exaggeration to call it the backbone of modern industrial India. Yet, embedded within this strength is a paradox. India's share in the global chemical value chain (GVC) stands at a modest 3.5 percent. A trade deficit of $31 billion in 2023 underscores a deeper issue: while India produces at scale, it remains marginal in high-value segments. This imbalance becomes starkly visible when disruptions in West Asia choke the supply of key feedstocks, shaking the very foundations of domestic industry. Supply Disruption The current crisis has laid this fragility bare. Disruptions in the supply of LNG, LPG, and sulfur have led to production cuts of 30-50 percent in several segments. With nearly 65 percent of sulfur imports sourced from the Middle East, the ripple effects have extended beyond chemicals to fertilisers, plastics, textiles, and other downstream industries. Strategic chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz have witnessed disruptions, pushing shipping costs up by 20-30 percent and adding further strain to cost structures. This is precisely where Nadda's emphasis on supply chain diversification and resilience appears prescient. In today's world, self-reliance cannot mean isolation; it must translate into strategic flexibility. While India imports crude oil from as many as 41 countries, several critical inputs for the chemical industry remain concentrated in a handful of sources, arguably the sector's most significant vulnerability. Opportunity Ahead A recent report by NITI Aayog outlines a pathway to convert this vulnerability into opportunity. It envisions raising India's GVC share to 5-6 percent by 2030 and to 12 percent by 2040. If achieved, the sector could not only reach the $1 trillion mark but also generate over 700,000 jobs. However, this transformation will demand more than policy intent, it will require sustained investment and disciplined execution. The most pressing challenge lies in research and innovation. India currently spends just 0.7 percent of industry revenue on R&D, compared to a global average of 2.3 percent. This gap explains why the country remains largely confined to basic chemicals, even as the world moves toward specialty and high-value products. Bridging this divide is essential if India is to climb the value chain. Equally constraining is the fragmented nature of the industry. Dominated by MSMEs with limited access to capital and technology, the sector struggles to compete globally. Cluster-based development models offer a pragmatic way forward, such as PCPIRs and the proposed chemical parks.

Lingua Pragmatica

Updated: Mar 20, 2025

As Southern leaders like M.K. Stalin rage against Hindi, Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu offers a model of pragmatism over parochialism.

Chandrababu Naidu
Andhra Pradesh

Amid the cacophony of opposition in southern states to Hindi, Andhra Pradesh CM N. Chandrababu Naidu has taken a markedly pragmatic stance by remarking recently in the state Assembly that there was no harm in learning other languages. Hindi, Naidu noted, was useful for communication across India, particularly in political and commercial hubs like Delhi. His remarks, though avoiding explicit mention of the NEP, were widely seen as an endorsement of multilingualism and a rebuke to the linguistic chauvinism that has gripped parts of the South.


Few issues in India stir political passions quite like language. It is not merely a means of communication but a marker of identity, a relic of colonial resistance, and a source of political mobilization. In the southern states, where anti-Hindi sentiment has long been entrenched, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and its three-language formula have reignited old tensions. No state embodies this defiance more than Tamil Nadu, where the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led by M.K. Stalin has framed the policy as an assault on its linguistic autonomy.


Naidu’s words, welcomed by his ally and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, mark a sharp contrast with the DMK’s position. Tamil Nadu’s hostility towards Hindi dates back to the 1930s, when C. Rajagopalachari’s attempt to introduce it in schools met with fierce resistance. The anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s cemented the DMK’s ideological stance, with its first Chief Minister, C.N. Annadurai, famously warning that Hindi imposition could push Tamil Nadu towards secession.


The question, however, is whether this rigid opposition serves Tamil Nadu’s interests. While Stalin, with an eye to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, has been relentlessly portraying Hindi as a threat to his state’s regional identity, Naidu, a partner of the BJP-led Centre, is framing it as a tool for economic mobility. His argument is not that Hindi should replace Telugu or English but that it offers a competitive advantage.


The economic case for multilingualism is compelling. Indians who speak multiple languages tend to have better job prospects, higher earnings and greater geographic mobility. Andhra Pradesh’s Telugu-speaking diaspora is a case in point. Telugus make up a significant proportion of Indian-origin professionals in the United States, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia as Naidu pointed out, hinting that this success story was built not on linguistic rigidity but on adaptability.


In a country where inter-state migration is rising and where Hindi remains the most widely spoken language, refusing to learn it amounts to self-imposed isolation. Tamil Nadu’s approach, by contrast, risks limiting its youth. The DMK government has refused to implement the three-language policy, keeping schools strictly bilingual with Tamil and English. Its justification that Hindi is not necessary for global success could be true in a narrow sense but ignores the domestic context. If Tamil filmmakers can dub their movies into Hindi to expand their audience, why should Tamil students be denied access to the language that could open more doors for them within India?


The DMK has accused successive central governments, particularly under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of pushing Hindi at the expense of regional languages. Yet, rejecting Hindi outright is an overcorrection. The reality is that Hindi is an important language in India’s economic and political landscape. Naidu’s position, one of accommodation rather than confrontation, offers a middle ground that other Southern leaders would do well to consider.


Some states already recognize this. Karnataka, despite its own history of linguistic pride, has allowed Hindi to be taught as an optional language. Kerala, whose migrants work in Hindi-speaking regions and the Gulf, has been less hostile to Hindi education. Naidu’s model, balancing regional identity with practical necessity, offers a way forward. Languages should be embraced, not politicized. Southern leaders would do well to listen to him.

Comments

bottom of page