Swadeshi needs strategy, not slogans

TheRashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat’s Vijayadashami address this year in Nagpur was, as always, closely watched for its political undertones and ideological signposts. Speaking against the backdrop of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s renewed tariff war on Indian goods, Bhagwat’s emphasis on swadeshi (indigenous production) and aatmanirbharta (self-reliance) struck a chord with the anxieties of a nation navigating a volatile global economy.

His call was not new—the RSS has, since its inception, emphasised swadeshi as both an economic principle and a cultural ideal. But the timing of his remarks and their resonance in today’s fractured trade environment raise important questions: How should India interpret the rhetoric of self-reliance? Can swadeshi be more than a slogan in a deeply interconnected world? And does the push for indigenous production protect India or risk isolating it?

Donald Trump’s return to the tariff battlefield against Indian exports has once again highlighted India’s economic vulnerabilities. U.S. tariff hikes on a broad range of Indian goods—including textiles, steel, and other manufactured products—pose a real threat to trade revenues and employment. While some reports flagged possible effects on pharmaceuticals, these measures primarily targeted high-value branded drugs rather than India’s core generics exports. IT services, meanwhile, are not subject to tariffs at all, since they are services, not goods. For a developing country with aspirations of becoming a $5 trillion economy, external shocks of this nature are not mere diplomatic scuffles. They expose the structural weaknesses in India’s dependence on global markets. When Bhagwat warns that “interdependence should not turn into helplessness,” he articulates a fear that many policymakers share: India cannot allow foreign markets or foreign capital to dictate its destiny.

Swadeshi, as an economic philosophy, is woven into India’s freedom struggle. Mahatma Gandhi popularised it as a moral and political weapon against colonial exploitation—urging Indians to spin their own khadi and boycott foreign goods. For the RSS, swadeshi is both an economic safeguard and a cultural affirmation, protecting Indian identity from being subsumed by global homogenisation. But the world of 2025 is not the India of 1925 or 1947. Today, no economy—least of all an aspiring power like India—can truly detach from global supply chains. From semiconductors to energy, from rare earths to fertilisers, interdependence is an economic reality. Even Bhagwat acknowledged this when he said: “The world functions on interdependence. No nation can live in isolation.” His caution, however, is against compulsion. That distinction is crucial. Swadeshi in 2025 need not mean autarky or withdrawal. Instead, it could mean strengthening domestic manufacturing, encouraging innovation, and reducing over-reliance on imports in critical sectors such as defence technology, medical equipment, and digital infrastructure.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has already made “Aatmanirbhar Bharat” a flagship slogan, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of global supply chains. Initiatives such as Make in India, the Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes, and Digital India aim to promote indigenous manufacturing and innovation. Yet, implementation has been uneven. While some sectors—mobile phone assembly, for instance—have seen progress, others remain heavily dependent on imported components. The real challenge is not producing low-value assembly but building ecosystems of design, innovation, and research that can compete with China, the United States, and Europe. Here, Bhagwat’s insistence on swadeshi risks sounding rhetorical unless matched with state policy, institutional investment, and long-term vision. Self-reliance cannot be reduced to an annual Vijayadashami slogan; it requires structural reform in education, labour markets, infrastructure, and governance.

Bhagwat’s address was not only economic in orientation. His remarks about the Gen Z protests in Nepal and the collapse of the KP Oli government carried a cautionary note about violent uprisings and “foreign meddling.” Though he did not use the phrase “grammar of anarchy,” he did frame mass protests as destabilising and externally influenced. This reflects the RSS’s long-standing suspicion of mass protests, which it often sees as destabilising forces exploited by external powers. The subtext is clear: dissent must operate within legal and institutional frameworks, not on the streets. For an organisation that wields enormous influence over the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), such framing of protest and revolution carries implications for how India negotiates its democratic space.

Beyond economics, swadeshi carries a cultural dimension for the RSS. It is not merely about producing in India, but consuming in line with what it sees as India’s civilisational ethos. Whether it is clothing, food habits, or digital apps, the call for swadeshi often blends economic self-reliance with cultural self-assertion. Critics, however, worry that this approach risks protectionism and parochialism, turning swadeshi into a tool of exclusion rather than empowerment. In an India that thrives on diversity and openness, self-reliance must not slide into insularity. The challenge is to frame swadeshi as an enabling philosophy—nurturing local industries and artisans—while remaining outward-looking and globally competitive.

The Shastra Puja performed by Bhagwat, with replicas of modern weapons such as Pinaka rocket systems and drones on display, added another layer of symbolism. It was a reminder that self-reliance is not just economic but also strategic. In defence, India has long depended on imports, from Russian fighter jets to American drones. The push for indigenous defence manufacturing—through the Make in India initiative—is as much about national pride as it is about reducing vulnerabilities. Seen in this light, Bhagwat’s Vijayadashami message is consistent: India must be strong enough economically, culturally, and militarily to “act according to its own will.”

The danger of the swadeshi call lies in its possible misinterpretation. If taken to mean protectionism, it could hurt India’s competitiveness, isolate it from trade opportunities, and slow down growth. The history of India’s “Licence Raj” era reminds us how excessive inward-looking policies stifled innovation and efficiency. But if understood as a pragmatic push for resilience, self-reliance could strengthen India’s hand in global negotiations. The goal is not to shun trade but to trade from a position of strength. It is about ensuring that tariff wars like Trump’s do not leave India cornered, and that shocks in one part of the supply chain do not derail the entire economy.

Mohan Bhagwat’s Vijayadashami address, though rooted in ideology, raises questions that policymakers cannot ignore. In a turbulent global environment—where tariff wars, regional unrest, and technological rivalries collide—India’s path must indeed be one of resilience and self-confidence. But swadeshi and aatmanirbharta must move beyond rhetoric. They must be translated into investments in education, research, and entrepreneurship. They must protect India from vulnerability without shutting it off from opportunity. And they must ensure that self-reliance is not confused with self-isolation.

As India stands at a crossroads—between global aspiration and domestic resilience—the RSS chief’s call reminds us of both our strengths and our insecurities. The challenge is to strike the balance: to be swadeshi without being insular, and to be self-reliant without rejecting the interdependence that defines the modern world.