India is at a decisive point in its economic journey. The country has strong growth prospects, a large domestic market, rising infrastructure investment, a young workforce, deep digital capacity and a growing role in global geopolitics. These strengths make India naturally attractive to global investors. Yet attractiveness alone is not enough. Foreign capital is mobile, selective and increasingly impatient with policy friction. If India wants to attract larger and more stable foreign investment, it must offer not only growth, but also confidence, predictability and execution. The challenge before India is not a lack of interest from global investors. It is the gap between interest and actual long-term allocation. Many investors see India as a high-growth market, but also as a market with avoidable friction. This friction appears in different forms: tax uncertainty, capital gains concerns, high transaction costs, currency risk, compliance complexity, slow approvals, state-level delays, contract enforcement issues, land availability problems and limited investible depth in some future-facing sectors.

At the same time, India’s trade position shows why foreign investment must be linked to domestic production. In FY2025-26, India’s total exports of goods and services were estimated at US$860.09 billion, while total imports were estimated at US$979.40 billion. Services exports remained a major strength, but the merchandise trade deficit was still large. This means India needs a policy approach that brings in foreign investment not only into financial markets, but also into factories, supply chains, technology, services, logistics and export platforms. The central idea should be simple: India must become easier to invest in, easier to produce in, and easier to export from.

The Real Investor Question

Foreign investors are not only asking whether India will grow – they already know India will grow. The more important question is whether India can deliver stable rules, lower friction, faster approvals and credible long-term returns. In a world where investors can choose between India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Mexico, the UAE, South Korea, Taiwan and other markets, policy certainty becomes a competitive advantage.

India’s current foreign investment discussion is often divided into separate debates. One debate is about foreign portfolio investors and capital markets. Another is about foreign direct investment and manufacturing. A third is about exports and free trade agreements. These debates are connected. A foreign investor who wants to invest in Indian equities looks at tax policy, liquidity and currency risk. A company that wants to build a factory looks at land, power, approvals, labour, logistics and state-level execution. A global firm using India as an export base looks at FTAs, standards, customs, ports and supplier depth. India, therefore, needs one integrated foreign capital and production confidence framework.

Where the Friction Exists

The main barriers are not difficult to identify. The harder part is solving them in a coordinated manner.

This is not a criticism of India’s growth story. It is a recognition that the next stage of growth will require sharper execution. The global environment is competitive. Countries are actively trying to attract supply chains, factories, financial capital and technology. India cannot rely only on market size.

Tax Stability and Capital Market Confidence

A major part of the foreign investment plan should focus on capital market confidence. Foreign portfolio investors are sensitive to tax uncertainty, capital gains treatment, STT, compliance burden and currency risk. The concern is not merely the existence of tax. Serious investors can plan around reasonable taxes. What they find difficult is uncertainty. India should consider a three-year or five-year tax stability commitment for capital market investors. This should cover Long Term Capital Gains tax, Short Term Capital Gains tax, Securities Transaction Tax, treaty treatment and FPI taxation. Such a commitment would not prevent India from taxing gains. It would simply give investors confidence that the rules will not shift suddenly after they have committed capital.

The LTCG framework should also reward patient capital. A graded structure can be considered, where the tax rate falls as the holding period increases. For example, listed equity gains may be taxed at 10% after one year, 5% after two years and 0% after three years. For genuine long-term foreign investors such as pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, insurance funds and long-only regulated funds, India may consider 0% LTCG after three years, subject to proper disclosure and anti-abuse checks.

This would send a clear message. India welcomes long-term capital more than short-term trading flows. STT also needs careful review. Investors often feel that paying both transaction tax and capital gains tax creates a double-cost effect. A partial credit of STT against capital gains tax, especially for delivery-based investment, can make the system appear fairer without eliminating revenue.

Making Foreign Investor Entry Easier

India should simplify FPI registration and compliance for clean, regulated investors. Large pension funds, sovereign funds, insurance pools and public market funds should not face repeated documentation if they are already regulated in credible jurisdictions. FPI registration validity can be extended, repeated KYC can be reduced, and a digital single-window access system can be created. A fast tax-certainty window is equally important. Large foreign investors should be able to obtain binding clarity within a defined time, such as 90 days. This will reduce fears around retrospective interpretation, treaty disputes and future litigation. In investment decisions, speed and clarity often matter as much as tax rates.

GIFT City should become a stronger gateway for India-focused global capital. It can offer fund setup, custody, settlement, rupee hedging, derivatives, dispute resolution and tax clarity in a globally familiar format. If India wants to compete with Singapore, Dubai and Hong Kong for India-focused capital, GIFT City must be not only attractive on paper but easy to use in practice.

FDI Must Be Linked to Production Capacity

Foreign direct investment should not be viewed only as a capital inflow. It should be treated as a tool for technology transfer, job creation, export growth, import reduction and supply-chain development. India’s recent FTAs and investment agreements create an opportunity, but that opportunity will matter only if India can produce at scale.

The India-EFTA agreement, with its investment objective of US$100 billion over 15 years and facilitation of one million direct jobs, is especially important because it links trade opening with investment. The India-UK agreement offers wide market access for Indian exports. The India-UAE agreement has strengthened trade links with a key West Asian hub. The India-EU trade process, if implemented well, can open a large, high-standard market for Indian exporters. But tariff access does not automatically create exports. Export success requires factories, standards, testing labs, logistics, finance, branding and market intelligence.

Sectors Where India Should Focus

India should prioritise sectors where foreign investment can serve two goals at once: increase exports and reduce avoidable imports. This is the most practical way to strengthen the trade balance without returning to old-style protectionism.

• Electronics should be among the top priorities. India has made progress in mobile manufacturing, but deeper value addition is needed. Printed circuit boards, camera modules, displays, sensors, telecom equipment, chargers, batteries and semiconductor packaging should be localised. This will reduce dependence on imports and increase the value of exports.
• Semiconductors should be treated as a foundation sector. India does not need to begin only with the most advanced chips. It can build strength in design, packaging, testing, power chips, automotive chips, sensors and mature-node manufacturing. These are commercially useful and strategically important.
• Pharmaceuticals are already a strong export sector, but India should reduce dependence on imported APIs, key starting materials and medical devices. The next phase should focus on complex generics, biosimilars, vaccines, diagnostics, imaging equipment and hospital devices.
• Engineering goods and machinery require special attention because India imports many of the machines needed for manufacturing. A “top imported machinery” roadmap can help identify where domestic capacity is practical. India should aim to make more of the machines that build factories.
• Batteries, EV components and renewable energy equipment are future-defining sectors. Without domestic production, India’s energy transition may create a new import burden. Solar cells, wafers, inverters, batteries, motors, controllers, storage systems and electrolysers should be part of a national production strategy.
• Textiles, leather, footwear, toys, sports goods and furniture are important for jobs. FTAs can help these sectors, but only if India improves scale, quality, design, compliance and delivery speed. These sectors can absorb labour and support MSMEs, women-led enterprises and smaller towns.

FTAs Must Be Turned into Production Plans

India’s FTAs should not be treated as diplomatic achievements alone. Each FTA should be followed by a domestic production and export plan. The market has been opened; now Indian firms must be prepared to use it.

India should create FTA-linked export clusters. For example, textile clusters can be mapped to UK and EU demand. Food processing clusters can be linked to Gulf and Oceania markets. Engineering clusters can be linked to Europe, Africa and West Asia. Pharma clusters can be linked to regulated markets where certification and quality systems are essential. This approach will prevent FTAs from remaining unused by smaller firms. Many Indian companies do not fail because tariffs are high; they fail because they cannot meet standards, scale, packaging, certification or delivery timelines.

State-Level Execution Is the Deciding Factor

Many investors’ problems are not at the central policy level. They are at the state and district levels. Land, power, water, inspections, construction approvals, local permissions, labour administration and incentive disbursement are often state-level issues. A foreign investor may sign an agreement in Delhi, but the project succeeds or fails on the ground.

India should create a State Investment Delivery Index. States should be ranked on actual delivery, not only policy announcements. Metrics can include land allotment timelines, construction approval time, power connection speed, incentive disbursement, inspection burden, grievance resolution and dispute closure. This would create healthy competition among states and give investors a clear picture of execution quality. It would also push states to focus on practical delivery rather than only investor summits.

Industrial Land, Logistics and Contract Enforcement

Manufacturing investors need ready land. They do not want to spend years solving title issues, local disputes, environmental approvals and utility connections. India should build ready-to-use industrial land banks with clear title, digital records, environmental pre-clearance, power, water, road and rail connectivity and worker housing. The objective should be to move from “come and search for land” to “come and start construction.”

Logistics also matters. India must reduce the cost and time of moving goods from the factory to the port. Export competitiveness is not only about factory wages. It depends on customs, roads, ports, rail, warehousing, containers and documentation. Contract enforcement is another key issue. Large investment disputes should have fast-track commercial courts or dedicated arbitration mechanisms. Investors must believe that contracts will be respected and disputes will not remain unresolved for years.

A Practical Implementation Framework

The policy package should be sequenced. Not every reform can be completed at once, but India can move in clear phases.

The government should also create an investor aftercare system. Existing investors are often the best source of future investment. If companies already present in India can expand smoothly, they become ambassadors for India. If they face unresolved delays, new investors become cautious.

Conclusion

India does not need to choose between openness and domestic production. It needs both. It should welcome foreign investment while building Indian manufacturing depth. It should sign FTAs while preparing domestic firms to use them. It should attract portfolio capital while also drawing long-term investment into factories, technology, infrastructure and exports. The main message is that India already has the growth story. What it now needs is a confidence architecture around that growth story. Investors need predictable rules, easier entry, faster approvals, reliable state-level execution, better hedging, stronger dispute resolution, and a clear path to produce and export from India.

If India can combine capital market confidence with domestic production capability, it can attract more stable foreign investment, reduce avoidable imports, increase exports, create jobs and strengthen its position in global supply chains. The next stage of India’s economic rise will depend not only on demand but on delivery.

Title Image Courtesy: Copilot

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government of India and the Defence Research and Studies.

References

Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) (2025) Merchandise EXIM Trade at a Glance: April–June 2025. Available at: https://www.dgciskol.gov.in/writereaddata/Downloads/202509111728321st%20Qtrly%20Report%20Q1%202025-26.pdf

European Free Trade Association (EFTA) (n.d.) India–EFTA Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement. Available at: https://www.efta.int/trade-relations/free-trade-network/india

Press Information Bureau (PIB) (2022) Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. Available at: https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1821785

Press Information Bureau (PIB) (2025) India–UK CETA. Available at: https://www.pib.gov.in/PressNoteDetails.aspx?ModuleId=3&NoteId=154945&id=154945

Press Information Bureau (PIB) (2025) India–EFTA TEPA comes into force with USD 100 billion investment objective. Available at: https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2173968

Press Information Bureau (PIB) (2025) India-EFTA Trade Pact: Boosting $100 Billion Investment and 1 Million Jobs. Available at: https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2177724

Press Information Bureau (PIB) (2026) The cumulative value of merchandise exports during FY 2025–26. Available at: https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2252272&lang=1&reg=3

Press Information Bureau (PIB) (2026) India and European Union Trade Agreement. Available at: https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2219146&lang=2&reg=3

Press Information Bureau (PIB) (2026) India’s achievements in Free Trade Agreements for the year 2025–26. Available at: https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2236134&lang=1&reg=3

Press Information Bureau (PIB) (2026) India’s Trade Partnerships Powering Global Integration. Available at: https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2233417&lang=1&reg=3

Reuters (2025) Key facts about India–UK free trade deal, 23 July. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/key-facts-about-india-uk-free-trade-deal-2025-07-23/

Reuters (2026) India, New Zealand trade pact cuts fruit tariffs, boosts exports and visas, 27 April. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/india-new-zealand-trade-pact-cuts-fruit-tariffs-boosts-exports-visas-2026-04-27/

Reuters (2026) India’s trade deficit at $20.98 billion in March, 15 April. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indias-trade-deficit-2098-billion-march-2026-04-15/