Towards a genuine Atmanirbhar Bharat

As the world celebrates Gandhi Jayanti on October 2, it is worth asking what the Mahatma might say about the profound shifts shaping the global economy. For decades, globalisation was seen as an inevitable force binding the world through trade, technology, and culture. But in recent years, cracks have appeared in this narrative. The United States under Donald Trump champions tariffs, “America First” protectionism, and a retreat from global trade deals. Europe has witnessed its own populist backlash. Multilateral institutions struggle for legitimacy. The Covid-19 pandemic further exposed the fragility of extended supply chains and over-dependence on distant producers.

In this climate of scepticism, India has advanced its own strategy. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s call for Atmanirbhar Bharat—a self-reliant India—seeks to reduce dependence on imports, strengthen domestic manufacturing, and build greater resilience. On the surface, it appears strikingly Gandhian, even echoing the spirit of swadeshi Gandhi championed. But is Atmanirbhar Bharat truly Gandhian -- or is it simply another industrial strategy dressed in indigenous rhetoric? To answer this, we must measure it against Gandhi’s moral compass.

Modi’s Atmanirbhar Bharat is presented as a path to economic independence. Campaigns such as “Vocal for Local” and incentives for domestic manufacturing (from chips to ships) aim to cut reliance on imports and generate jobs. These appear to echo Gandhi’s swadeshi principle of prioritising local goods and industries.
But Atmanirbhar Bharat is framed largely in terms of industrial policy and competitiveness. Its emphasis on large-scale manufacturing, integration into global supply chains, and courting of multinationals betrays a paradox: it seeks self-reliance by deepening global competition. This aligns less with Gandhi’s swadeshi and more with State-led capitalism.

Gandhi would have posed an uncomfortable question: Atmanirbhar for whom? If self-reliance translates into corporate profits while farmers, artisans, and informal workers remain insecure, it cannot claim Gandhian legitimacy. Gandhi insisted the touchstone of every policy was the last person—Antyodaya.

Consider agriculture. Policies encouraging contract farming, large-scale exports, and corporate entry may boost GDP but risk undermining small farmers’ livelihoods. Gandhi would have insisted on strengthening local food systems, cooperative farming, and organic practices. In industry, his preference was for decentralised village industries, not giant factories driven by profits rather than community welfare.

On ecological grounds too, Gandhi’s critique is piercing. His warning that “the earth provides enough for everyone’s need, but not for everyone’s greed” resonates strongly amid today’s climate crises. Any version of Atmanirbhar Bharat that prioritises growth over sustainability only aggravates the ecological debt future generations will bear.

If India wishes to chart a truly Gandhian path of self-reliance—what we might call Atmanirbhar Bharat 2.0—three principles must guide it:

Swadeshi as ethical responsibility: Consumption should be guided by conscience, not just cost. Choosing local goods must be seen as a responsibility to reduce carbon footprints, safeguard livelihoods, and preserve cultural diversity. For Gandhi, spinning khadi was solidarity with millions of spinners and weavers. Today, supporting local farmers’ markets, handloom cooperatives, and micro-enterprises can play a similar role.

De-globalisation as humanisation: Moving away from exploitative global systems should not mean retreat into narrow nationalism. Instead, it should build resilient local networks—community-owned renewable energy, local food systems, and neighbourhood health services. Such de-globalisation puts human needs above the volatility of global markets.

Localisation as empowerment: Gandhi’s Gram Swaraj envisioned villages as self-sufficient yet interconnected. Today this translates into strengthening decentralised governance, promoting cooperatives, and investing in local innovation. Technology must be reoriented towards renewable energy, open-source digital platforms, and small-scale tools that empower rather than displace labour.

In such a framework, self-reliance is not autarky or isolation, but balance. The Gandhian balance—between the local and the global, need and greed—offers an alternative path at a time when globalisation itself appears exhausted. By reimagining self-reliance not as a fortress economy but as a network of empowered, sustainable communities, India could pioneer an Atmanirbhar Bharat 2.0: a form of de-globalisation that heals rather than divides, a localisation that empowers rather than excludes. That would be a true homage to Gandhi in troubled times—and a gift to a world searching for alternatives to a failing global order.

(The writer was the head of the Centre for Gandhian Studies at Bangalore University. He is currently Managing Trustee of the Sarvodaya International Trust and serves as a Member of the Governing Body of Karnataka Gandhi Smarak Nidhi)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.