With your journey across both traditional and emerging sectors in India, what are the unique challenges in shaping industrial policy in India’s policy structure?
India’s policy ecosystem is inherently multilayered and fragmented, spanning numerous ministries, regulators, and state-level authorities. This complexity is particularly acute when shaping industrial policy, which must balance the needs of legacy sectors like steel and infrastructure with those of sunrise sectors such as green hydrogen, EVs, renewables, or semiconductor manufacturing.
One of the most persistent challenges is the lack of coherence across ministries and departments. While one ministry may champion digitization or green energy, another may impose legacy compliance frameworks that directly undercut these efforts. For example, the ‘resource tax’ on ISTS-connected wind projects in Tamil Nadu highlights the kind of Centre-state friction that can derail national climate and industrial goals. Similarly, for the steel industry to successfully transition to green steel, the government’s impetus is required for the cost of green hydrogen to fall significantly, from the current range of $5-$5.6/kg to around $2-$2.6/kg for it to be commercially viable.
Another systemic issue is policy formulation’s siloed and technocratic nature, which often overlooks cross-sectoral linkages. Take electric vehicles—they’re not just an auto sector concern. They intersect with power distribution, charging infrastructure, battery standards, land acquisition, and urban planning. Yet, these elements are rarely addressed in a unified framework, making implementation fragmented and sluggish.
Lastly, there’s often an ambition-execution gap. Policies often launch with bold intent but falter in design and rollout due to insufficient stakeholder engagement. A case in point is the PLI scheme for IT hardware. While well-intentioned, its initial design lacked ground-level realism. Only through sustained advocacy and mid-course corrections—driven by industry feedback—did we see improvements in incentive structures and outlay, making it more effective.
In essence, true industrial transformation in India requires not just bold policies but institutional coordination, iterative consultation, and executional agility.
India’s regulatory environment is often reactive. What would it take to build a more anticipatory, proactive policy ecosystem?
Shifting from a reactive to a proactive regulatory framework requires both structural and cultural transformation. It’s about institutionalizing foresight, strengthening regulatory capabilities, deepening stakeholder dialogue, and reforming legislative processes.
India needs to establish dedicated policy foresight units within key ministries such as MeitY, DPIIT, and MoEFCC. These units staffed with data scientists, policy analysts, and domain experts should be tasked with tracking global tech and regulatory trends, conducting scenario planning, and developing early warning systems for emerging risks and opportunities. While initiatives like the IndiaAI Mission signal progress, foresight must expand beyond technology procurement to cover ethical implications, labor market disruptions, and sectoral convergence in AI, Web3, and semiconductors. Singapore’s approach to anticipatory governance is a strong model.
Regulators, in turn, must be equipped to engage with fast-evolving sectors like fintech, gaming, or climate tech. This requires periodic training and knowledge partnerships for instance, with OECD, MIT, or IIMs and safe regulatory sandboxes where policies can be tested before nationwide rollout. In my experience, parliamentary committees often show willingness but lack technical access, which could be bridged through structured learning initiatives.
Reactive policies often stem from limited stakeholder inputs. Therefore, India needs to institutionalize early-stage consultations, modelled on the EU’s Better Regulation principles. Mandating white papers for any regulatory initiative must be mandatory with public consultation timelines strictly enforced to avoid last-minute backlash, as seen in MeitY’s AI advisory.
Furthermore, India’s legislative machinery needs to be more nimble. Landmark bills like the Digital India Act and the long-debated DPDP Act highlight how protracted processes hinder regulatory relevance. Mechanisms such as fast-track review mechanism, sunset clauses, and adaptive regulation protocols can help keep laws aligned with rapid innovation. The 2013 cybersecurity policy, for example, is now obsolete in the face of AI-driven threats and hybrid warfare.
To sum up, building a proactive policy ecosystem in India isn’t just about better forecasting—it’s about creating institutional frameworks, regulatory agility, and consultative discipline. It requires the state to not just regulate for today, but to govern for what’s coming next
How do you assess the lifecycle of a policy from white paper to implementation and where do you see the biggest gaps emerging in that chain?
The typical policy formulation lifecycle in India flows through six stages: Conceptualization (White Paper), stakeholder consultation, inter-ministerial coordination, cabinet or ministerial approval, Gazette notification, and Implementation and enforcement. While the framework appears intact, critical gaps frequently emerge across four key stages, undermining even the most well-intentioned policies.
Many policies falter right at the foundation. Key stakeholders, especially implementation agencies, state regulators, and industry specialists are often missing from early consultations. The online gaming framework, for instance, overlooked state-level sensitivities, triggering litigation and regulatory pushback. Similarly, the Aarogya Setu app was rolled out with minimal stakeholder dialogue, leading to trust deficits.
A rigorous stakeholder mapping exercise before consultations begin is essential, ensuring grassroots and sectoral feedback informs early drafts.
Ambiguities in policy drafting are another common issue. Vague or overly broad language often leads to interpretational disputes. The IT Rules’ misinformation clause faced Supreme Court scrutiny due to a lack of definitional clarity. To avoid such issues, joint drafting by legal, domain, and technical experts, supported by comparative regulatory analysis, is crucial to ensure the language is precise, enforceable, and future-ready.
Inter-ministerial coordination issues often arise from turf battles, and fragmented ownership is a recurring issue. The delayed rollout of e-waste recycling rules, for example, was a direct result of disjointed positions between the Environment Ministry, MeitY, and Housing & Urban Affairs. To address this, empowered inter-ministerial task forces or a designated nodal ministry with end-to-end accountability could help break silos and align incentives.
Even well-designed policies falter at the implementation stage due to bureaucratic inertia, unclear compliance procedures, or local capacity gaps. The PLI scheme, while successful in many respects, remains out of reach for many MSMEs due to complex documentation. Similarly, ‘Make in India’ gained traction in metros but lagged in smaller towns due to poor infrastructure and lack of state-level alignment. To improve executive functioning, clear operational guidelines, simplified compliance, and capacity-building at the state and district levels is needed. Additionally, institutionalized post-implementation reviews, often missing today, could prevent issues like those seen during the GST rollout, where delayed feedback and course correction had significant costs. A Policy Implementation Unit within NITI Aayog or Cabinet Secretariat, tasked with tracking real-time progress, resolving bottlenecks, and creating feedback loops between implementers and policymakers, would be beneficial.
In summary, policy success in India is not just a function of ideas—but of alignment, clarity, capacity, and iteration. Closing these gaps can significantly raise the impact-per-policy ratio across sectors.
When dealing with fast-changing sectors like gaming or tech, how do you ensure the policy voice of industry remains responsible and forward-looking?
Industries in fast-evolving spaces like gaming, Fintech and AI have a responsibility to lead through self-regulation, transparency, and alignment with public interest.
At a practical level, this means proactively engaging with the government before a crisis hits. In the gaming sector, for instance, we advocated for the MeitY as the nodal ministry even before a formal mandate was announced. That early engagement helps build trust and positions the industry as a thought partner, not just a beneficiary.
Secondly, the industry voices must embrace principles like the adoption of a voluntary code of conduct, consumer protection framework, data privacy, and grievance redressal, even if the regulatory ask is not explicit. By co-creating codes of conduct or proposing models for dispute resolution aligning with global standards like the Entertainment Software Rating Board, India’s tech sectors can shape regulation while demonstrating maturity and global alignment.
Third, focus on national priorities. Industry gains credibility when it links growth to larger development goals like job creation, export potential, or digital inclusion. For gaming, advocating for skill development programs in game design or animation can create policy tailwinds. My work with MeitY, and MIB shows that policymakers value such alignment.
Fourth, focus on a practical approach. Constitute sector-specific councils (e.g., India Gaming Council) to consolidate policy inputs, blending innovation with responsibility and ensuring continuity in engagement. These councils should publish annual white papers, propose sandbox frameworks to shape regulatory agendas.
Finally, we must embrace evidence-based advocacy like commissioning third-party research, economic impact assessments, consumer behaviour studies, and global benchmarking to inform policy dialogues. This shifts the needle from lobbying to solutions.
Engaging with ministries, secretaries, and parliamentary committees, what separates a transactional relationship from one built on long-term credibility?
The difference lies in intent and execution. Transactional relationships are myopic and triggered by a crisis or policy need. Credible, long-term relationships are cultivated deliberately over time-based on consistency, transparency, and value addition.
Here’s what separates the two:
Frequent, constructive engagement—even when there’s no immediate “ask”—is the key. Policy ecosystems respect consistency, not just visibility, during contentious moments. Whether it’s white paper feedback, budget inputs, or technical workshops, showing up regularly creates policy recall and builds institutional memory. In my experience, it’s the quiet, sustained presence that opens doors to the most strategic conversations.
Credibility is also earned through transparency. Being upfront about commercial interests, citing evidence, and disclosing conflicts of interest where relevant helps build trust. Whether during a closed-door consultation or a parliamentary committee briefing, integrity in your input becomes your brand. Trust is the currency of long-term engagement.
One of the most overlooked aspects of policy engagement is offering constructive, comparative, and solution-oriented inputs. For instance, while engaging the Finance Ministry on tax incentives, I’ve often brought global benchmarks from Singapore or the EU to enrich discussions. That shift—from lobbying to solutions makes you a thought partner, not a petitioner.
Transactional ties surface only when an issue erupts. Long-term credibility is built during the in-between: pre-budget submissions, inter-ministerial consultations, or contributions to committee meetings. My sustained engagements with ministries like MNRE, DPIIT, and Finance have opened doors to informal policy discussions.
Ultimately, credibility isn’t built in closed-door meetings—it’s built in your engagement’s consistency, clarity, and character. When stakeholders see you as someone who speaks not just for an entity, but for the ecosystem, the relationship turns from transactional to trusted.
What’s one regulation or policy area that you think will define the next phase of India’s economic trajectory, and that not enough people are talking about?
Some underappreciated policy areas with outsized potential include data governance, particularly non-personal data (NPD) regulation, and green finance taxonomy.
While the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 rightly addresses personal data, NPD remains a blind spot. With over 900 million internet users, India generates vast amounts of anonymized, aggregated data—crucial for AI, IoT, and Industry 4.0 applications. Yet, we lack a clear framework for its ownership, monetization, or sharing. The 2020 Gopalakrishnan Committee proposed data exchanges and stewardship models, but without legislative traction, ambiguity persists. These risks stifle sectors like smart manufacturing, gaming, or semiconductors and open the door for data monopolies or foreign exploitation. A strong NPD regime could make India a global data and AI innovation hub.
On another front, green finance governance is an emerging dark horse. As India scales renewable energy and climate-aligned infrastructure, we urgently need a clear taxonomy for green bonds, carbon markets, and sustainability-linked finance. Without strong disclosure and assurance frameworks, we risk greenwashing and investor hesitation. Global capital is ready but demands integrity and transparency in green instruments.
*Disclaimer: The views expressed in this interview are solely of the author and do not represent the views of any organization with which they are or have been associated with.
About Rohan Sarin:
Rohan Sarin is a seasoned public policy and government affairs professional with over 16 years of distinguished experience in public policy, strategic communications, corporate branding, and government relations. He has consistently delivered impactful results by navigating complex regulatory landscapes and building strong stakeholder alliances.
At ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel India, where he serves as Deputy General Manager – Public Policy and Affairs, Rohan leads strategic engagements with central and state governments, advocating for policy reforms and facilitating a more conducive business environment. His efforts have safeguarded organizational interests, ensured operational continuity, enhanced reputation, and delivered significant bottom-line impact.
Rohan has been pivotal in forging partnerships with key government stakeholders, including ministers, secretaries, parliamentarians, and senior officials. Notably, he played a pivotal role in establishing the Task Force on Project and Program Management under the CEO of NITI Aayog, resulting in India’s first National Policy Framework aligned with global best practices. He also initiated the CII-Ministry of Road Transport & Highways and CII-Ministry of Shipping Joint Task Forces, fostering sustained Industry-Government dialogue on infrastructure development and ease of doing business. Additionally, he was instrumental in shaping the revamped Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme for the IT Hardware sector, driving critical policy reforms.
