Account for the failure of manufacturing sector in achieving the goal of labour-intensive exports rather than capital-intensive exports. Suggest measures for more labour-intensive rather than capital-intensive exports.

Use the Make in India record to show capital-intensive growth and slower export expansion, and to propose measures favouring labour-intensive exports.

• Non-petroleum goods exports rose about 53% in 12 years, from $253.5 billion (2014-15) to $388.3 billion (2025-26), a much slower pace than in the preceding 12 years.
• PLI favours large, automated units, so output rises faster than jobs; in electronics, domestic value addition is still low and components are imported.
• Measures: shift incentives to apparel, footwear and food processing, lower tariffs on intermediate goods, rationalise QCOs and build plug-and-play industrial parks.

Use the ASI 2024-25 data and the op-ed's argument to show that Indian manufacturing growth remains capital-intensive, the root of weak labour-intensive output and exports.

• Basic metals, motor vehicles, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and food products contribute over 45% of factory GVA; invested capital grew 11.10% against 7.19% growth in persons engaged (ASI 2024-25).
• The op-ed argues output per worker has barely moved and wages per worker grew more slowly than net profit, pointing to a capital-intensive growth model.
• Suggest tilting incentives such as PLI towards labour-intensive sectors (textiles, apparel, footwear, food processing, toys) and simplifying compliance so units grow from micro to medium size.