On the Edge: Can India’s Synthetic Hub Weave Scale with Sustainability?

The trade associations have also urged the government to extend the BIS on yarn by another year. “We still have a lot to learn. Either we are not doing R&D, or we don’t want to learn, or we don’t want to move out of old habits. We keep using the same old machines, but this is the era of technology—we must move with time. Everyone has to do that.

“Our industry has to progress, and for that, if we want to focus on exports, we need good-quality yarn. Right now, that quality is not available in India in sufficient quantity or consistency. So, we have said that until that happens, the government should allow import of those speciality yarns. If they stop it under BIS, we cannot compete in exports. The kind of finishing and feel required in export fabrics—our local yarn still does not meet that standard,” Jirawala expands.

The speciality yarns are imported mostly from Japan, South Korea, Germany, and Italy. These countries have highly developed technology and consistent quality. “Our processors need that level for high-end exports—especially in technical textiles, suiting, and synthetic blends. Without such yarns, our export fabrics fail international testing. How can we survive then?”

SGCCI has also asked for lower import duties on spare parts and machinery components that are not yet made in India, to ensure not just ease of business but also survival for the small weavers.

The local industry cannot immediately switch to Indian-made machinery as domestic alternatives are not yet developed. “The quality, speed, and efficiency of imported looms from China and South Korea cannot yet be matched by Indian manufacturers. Our weavers cannot afford the downtime or poor quality that comes with substandard machines,” chips in Madrasi and reiterates that the government should “ideally give enough time and also some incentives to Indian machinery makers to upgrade technology. Only then can they compete. But the BIS rule, as it stands, could block imports and cause production losses.

“Surat has more than 650,000 powerlooms. Imagine if even a fraction of them stops due to lack of spare parts or imported machinery—the entire ecosystem will suffer. Processing units, embroidery houses, traders, and transporters will all be affected. The impact would ripple across the city. And employment—that’s the biggest concern. We’re talking about lakhs of workers. Surat runs on textile wages—if the looms stop, the entire city economy will reel under the impact.”

Since GST implementation, there was a bit of a downturn, and about 200,000–300,000 looms were scrapped. Out of that, roughly 100,000 machines were sold secondhand to other states—West Bengal and elsewhere—and about 100,000 completely scrapped.

As for the workers of those units, many moved to new technology. “The advantage here is that workers on older, manual machines transition to running modern electronic ones.”

Surat is also about the countless medium or smallscale players who still use old machines. But to modernise or upgrade, there are “no central government schemes as such. We mostly modernise with our own investment. The state government subsidy was stopped for about two years, but it has recently been restarted. Earlier, the central government used to provide a 30% subsidy under the UPA regime—on imported machinery used for textile manufacturing. In 2014, it was reduced to 20%, later to 10%, and now it’s discontinued. Currently, only the state government gives some protection—10 to 20%,” informs Jirawala.

But the good news is that automation—especially in the powerloom sector—is happening “very fast. Two years ago, we had around 1,000 air-jet machines. Today, more than 10,000 have been installed, and they run at a speed of around 1,200 rpm. About 15–20 years ago, we didn’t have water-jets. We used secondhand Coma machines. Now, there are more than 1,10,000 water-jets installed. Within the next two to four years, air-jets will increase to around 50,000. Roughly 10,000 machines get added every year. And don’t forget embroidery—Surat now has around two lakh embroidery machines, all individually owned.”

Nearly 40% the total production of man-made fabrics in the country is manufactured in Surat. The city as a whole produces large volumes, but individual units are small.

Talking about how Surat or even neighbouring Ahmedabad’s textile sector has adapted technologically, Gujarati says, “Technology-wise, we are doing very well. Large corporates like Arvind have adopted the latest global technology. The smaller sector is also modernising gradually. Earlier, powerloom units used very old machines and couldn’t compete, but schemes like TUFS—Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme—helped them modernise. Today, India’s textile technology is at par with Europe or the US. In Surat, you’ll even find many Chinese machines—they’re cheaper but efficient.”

The issue is about Indian-made machines and why largescale manufacturing hasn’t developed here. “We have some smaller machine makers, and someone like a Lakshmi Machine Works (LMW) in Coimbatore. They used to collaborate with Rieter, but now operate independently.

“Developing such large machinery requires massive investment and long-term R&D—maybe twenty years. No one wants to take that risk. Apart from a handful of big players, the rest are much smaller and cater to local demand. So domestic manufacturing is still limited, with only about 25 per cent being made domestically.”

Trade bodies have proposed that the government create clusters for machinery manufacturing with shared R&D facilities. For example, in Surat or Ahmedabad, a common R&D and testing centre for textile machinery would help small companies develop prototypes. Currently, everyone works in isolation, and no one can afford largescale R&D alone. That’s why Japan and Germany are ahead—they collaborate, share innovation.

There have been some initial talks to create such facilities but nothing concrete has come up yet. “We have told the ministry that if they help with the infrastructure—testing centres, R&D labs, or funding—then the industry will handle the rest. We are ready to invest our time and money, but we need a proper foundation to build on”, says Jirawala.

“And I would like to reiterate that we don’t need steps that break the chain. Encourage improvement, not restriction. This is not just about a few companies—it’s about the whole textile industry. When one segment suffers, the entire chain feels the shock.”

He cites Japan and China as examples where a gradual transition worked well—where they built capacity before enforcing standards. “They never imposed restrictions suddenly. First, they supported domestic manufacturers, gave them time and training, provided grants for research, and only after their products met international standards, did they implement strict rules. China did the same. They imported freely at first, studied the technology, reverse-engineered the products, improved their versions, and then slowly phased out imports. That’s the correct model. But in India, we often do it the other way—impose restrictions, and then think about how to build capacity.

“The sequencing has to be right. You cannot expect results overnight. Our industry has great potential, but it needs nurturing. We have skilled people, but they need better infrastructure, exposure, and encouragement. We are competing with countries that have decades of continuous R&D culture. You can’t suddenly match that. You have to start somewhere, and that requires proper planning and consistent government support.”

The biggest issue perhaps is the various overlaps in terms of the ministries and key policymaking bodies for this very fragmented and diverse industry. Textile machinery comes under the Ministry of Heavy Industries, and not textiles. Jirawala assures, “The ministry is supportive—ready to fund, provide loans, everything—but the industry has to take risks. Someone needs to invest ₹4 billion–5 billion and wait 10–12 years for the results. That risk appetite is missing. India has always been strong in fibre and raw material. We are self-sufficient in all fibres except a few high-performance ones like carbon and glass. Reliance, for example, is the largest polyester manufacturer in the world.”

SGCCI has proposed a phased implementation. For instance, start with BIS on certain categories of machines where local capacity exists—like small accessories or components. Then, gradually extend it to major equipment once Indian manufacturers are ready. It has also proposed a collaborative programme between the government, SGCCI, and engineering institutions—to jointly develop machinery technology.

The government should facilitate R&D financially and through infrastructure, but industry also has to step up. In Japan or Germany, every company has its own R&D wing. They develop machines, processes, and improve constantly. “In India, we depend on imported machinery. Hardly anyone modifies or innovates locally. That’s why we’ve asked for R&D packages—subsidies or incentives for companies to develop or adapt machinery for Indian needs.

“A public-private partnership model can work. Suppose a foreign company with advanced technology collaborates with an Indian company—we learn from them and gradually start manufacturing similar machines and yarn here. That’s how India can become self-reliant. Otherwise, we’ll remain dependent on imports and keep suffering whenever foreign supply fluctuates,” says Jirawala.

FOGWA is pushing this PPP model. Without learning and technology transfer, he exhorts, “we cannot reach global standards. Atmanirbhar Bharat should not just be a slogan—it must be implemented through such collaborations and practical policy support.”

A major player in Surat in textile machinery is Rajni Bachkaniwala of Palod Himson Machines Pvt Ltd, a family run enterprise that was restructured in 2006 with each family getting different product lines—nine standalone business enterprises. Sharing info on the textile machinery manufacturers in India today, he said that there are around 25–30 largescale manufacturers, about 200 in midscale, and approximately 500–1,000 small-scale players who make spare parts and accessories. Western India and Coimbatore in the South are the two main hubs. Surat has maybe 10–12 manufacturers.

Outlining why the textile machinery industry in India has declined, he attributes the 1991 economic liberalisation as “the main reason. When the government reduced import duties on textile machinery, it became cheaper to import new or secondhand machines than to buy Indian ones. They even allowed secondhand imports at zero duty. That killed the domestic machinery industry. I was president of the Textile Machinery Manufacturers Association of India for four years, and we fought hard against such policies. But the government didn’t listen. As a result, India lost its capacity in weaving, knitting, and garment machinery manufacturing.”

And he is not too hopeful about the revival of this sector. “In my opinion, the textile machinery industry in India cannot be revived. New greenfield projects cannot survive now. For one, global companies have no incentive to transfer technology to India. We missed that opportunity when European manufacturers moved to China. Also, this industry was a small cog for the Ministry of Heavy Industries, which oversees machinery. From 2002 onwards, we repeatedly lobbied to help textile machinery grow, but they treated it as a tiny segment compared to mining or road equipment. Many companies eventually shut down.” However, he says, most Indian machines are technologically equivalent, though slightly behind in automation and productivity.

Ask him about the key challenges that machinery units face today, he elaborates: “The biggest is the weak supply chain. For high-quality machines, you need equally sophisticated component suppliers. In India, small-scale suppliers lack advanced technology, so we end up making 80–90% of components in-house. In China, hundreds of capable suppliers exist, so manufacturers can focus on assembly and innovation. Here, unreliable delivery and inconsistent quality remain major bottlenecks.”

What can be done to strengthen the supply chain? “It’s difficult,” he says because the “smallscale engineering sector needs constant orientation and awareness programmes to make them realise the importance of quality and precision. But it also depends on their willingness to grow into world-class manufacturers. In China, for example, component manufacturers are extremely advanced and form the backbone of their machine-building industry.”

A gentleman, very much from the industry, who came to Surat from another state, hunting for a job like the thousands others, and today runs a manufacturing unit, talks the talk, on conditions of anonymity: “Whatever fabric is being made in Surat today, that fabric is indeed being produced there, but you can’t say it’s fully Indian-made. The yarn is imported, the technology is imported, the machines are imported, and the entire system—its software, methods, everything—nothing is being developed here. What we are doing is simply job work. We’ve only learnt how to use a certain type of yarn to make a certain kind of fabric, and we make that fabric and sell it in the market.

“If the government wants, it should ensure that these machines are made in India. All the developments—software, systems—should be made here. Today, we claim to be at the top in the IT sector, so our software should be developed here too. Why should it come from outside? Thousands of machines are being imported every year. Even after seeing those machines, we’re unable to make our own. Some people do manage to build them, but that’s not enough. The government should create a proper system that encourages people to develop such machinery.

“It’s like motivating a child—you tell him, ‘Do this, and you’ll get a chocolate.’ Step by step, the child learns and gets motivated by rewards. Similarly, people like us need encouragement. I want to build a ₹1,000 crore company, but I can’t reach that level because of lack of money and support. We don’t get enough encouragement or financial backing. I know I could own a large factory like the one running nearby. The owner of that factory is human like me—he eats the same food, thinks the same way, and works as hard as I do. Maybe I’m even smarter than him, but he owns a bigger factory. Why? Because he got into a system, understood it, and took advantage of it. That’s it. But even he can’t expand from one factory to fifty because the system doesn’t allow easy growth.”

Lots to chew for industry, government, think-tanks and policymakers.