The Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India) Order was introduced with a clear intent – to give Indian manufacturers a fair chance when it comes to government purchases. Over the years, it has certainly nudged more domestic players into the public procurement space, especially in sectors like defence, railways, and electronics. It also helped India respond quickly during the pandemic, boosting local production of essential items like PPEs and ventilators. But despite these gains, the policy hasn’t fully lived up to its potential. Implementation remains inconsistent across departments, and self-declared claims of local content often go unverified. Many small businesses still find it tough to participate due to complex requirements, and in some cases, global suppliers continue to have an edge through exemptions or technical barriers. For the policy to truly deliver, we need stronger checks, transparent reporting, and better capacity-building among procurement officials. Encouraging innovation, penalising false claims, and fostering global-local partnerships can also help create a more level playing field. At its core, this policy is more than just a mandate – it’s an opportunity to turn public procurement into a long-term investment in India’s industrial strength.

Very important Topic .I have collected some articles on the subject.At the end I have given my suggestions as well.
https://thewire.in/business/make-in-india-fdi-gdp-china-
While India produces almost half its electricity from coal, the country is relying heavily on solar energy to achieve its energy transition – but it is not producing enough panels to meet its needs, far from it. As a result, two-thirds of photovoltaic cells and 100% of wafers (the essential components of these cells) are imported. Overall, China supplies India with between 57% and 1000% of the components it needs for its solar panels. In the first half of the 2024 fiscal year, Indian imports of Chinese solar panels amounted to more than $ 500 million, to which must be added 121 million in imports from Hong Kong and $ 455 million in imports from Vietnam. In addition, during the same period, China sold 500 million photovoltaic cells for assembly – while Malaysia sold India $ 264 million and Thailand $ 138 million, figures that testify to India’s dependence on its foreign suppliers in this field. Although Indian companies are entering the market, they are not developing their own technology, but importing 70% of their equipment from China. India is increasingly resorting to non-tariff barriers to limit Chinese exports, but these are likely to be in vain if Indian manufacturers do not acquire the appropriate technologies.The same problem can be found in the pharmaceutical sector, one of the flagships of the Indian economy thanks to the boom in generic drugs. A world leader, India accounts for 20% of the sector’s global exports, worth over $ 25 billion. However, the sector’s Achilles heel is once again a lack of research and development – not only have Indian companies often contented themselves with copying molecules, but they have also failed to invest in the development of active ingredients. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, two-thirds of the volume of active ingredients came from China. The government tried to encourage manufacturers to innovate in this field by subsidising their research and development to the tune of $ 2 billion. A few years later, despite this government stimulus, the situation remains largely unchanged, with Chinese inputs enjoying unbeatable competitiveness
Ten years after the launch of the Make in India programme, India’s industry problem has deepened. Not only does this setback pose a threat to national sovereignty of the country vis-à-vis China, but without a proper industrialisation process, the country will not be in a position to give any work either to the 10 million young men and women who enter the job market every year, or to those who would like to leave agriculture. The stakes are very high indeed.https://thewire.in/economy/indias-manufacturing-paradox-and-the-pursuit-of-sustainable-employment-and-growth—Rather than addressing these issues in silos, what we need to is a complete re-imagining of progress and development. Finding solutions to the challenges of increasing output and employment, while respecting the planetary boundaries, social diversity, and preventing wealth concentration, requires thinking outside the box.
https://indianexpress.com/article/business/economy/lifts-to-computers-4-of-10-govt-tenders-cant-comply-with-make-in-india-rules-9775482/https://www.newindianexpress.com/editorials/2024/Sep/29/make-in-india-programme-leaves-much-to-be-desired-However, beyond this, the scheme has largely been ineffective in either increasing the share of manufacturing in GDP or attracting major investments in the country. Even on the employment front, manufacturing jobs remain few and far between. The share of value addition by manufacturing sector is 15.9 percent in 2023-24 compared to 16.7 percent of GDP (in constant price) in 2013-14. Even in terms of FDI, net FDI inflows have come down from 1.5 percent of GDP in 2013-14 to 0.8 percent in 2023-24. The reasons for a rather insipid response to the Make in India programme are many. For one, ease of doing business is still a far cry from what is claimed on paper. High incidence of taxation and high handedness in dealing with tax litigation cases is another headache. Scarcity of skilled workers in India and competition from Vietnam and Bangladesh for low-skilled manufacturing also add to the woes.——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–The GOI circular proposes counter offering of rates.In this connection please see below  the relevant extract from CPAR on the pitfalls of negotiations/counter offers.In addition you are forcing the local manufacturer to accept a rate not relevant to his costing..
“World Bank Country Procurement assessment Report(2002)-.CPAR says-Negotiation in the Indian procurement system is to ask the bidder to reduce the quoted price without any change in the condition of the bid, technical or commercial. Instructions regarding negotiation of price with the lowest, or with others as well are confusing. They are issued by many ministries and agencies, including the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, CVC. Very strict reading of all current directives gives the impression that negotiation should be resorted to only exceptionally, and indeed, a few agencies and entities follow this good principle. However, this is not the case with the vast majority of procuring entities. Negotiation with the lowest or with all bidders is routine. The officials and the auditors believe that negotiation results in savings to the public exchequer and in fact encourage tem produces lower prices – in World Bank procurement, in which negotiation to merely push down the competitively quoted price is prohibited.’~ In some agencies, negotiations are carried out with all the bidders requiring them to ‘match’ the price of the lowest or quote a revised lower price, and then, the quantity in the schedule is divided up, making a mockery of the tender process in which the firm which offered the lowest responsive bid should be entitled to the fill order. Once the practice of negotiation (to merely push down the price) is stopped, it will close a major avenue for corruption and result in better prices and real savings to the public exchequer. Negotiation should be permissible only in exceptional cases and only by a committee, and based on mutual concessions.”
More confusion is created by the variety of preferences issued by different Ministries.Categorization of bidders as local/foreign,evaluation with price preference for MSMEs,SCs,local over foreign etc is further complicated by the order splitting procedures depending on local content.
The  domestic industry will be better off with the old price preference model on PSUs which is similar to the WB procedures as well.To prevent misuse, the local content needs to be verified properly.To force industry to become efficient the policy should be limited to 3 or 4 years only.