India’s maritime ambitions are entering a crucial phase. Union minister for ports, shipping and waterways Sarbananda Sonowal’s invitation to South Korean companies to invest in India’s shipbuilding and marine equipment industries is more than a pitch for foreign capital. It is an opportunity to address a persistent weakness in India’s industrial development: the gap between its enormous maritime potential and its limited capacity to manufacture ships and the sophisticated equipment that powers them. During his visit to Busan, South Korea, Sonowal engaged with the Korea Marine Equipment Association (KOMEA), which represents 304 equipment manufacturers, design firms, shipbuilders and repair companies. Its members include major industrial players such as HD Hyundai, Hanwha Ocean and Samsung Heavy Industries. KOMEA is scheduled to open its first Indian office in Mumbai on October 30, offering a potential institutional bridge between Korean expertise and India’s growing maritime ambitions.
The timing is significant. India has already undertaken substantial policy reforms. Five maritime laws enacted in 2025 came into force in March 2026, modernising a regulatory framework that had relied heavily on colonial-era legislation. The challenge now is to ensure that these reforms translate into greater industrial competitiveness, rather than remaining milestones on paper. The five laws—the Bills of Lading Act, the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, the Coastal Shipping Act, the Merchant Shipping Act and the Indian Ports Act—address different aspects of maritime commerce, shipping regulation, coastal transport and port governance. Together, they seek to provide a more contemporary legal foundation for an industry increasingly shaped by global supply chains, technological innovation and environmental obligations.
Their significance extends beyond administrative modernisation. Predictable regulations, efficient dispute resolution and streamlined procedures can reduce uncertainty for investors, shipowners and manufacturers. India’s Maritime Single Window, which Sonowal said covers 69 ports and terminals, represents another step towards simplifying maritime processes. However, legislation alone cannot make Indian shipyards globally competitive. Shipbuilding requires reliable supply chains, access to long-term finance, specialised engineering, advanced design capabilities and a workforce trained in precision manufacturing. India must therefore treat legal reform as the beginning of an industrial transformation, not its culmination.
The scale of the challenge is considerable. India accounted for just 0.06% of global shipbuilding in 2024, compared with China’s approximately 54.6%. These figures illustrate why partnerships with established shipbuilding economies could be consequential. South Korea is particularly well placed to contribute. Its shipbuilding industry has developed capabilities in sophisticated commercial vessels, marine engineering, automation and high-value equipment. Indian companies can benefit from collaboration in ship design, propulsion systems, navigation technology, electrical equipment, specialised steel fabrication and digital shipyard management.
{{/usCountry}}The scale of the challenge is considerable. India accounted for just 0.06% of global shipbuilding in 2024, compared with China’s approximately 54.6%. These figures illustrate why partnerships with established shipbuilding economies could be consequential. South Korea is particularly well placed to contribute. Its shipbuilding industry has developed capabilities in sophisticated commercial vessels, marine engineering, automation and high-value equipment. Indian companies can benefit from collaboration in ship design, propulsion systems, navigation technology, electrical equipment, specialised steel fabrication and digital shipyard management.
{{/usCountry}}Yet the terms of engagement will matter as much as the volume of investment.
In September 2025, the government approved a comprehensive ₹69,725-crore package to revitalise the shipbuilding and maritime sector. It includes financial assistance for shipyards, a ₹25,000-crore Maritime Development Fund and a ₹19,989-crore Shipbuilding Development Scheme to expand domestic capacity. The broader objective is to strengthen financing, encourage shipyard development and improve technical capabilities.
These measures provide an important foundation for attracting Korean investors. But public expenditure and foreign investment should be judged by the industrial capabilities they create. Sonowal has identified a central opportunity: Ships built in India require engines, propulsion systems, deck machinery, electrical equipment and navigation systems, much of which is currently imported. Korean manufacturers could establish production facilities in India, enter joint ventures with Indian firms and help local suppliers meet international quality standards. KOMEA’s proposed engagement with India includes opportunities for technology transfer, modernisation, training and domestic manufacturing.
The government should encourage investment agreements that prioritise local supplier development, technical training, research collaboration and progressively greater domestic value addition. Technology transfer need not mean forcing companies to surrender proprietary knowledge. It can involve licensing, joint engineering projects, training programmes and partnerships that enable Indian enterprises to manufacture increasingly sophisticated components. Without such an approach, India risks becoming an assembly location dependent on imported machinery, designs and specialised components. With it, the country could build a maritime manufacturing ecosystem that supports shipbuilding, ship repair, coastal transport and exports.
The employment implications are equally important. Shipbuilding creates demand not only for naval architects and marine engineers but also for welders, electricians, machinists, technicians, logistics professionals and skilled workers across ancillary industries. Investment must therefore be accompanied by vocational education, industry-linked apprenticeships and stronger collaboration between shipyards, universities and technical institutes.
The economic case for cooperation is reinforced by strategic considerations. Maritime transport sustains international commerce, while disruptions to major sea lanes can increase freight costs, delay deliveries and expose supply chains to geopolitical risks. The Red Sea disruptions have demonstrated how instability in strategically important waters can affect trade far beyond the immediate conflict zone.
India needs a stronger domestic shipbuilding industry not only to serve commercial demand but also to improve the resilience of its shipping ecosystem. A larger domestic manufacturing base can reduce dependence on overseas suppliers, support fleet expansion and strengthen the country’s capacity to respond to emergencies. Cooperation with South Korea also complements the broader India–South Korea relationship. Both countries have an interest in resilient supply chains, advanced manufacturing and a stable Indo-Pacific. Maritime cooperation can deepen these ties through commercially viable projects rather than diplomatic declarations alone.
Sonowal’s call for international maritime standards that are ambitious yet implementable is also relevant. Global rules must protect safety, the marine environment and seafarers, but their implementation requires technical expertise, financing and institutional capacity. India should engage actively with international maritime institutions while ensuring that domestic shipyards receive the support needed to meet evolving standards.
The government must now move from investment promotion to implementation. It should establish clear timelines for project approvals, provide transparent incentives, improve access to finance and ensure that infrastructure around shipbuilding clusters keeps pace with industrial demand. Investors also need reliable electricity, port connectivity, predictable taxation and efficient mechanisms for resolving commercial disputes. Equally important is accountability. The success of the Korean outreach should be measured by actual investments, operational manufacturing facilities, Indian suppliers integrated into global value chains, technology partnerships, export orders and skilled jobs created—not simply by memorandums of understanding.
India has undertaken the legal groundwork and committed substantial public resources. South Korea offers expertise that could help bridge the technological gap. The opportunity is to combine these advantages in a partnership that benefits both countries while strengthening India’s domestic industrial base. Sonowal’s invitation should therefore be understood as the opening of a longer process. India does not need foreign investment merely to build more ships; it needs investment that helps it learn to design, manufacture, repair and export them competitively. The ultimate test of maritime reform will be whether Indian shipyards become producers of greater technological value, rather than remaining marginal participants in a market dominated by established manufacturing powers.
(The views expressed are personal)
This article is authored by Monalisa Deka, assistant professor, Department of Public Administration, Assam Don Bosco University.