Highlights

• India depends on China for over 90% of rare earth magnets, creating significant economic and strategic risk.
• China's export restrictions highlight broader geopolitical tensions and potential economic leverage.
• The current diplomatic approach appears overly optimistic without concrete strategic alternatives for supply chain resilience.

---

A recent Businessline (opens in a new tab) article by Amiti Sen reports that China has assured India it is “in the midst of processing” pending export licenses for rare earth magnets (REMs)—materials vital to India’s automotive, electronics, medical, toy, and defense sectors. While the piece offers a snapshot of India’s nervous anticipation, it overlooks key geopolitical and supply chain dynamics and adopts a tone more suggestive of hopeful diplomacy than investigative scrutiny.

Factual Grounding: Mostly Solid

The article’s central claim—that over 90% of India’s REMs come from China—is backed by trade data. It’s also accurate that China instituted rare earth export restrictions in April 2025. These restrictions are part of a broader pattern of weaponized export policies from Beijing, especially in the face of global trade realignment and techno-industrial decoupling. The mention of India’s Commerce Department working with the Chinese embassy is likely valid, as this follows standard diplomatic and commercial protocol.

Speculation: Soft Optimism as a Substitute for Strategy?

The article’s source—an anonymous government or industry official—suggests China "would not want to push their regular buyers into seeking alternatives.” This implies a level of goodwill or long-term market logic that may not align with China's recent behavior. Given Beijing’s use of export controls as leverage—particularly against countries seen as tilting Westward—the assumption of benign intent could be naïve or misleading.

Further, there is no exploration of whether China’s “gradual clearing” of licenses represents a strategic bottleneck, a retaliatory delay, or simply bureaucratic inertia. Nor is there any discussion of how India plans to respond if licenses remain stalled through diversification, domestic capacity expansion, or emergency stockpiling. The omission of these angles leaves the article feeling incomplete.

The tone subtly echoes an Indian government talking point: Be patient, China will come around. That bias manifests not through overt editorializing, but through omission—namely, the absence of urgency or strategic criticism despite India's stark risk exposure. The article does not question why India remains so dependent on China or what structural reforms are needed.

Conclusion

While accurate in its immediate reporting, this article leans toward passive optimism and underplays the risks of prolonged Chinese export delays. It misses an opportunity to probe India’s lack of REM supply chain resilience—a glaring vulnerability amid rising global demand and geopolitical fragmentation.

To discuss further, visit the Rare Earth Exchanges Forum (opens in a new tab).