India’s push to become a global electronics manufacturing powerhouse received another boost this week as the central government approved 17 major projects under the Electronics Component Manufacturing Scheme (ECMS). Spread across nine states and Union Territories, these projects promise investments worth over ₹7,100 crore. They are expected to generate thousands of skilled jobs and deepen India’s journey toward Aatmanirbhar Bharat.
But for Bihar, the announcement came with a harsh sense of déjà vu.
As the list of beneficiary states—from industrial strongholds like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to politically vital Uttar Pradesh and fast-growing Jammu—was unveiled, Bihar was nowhere in sight. A state that sends 40 MPs to the Lok Sabha, and one that has remained closely aligned with the ruling National Democratic Alliance for years, found itself completely excluded. Not a single manufacturing project was allotted.
For Bihar, this is more than an economic oversight. It forces a troubling political question. If the Centre and state leadership repeatedly claim a commitment to development, industrialisation, and employment generation in Bihar, how can the state be left out of a major national industrial programme without a second thought?
The Cracks in the ‘Double Engine’ Promise
For years, the NDA has promoted the idea of a ‘double engine’ government. The pitch is simple: when both Centre and state are aligned, development accelerates. Bihar has long been presented as a model for this theory.
During election after election, top leaders have promised a new wave of industrialisation. Jobs in the lakhs were pledged. Industrial parks were announced. Even a semiconductor manufacturing hub was spoken of with confidence. Leaders repeatedly assured the state’s young workforce that mass migration for jobs would soon end.
The ECMS projects fall exactly into the category of high-technology manufacturing that could have jump-started Bihar’s industrial growth. These projects involve advanced components like multi-layer PCBs, camera modules, and optical transceivers—critical to modern electronics. Even a handful of such units could have created a specialised ecosystem, drawn new investments, and given young Biharis strong reasons to stay.
Instead, Bihar received nothing. And with that, the idea of a ‘double engine’ delivering faster progress looks less like a promise and more like a slogan.
What Investors See, and Politicians Don’t
Industry experts offer a different explanation, and it is far less comforting. Bihar’s exclusion highlights the state’s inability to fix problems that have kept high-value manufacturing away for decades.
A weak industrial ecosystem: Electronics manufacturing depends on stable electricity, rapid logistics, and ready-to-use industrial clusters. Bihar still struggles with these basics. Unlike other states that have built strong Electronic Manufacturing Clusters, Bihar has not yet created a competitive alternative.
Ease of doing business challenges: Despite claims of reform, the perception of bureaucratic delays, slow land acquisition, and unpredictable administration remains a major barrier. Companies choose states where projects can move from plan to production quickly. Bihar is rarely seen in that category.
Skill gaps: Bihar produces educated youth in large numbers. Yet, it lacks a strong base of technicians and engineers trained specifically for high-precision electronics manufacturing. Firms prefer states where such talent is readily available.
In many ways, the result of this ECMS round is a report card that Bihar will find difficult to defend. Policies may sound ambitious, but they have not yet produced the environment needed to attract modern industry.
The Message Behind the Exclusion
Bihar’s complete omission from a national industrial initiative of this scale cannot be brushed aside. It sends a political message that many in the state will find disturbing. The ruling establishment seems confident that Bihar’s votes are secure, which may explain why its industrial future is not being treated as a priority.
For years, people have been asked to trust promises of “jungle raj” ending and development taking root. But when the state fails to attract even one significant manufacturing project, those promises ring hollow. And for a state struggling with severe unemployment and low per capita income, missing such an opportunity carries enormous consequences.
The message from this ECMS allocation is blunt. Bihar matters during election season, but its economic struggles do not seem urgent enough to shape policy decisions. Once again, the voter who hopes for a livelihood in his own state is left with words instead of work.
The time has come for the ruling alliance to move beyond speeches and deliver genuine, capital-intensive investment. Bihar does not need another slogan. It needs a chance to compete.
