Tamil Nadu must not lose its industrial vision

When the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin gave me the opportunity to serve as the Minister for Industries in his Cabinet, numerous people remarked that I was too young and inexperienced for the job. My leader and I did not answer that criticism with words, but we answered it with investments, jobs, new sectors, a stronger global brand for Tamil Nadu, and an industrial vision that matched the scale of our ambition. When a young and inexperienced political party receives a mandate, it has to demonstrate vision and passion, i know, therefore, that age or inexperience is not a criticism by itself.

However. On that test, it is critical that Tamil Nadu does not lose industrial vision.

In governance, vision is the politician’s job. Bureaucrats can and should execute, but the Constitution has given the mandate of setting the road map of growth to the residents’s representatives. Thus, elected leaders must set the course on which direction the State must sail towards. If that vision is simply “₹1 lakh crore in MoUs”, that is exactly what the system will produce. Those who have been in governance and appreciate the nuances of governance will understand that this comes out of a clear understanding of the “system”.

Quality of MoUs

The real measure of investment promotion successes is not the quantum of investments. The truly important measures are different. What is the quality of the MoU? How many MoUs will convert? What quality of jobs will be created? Where will these jobs be created? Will investments deepen Tamil Nadu’s value chains? Are we attracting emerging and strategic sectors? It is these questions which will decide the quality of policy outcome.

The recent investment conclave held by the Government of Tamil Nadu demonstrated the problem clearly, beginning with the unusual and mysterious ban on media presence, including the business press, a key pillar of Tamil Nadu’s investment promotion efforts.

Of the 97 businesses that the present government claims to have signed MoUs with, at least 63 already have existing investment relationships with Tamil Nadu. These 63 MoUs alone amount to ₹60,349 crore, or 89.3% of the overall claim of this conclave. Hence it is the good work of the Dravidian Model government and probably even some governments before that which have contributed to almost 90% of this conclave’s investments.

The largest MoU unveiled was reportedly for ₹10,000 crore by Light House Green Data Centre. Netizens have raised serious questions about this business and its capabilities after having a look at Ministry of Corporate Affairs records. An entity incorporated only in February 2026, with a paid-up capital of just ₹1 lakh, signing a ₹10,000 crore MoU is one thing if it sits among a credible list of marquee, anchor investments. Making it the largest MoU by far is quite another. It risks putting Tamil Nadu in the company of States such as Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, where MoUs have too often been employed to manufacture impressive numbers rather than deliver serious investments. Tamil Nadu has stayed clear of that game and it is disappointing to see that standard now being compromised.

Moreover, Tamil Nadu’s focus has always been on job creation, so the State should not rely heavily on data centres. It do not produce many jobs and are not ideal for water-stressed areas.

Produce no mistake, an expansion is welcome and a converted investment lead is also most welcome. Every job is welcome. But, an investment already cultivated, negotiated or announced under an earlier administration cannot become a new achievement simply because it is presented at a new conclave. The real test is not MoUs. It is MoUs becoming investments, investments creating high-end jobs, resulting production creating opportunities for MSMEs and these opportunities creating more jobs.

The Budget tells the same story. Much of what is presented as new industrial thinking is either a continuation of existing work or a repackaging of ideas Tamil Nadu has already pursued. The proposal for more multi-modal logistics parks (MMLP) and dry ports is a case in point. The Chennai MMLP at Mappedu had already been approved along with other MMLP projects in the pipeline. The Industrial Capability Directory is also not a new idea. I brought the concept back after my Japan visit, including the sample booklet from a province and asked GuidanceTN to develop it. There is also no announcement on the proposed industrial museum to be built in Taramani, the automobile university and so on.

Guidance 3.0, with AI branding, is an incremental upgrade to a single-window system that Tamil Nadu has already mastered well and for which the State has received awards from the Union administration too. A Non-Resident Tamil Investment Facilitation Desk is useful for MSMEs and Services, but a new desk in Chennai is not an industrial vision.

New SIPCOT parks are welcome, but the scale of what the DMK achieved will remain difficult to match unless the administration takes serious non-political efforts on land acquisition. A total of over 30 parks were established under the previous DMK government. The government has additionally spoken of unused land in existing parks without the basic understanding of land banking. If the government thinks that there is enough unused land then why create more parks.

Then there is the proposed AI and Innovation City, Arivagam. It is presented as an ecosystem for AI, deep tech, quantum technology, semiconductors and research. Yet the immediate allocation is only ₹5 crore for a feasibility study while the previous regime has already identified the site in north Chennai near the Milk Colony.

Setting the narrative

The new government seems to be passionate, but the passion seems more focused on setting the political narrative than building the investment pipeline. Even before Thursday’s conclave, political attacks on my leader, Mr. Stalin, and I had begun. Starting an investment day with political attacks tells you where the priority lies. They seem to be more interested in winning an argument, rather than winning investments.

Tamil Nadu’s industrial transformation under Mr. Stalin was built by creating investor confidence, strengthening infrastructure, expanding exports, and moving into new sectors. It was built by taking Tamil Nadu’s merchandise exports from $26 billion to nearly $59 billion. It was built by achieving MoU conversion rates of over 75% that became a benchmark for other states. Tamil Nadu is now India’s third-largest exporting State, accounting for about 13% of India’s merchandise exports. This is what industrial vision looks like when it’s not an advertisement, but a transformation visible in factories, exports, supply chains, and jobs.

While in office, I had repeatedly made it clear to the Opposition that politicising investment promotion will not be in the best interest of the State. That is exactly why I had refrained from pointing a finger at the misdirected tangent that the Industries Department seems to be taking, but the political inexperience and resulting puerile posturing of the present dispensation is pushing us to step away from our stand.

Tamil Nadu’s industrial success does not belong to one party. Irrespective of the party responsible for getting the investment into Tamil Nadu, we must all celebrate every factory, every investment and every single job opportunity that is created.

However, Tamil Nadu needs an industrial vision that thinks beyond the next reel they can publish to set the narrative. It needs a government that identifies the industries of the future, builds the capabilities they require and measures success by the number of happy workers on the factory floor. We need leadership that is humble, grounded, ready to listen intently, and can reassure with clarity and plan far ahead to tackle possible headwinds of the future.

That is the industrial vision that the greatest State in India, Tamil Nadu, deserves.

The author is a former Minister for Industries, Tamil Nadu.