The promise of industrial transformation in Jammu and Kashmir was once heralded as a turning point in the region’s economic history. The introduction of the New Industrial Policy in 2021 was intended to be more than a blueprint for attracting investment; it was projected as the foundation for self-reliance, employment generation, and economic revival in a post-Article 370 era. Yet, barely a few years later, the optimism that accompanied this vision is being replaced by uncertainty and disappointment. The withdrawal of several high-profile investors, including global names in the beverage, solar, and textile sectors, underscores a deeper malaise, one rooted not merely in policy shortfalls but in the absence of sustained commitment, institutional coherence, and administrative foresight.
When the government unveiled its industrial policy, the aim was to rebrand Jammu and Kashmir as a viable manufacturing destination that could compete with India’s emerging economic corridors. Generous land allotments, single-window clearances, and promises of fiscal incentives attracted a new wave of corporate interest. The sight of groundbreaking ceremonies at Kathua and Samba symbolized the dawn of a new economic era. But those symbolic beginnings have now met a quiet end. Muttiah Muralitharan’s Ceylon Beverages, Grew Energy Pvt Ltd, and RSWM Limited, three companies that together represented over ₹6,000 crore in proposed investments, have withdrawn from their projects, citing the withdrawal of central incentives and lack of clarity on future subsidies. These exits are not isolated events; they are symptoms of systemic instability. Industrial confidence is built on continuity. For investors, fiscal incentives are not charity but risk equalizers, tools that make difficult geographies competitive and allow businesses to absorb higher logistical and operational costs. When these incentives lapse or remain uncertain, the risk-return equation collapses. In Jammu and Kashmir, where terrain, infrastructure, and transport limitations already make production more expensive, the end of the National Sector Industrial Policy incentives in 2023 effectively nullified the economic rationale for large-scale manufacturing. The inability to replace or extend these incentives in time reflects a deeper disconnect between policy intent and administrative execution. Equally concerning is the bureaucratic inertia that shadows even the most ambitious policy declarations. While the government’s industrial agencies worked efficiently to allocate land, the subsequent follow-up in terms of clearances, infrastructure readiness, and incentive delivery lagged. The result is a widening gap between announcements and implementation, creating a credibility deficit that no investor presentation can bridge. For a region striving to rebuild its economic identity, such inconsistencies are costly. The departure of flagship investors also raises uncomfortable questions about coordination between the Union and the Union Territory administrations. Industrial promotion in a region like Jammu and Kashmir requires a cooperative approach, where the Centre provides fiscal continuity and the UT ensures local facilitation. But the present pattern suggests fragmentation rather than harmony. Policies designed in Delhi often stall in Srinagar, and investors are left navigating a maze of shifting interpretations, approvals, and procedures. The message this sends to potential investors is clear: the system is not yet investment-ready. Beyond the numbers, the social impact of these withdrawals cannot be ignored. Each lost project represents not just capital but also hundreds of potential jobs, skill development opportunities, and auxiliary businesses that could have flourished around them. In an economy where youth unemployment remains among the highest in the country, every industrial setback deepens public skepticism about government promises. Economic disillusionment, when coupled with regional disparity and administrative opacity, can erode the very trust that development was meant to restore. To restore faith in its industrial future, Jammu and Kashmir needs a calibrated and transparent reset, not in rhetoric, but in action. First, the incentive structure must be redesigned for predictability and longevity, ensuring that investors can plan over decades, not years. Second, the industrial promotion bodies must be empowered and professionalized, insulated from administrative red tape, and guided by performance-based accountability. Third, there must be an active effort to build enabling infrastructure, including logistics parks, renewable energy access, and skill clusters, that support rather than strain manufacturing operations. Finally, the government must move from symbolism to substance. Ceremonial inaugurations and investor summits can attract headlines, but what sustains investment is trust, the quiet assurance that policy will not shift midway, that incentives will be honored, and that administrative processes will support rather than stifle ambition. Jammu and Kashmir’s industrial story does not have to end in retreat. But to change its trajectory, it must evolve from an aspirational slogan into a credible system that values continuity over celebration and execution over announcements. The future of its manufacturing dream depends not on the next big investor it attracts, but on the stability and sincerity with which it treats the ones it already has.
For Jammu and Kashmir to reclaim investor confidence and revive industrial momentum, it must adopt an economy-driven reform approach centered on fiscal reliability, competitive taxation, and public-private synergy. Introducing sector-specific production-linked incentives (PLI), guaranteed power and logistics subsidies, and a dedicated industrial facilitation fund can de-risk investments and stabilize long-term commitments. The government should also establish an Industrial Dispute Resolution Council for swift redressal of investor grievances and ensure quarterly policy audits to prevent bureaucratic drift. Long-term success will depend on steady governance, financial reliability, and the consistent nurturing of investor trust.
-Bold News Editorial Desk