Madhya Pradesh’s semiconductor ambition is moving beyond investment promotion and into a harder institutional question: whether the state can build the specialised education, research and design capacity required by the industry it hopes to attract. Ashok Chandak, president and CEO of the India Electronics and Semiconductor Association and SEMI India, has urged the state government to introduce semiconductor-focused courses, establish research and development laboratories, train faculty and develop local design and fabless capabilities.
The recommendations were made in an interview with The Times of India during the Madhya Pradesh Semiconductor Summit 2026. They came as SEMI India signed a memorandum of understanding with the Madhya Pradesh State Electronics Development Corporation Limited to create a framework for collaboration on ecosystem development and investment promotion. The MoU gives the discussion an institutional setting, but the proposed education and research measures will determine whether the state can translate that framework into skills, innovation and industrial activity.
The distinction matters because a semiconductor ecosystem is not created by manufacturing investment alone. It depends on a chain of capabilities that includes engineering education, specialised technical training, research, product design, supply-chain management and industry-academia interaction. Chandak’s recommendations place these capabilities at the centre of Madhya Pradesh’s strategy rather than treating them as secondary benefits that will emerge automatically after companies arrive.
For the state, the immediate opportunity is to connect its existing institutions and industrial base to a sector that requires long-term preparation. Chandak said Madhya Pradesh already has premier educational institutions with design capabilities, existing IT firms and a solid industrial base. He also pointed to the state’s central location as an advantage for manufacturing and supply-chain logistics. These assets, however, are inputs rather than a completed ecosystem. Their value depends on whether they can be coordinated around the specific needs of semiconductor companies.
That coordination begins with curriculum. Chandak has urged Madhya Pradesh to adopt and customise industry-relevant semiconductor courses across state universities and technical institutions. He said these courses are aligned with inputs provided to the All-India Council for Technical Education. The recommendation indicates that the challenge is not simply adding another academic subject. It is to ensure that what students learn is connected to the engineering roles that companies actually need.
A state-wide course framework could help create a common foundation across institutions, but the report does not establish how many universities or colleges would participate, what courses would be introduced, or when they would begin. Those details are important because the effectiveness of a curriculum depends on faculty availability, laboratory access, accreditation, student intake and sustained engagement with industry. Without those supporting systems, a semiconductor course risks becoming a qualification without the practical capabilities that the sector requires.
Faculty preparation is therefore a central part of the proposal. Chandak stressed that educators should receive regular exposure through industry visits and interactions. This addresses a structural problem in specialised technical education: institutions may introduce new programmes faster than they can develop teachers with current industry experience. In a sector where design tools, manufacturing processes and supply-chain practices are highly specialised, faculty development cannot be treated as a one-time orientation exercise.
The emphasis on recurring industry interaction also points to the administrative work required from the state. Universities, technical institutions, industry bodies and companies would need a mechanism for sustained exchange rather than occasional events. The source report does not specify whether such a mechanism will be created under the new MoU, nor does it identify funding commitments for faculty training. What it does show is that the industry association sees teaching capacity as a prerequisite for workforce readiness, not as a separate academic concern.
Chandak’s second major recommendation is the creation of dedicated R&D laboratories within Madhya Pradesh. These laboratories would support local design and fabless capabilities, which he described as crucial for creating maximum value. This is a significant shift in emphasis. A state seeking participation in the semiconductor sector can pursue manufacturing, but it can also build value through design, intellectual property, testing, systems development and specialised engineering services. The proposed laboratories are intended to strengthen that broader base.
The fabless model is particularly relevant to the question of entry. The source material does not claim that Madhya Pradesh is currently preparing a fabrication plant, and it does not provide investment figures, project locations or production timelines. Instead, it presents design and research capacity as a way for the state to participate in the semiconductor ecosystem while building capabilities that can support future industrial activity. That makes universities and research facilities part of the state’s economic infrastructure.
The recommendation also exposes the difference between physical infrastructure and institutional infrastructure. Industrial land, logistics and facilities may help attract investment, but companies also assess whether a location can supply specialised talent and support technical problem-solving. R&D laboratories, if properly equipped and connected to industry, can serve as places where students, researchers and companies work on applied problems. If they remain isolated academic facilities, their contribution to the ecosystem will be more limited.
Madhya Pradesh’s geographic position is another element of the state’s pitch. Chandak described the state as centrally located and therefore well placed for manufacturing and supply-chain logistics. He also noted its existing industrial base and IT presence. These factors may improve the state’s case for investment promotion, but geography does not by itself create an electronics supply chain. The report does not provide comparative logistics data, existing semiconductor suppliers or a list of companies considering projects in the state. The geographic argument should therefore be understood as a potential advantage that requires institutional and industrial support.
Chandak cited Gujarat and Odisha as states that have made major strides by welcoming multi-million-dollar semiconductor manufacturing plants. He also referred to Gujarat and Assam as examples of regions that did not have semiconductor infrastructure a few years ago but subsequently became active hubs. The comparison serves a specific policy purpose: it challenges the assumption that a state must already have a mature semiconductor base before it can enter the sector.
At the same time, the comparison does not establish that Madhya Pradesh will follow the same trajectory. The supplied report contains no project-level comparison of incentives, land, power, water, logistics, supplier networks, institutional capacity or investment commitments across the states. It therefore supports a narrower conclusion. New semiconductor hubs can emerge where governments and institutions build the required conditions over time, but the evidence provided does not yet show that Madhya Pradesh has secured those conditions.
This is why the proposed policy horizon is important. Chandak praised Chief Minister Mohan Yadav’s vision and the state’s current semiconductor policies, while arguing that long-term commitment over a 10- to 30-year period is essential because global players invest for the long haul. A multi-decade horizon changes the administrative question. It requires policy continuity across governments, stable institutional arrangements and the ability to keep updating education and research systems as the industry evolves.
The 10- to 30-year timeframe also separates ecosystem-building from announcement-driven investment promotion. Courses, laboratories and faculty capabilities take time to establish. Their outcomes may not be visible within a single budget cycle or political term. The source report does not specify the state’s financial allocation, implementation milestones or monitoring framework. Those omissions mean that the current evidence shows policy intent and an institutional collaboration framework, but not yet the scale or delivery plan behind them.
The MoU between SEMI India and the Madhya Pradesh State Electronics Development Corporation Limited may provide a channel for that delivery. Its stated purpose is to support ecosystem development and investment promotion. For the education agenda, the important issue will be whether the collaboration produces concrete arrangements with universities, technical institutions, laboratories and industry. The report does not say whether such agreements have already been signed or whether specific institutions have been selected.
This makes the semiconductor education question a test of governance as much as technology policy. Multiple departments and institutions are likely to be involved: higher and technical education authorities, the state electronics corporation, universities, industry bodies and prospective companies. The recommendations in the report implicitly require these actors to work on a shared pipeline rather than pursue disconnected initiatives. Curriculum, faculty development, laboratories and investment promotion will have limited impact if they are planned separately.
The urban and regional implications are also significant. Semiconductor activity is often discussed through the lens of factories and investment values, but the education and R&D agenda spreads the impact across institutions and cities. If state universities and technical colleges participate, the ecosystem need not be concentrated in a single industrial location. The source does not identify proposed cities or campuses, so the geographic distribution remains unsettled. It does, however, suggest that the state’s existing educational and IT base is central to its strategy.
For students and institutions, the opportunity is tied to the quality rather than merely the number of programmes created. A semiconductor course supported by industry interaction and functioning laboratories would offer a different pathway from a conventional classroom programme. But the report provides no information on student capacity, laboratory specifications, faculty numbers, placement arrangements or research output targets. These are the indicators that will eventually show whether the policy is producing a talent pipeline or only expanding the language of the sector.
The evidence currently confirms three things. First, industry leadership sees workforce readiness and innovation as necessary components of Madhya Pradesh’s semiconductor strategy. Second, the state has been presented as having potential advantages through its location, industrial base, IT firms and educational institutions. Third, a formal MoU has been signed to support ecosystem development and investment promotion. What remains unestablished is the implementation architecture: budgets, institutions, timelines, measurable targets and specific projects.
Madhya Pradesh’s semiconductor ambition will therefore be judged less by the existence of a summit or a policy statement than by what follows inside universities, laboratories and industrial programmes. The next developments to watch are the rollout of industry-relevant courses, the creation and equipping of dedicated R&D facilities, faculty training arrangements and any concrete investment or ecosystem projects announced under the SEMI India–MPSEDC collaboration. Those steps will show whether the state’s geographic and institutional advantages can become a functioning semiconductor capability.
