Skill Ecosystem: The One We Must Reclaim

2004-10 were the building blocks of the skills eco-system as we see today. This period was driven by a simple conviction: skills are the bridge between aspirations and opportunity. The guiding principles articulated were crisp and clear: Independent Assessment and Evaluation, Competitive basis for Quality, Employment Orientation, Global Benchmarking, Levels and Progression Routes, Licence to Practice – supported by a Bankable Smart Card as a Certificate, that would enable every certificate holder employable / build a career. To support the process, it was envisioned setting up two institutions-one to engage the private sector and the second to act as the skills regulator to ensure quality. Together the eco-system that would evolve will harness India’s unique Demographic Dividend.

Almost two decades later, the ecosystem stands fully formed. At the apex, the Ministry sets policy. NCVET regulates and assures quality. DGT delivers through thousands of ITIs. NSDC, as a unique PPP, brings in funds and enhances scales. Sector Skills Councils bring industry standards. Hundreds of training partners, assessment agencies, and awarding bodies execute on the ground. National Credit Framework enables credit accumulation. On paper, it is a masterpiece of institutional design.

But mastery on paper does not guarantee mastery in practice.

Today, the system is under scrutiny—not for lack of effort, but for lack of outcomes. CAG audits have exposed ghost trainees, fake bank accounts, and training centres that exist only on paper. Independent forensic reviews have flagged substantial financial irregularities and misappropriation of public funds. Placement outcomes remain persistently low, with little improvement over successive flagship phases of the government scheme. Employers remain skeptical of certificates. Corruption, once an aberration, has become a pattern.

Where Did We Go Wrong?

The gradual compromise of values and quality-assurance mechanisms eventually triggered an avalanche of failures. The eco-system commenced rewarding certificate counts as against enabling careers, incentivised enrolments over employability and utilisation over impact. Created layers of Governance without clear accountability and end to end outcomes. The eco-system scaled rapidly without safe guards to prevent conflicts of interest. Trusted self-reporting without robust verification process. In doing so, it allowed greed to masquerade as performance.

But perhaps the most fundamental flaw was lack of ownership for developing a credible Labour Market Intelligence (LMI) system and an overarching Quality Assurance System. One ascertains real skills demand and the other build credibility of the certification process.

We assumed we knew what skills were needed—based on outdated sectoral reports, Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) data, or political priorities—rather than on real-time, occupation-level demand signals. Institutional skill gap studies, though well-intentioned, estimate manpower demand—not actual skill gaps—and applied inconsistent methodologies across states and sectors. PLFS, though comprehensive and useful, it's purpose is to capture employment/unemployment/ education/ technical qualifications/ wages for high level planning. It however, does not capture the real skill competencies required by the potential employer. 

The result? Training is designed based on historical enrolment patterns, not real future labour demand. A large percentage of flagship scheme’s training concentrated in five sectors (IT, Textile, Electronics, Healthcare, Beauty)—but without evidence that these sectors will absorb trainees at scale. CAG explicitly flagged: “Absence of micro-level skill-gap information… sectoral and state-wise training were not in line with skill-gap studies.”

We built a system that trains millions—but without knowing where the jobs are, what skills they require, or what wages they pay and a host of connected inputs which eventually enhance employment.

What Must We Reclaim?

We must return to the original intent: skills as a pathway to dignity, not a box to tick. Tweaking or making incremental changes will not work. Re-examine the blue print and fix real anomalies. Develop a structured labour market survey and apply intelligence derived from it as non-negotiable at all levels and at all stages -identifying skills gaps, employment pattern, wages, attrition rates, changing technology and evolving work processes and host of other parameters at all levels impacting final outcomes. Create an overarching quality assurance system – regulator downwards. Every level requires a different but connected approach. Granularity of Quality Assurance and LMI increase as we step down closer to ground zero.

A Call to Those Who Matter Now

To today’s policymakers and implementers: the architecture you inherited is sound. But architecture alone does not build houses—people do. You have a choice: continue to count certificates, or start counting careers. Continue to tolerate fraud, or root it out with courage. Continue to design for targets, or redesign for outcomes. Continue to train without intelligence, or build a system that knows where the jobs are—and trains for them.

The demographic dividend we once spoke of is no longer a promise—it is a ticking clock. Millions of young Indians are waiting not for certificates, but for opportunities. Let us give them what we originally intended: skills that lead to livelihoods, and livelihoods that lead to dignity.

The system we built can still be reclaimed. But only if we are honest about where it fell short—and brave enough to fix it.