In this interview with The Policy Edge, Mr. Praveen Kumar reflects on the evolution of India's education, skills and industrial policies, drawing on his experience in both policy design and implementation. He discusses the shift from expanding access to improving learning outcomes, the need for industry-led skilling, and the role of innovation in building globally competitive industries.
You had the unique opportunity to help shape the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and later oversee its implementation. Looking back, what do you see as its most enduring achievements, and where do you think India's school education agenda still falls short?
I had the opportunity to work on Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan from both sides. I was involved, as Director of Elementary Education in design of its initial guidelines, and later for implementing it.. That gave me a different perspective because I could see both the policy intent and the practical challenges of execution.
If you look at its achievements, I think the programme succeeded partially in what it set out to do. It significantly improved enrolment in elementary education and brought down dropout rates. Ensuring that children entered school and remained there was the most urgent challenge at that time, and the programme made a substantial difference.
But education policy cannot stop at enrolment. Once children are in school, the real question becomes: what are they learning?
That is where the challenge remains. Improving learning outcomes is far more complex than expanding access. It requires sustained attention to teaching quality, classroom processes and student learning.
Over the years, the priorities of school education have naturally evolved. Earlier, the focus was on universal access. Today, the focus has to be learning quality. Unless we improve that, higher enrolment by itself will not translate into India's demographic dividend.
Despite significant public investment in skill development, vocational education continues to be seen as less prestigious than conventional academic pathways. Why has that perception proved so difficult to change?
I think the problem begins much earlier than our skilling programmes. It is rooted in the way society views vocational work.
Historically, we have tended to place greater value on occupations associated with formal education and intellectual pursuits, while vocational skills have often been regarded as somehow inferior. Those attitudes continue to shape the educational and career choices that young people make. Even today, many families would prefer their child to pursue a degree with uncertain employment prospects rather than take up a vocational trade that offers a stable livelihood.
The irony is that the market often tells a very different story. There are situations where a skilled technician or even a driver earns more than someone working in a white-collar office. Yet the perception of these occupations has not kept pace with those economic realities.
That mindset also affects our education system. Vocational education is often treated as an option for those who could not succeed in the mainstream academic pathway, rather than as an equally respected route into the workforce.
Changing that perception is essential. Unless vocational education is seen as a first-choice pathway rather than a fallback option, it will remain difficult to build a workforce in which vocational and academic careers command equal respect. The National Education Policy acknowledges this fact and provides for various pathways where students can migrate from academic to vocational and vice versa.
Skill development is often treated as a government responsibility. In practice, what role should industry play in ensuring that young people acquire skills that employers actually value?
I think one of our biggest mistakes has been treating skill development largely as a government programme. The government can create institutions, finance training and establish standards, but it cannot direct what the labour market actually needs. Skill development has to be driven by labour market demand.
For a long time, our approach became supply-driven rather than demand-driven. Training infrastructure was created around particular courses, and the emphasis shifted towards filling those programmes rather than asking whether they reflected the skills employers actually required. As industries changed, training often failed to keep pace.
The result is that many people acquire qualifications without becoming readily employable.
That is why apprenticeship becomes so important. A classroom can teach concepts and basic skills, but the workplace teaches discipline, teamwork and the practical application of those skills in real production environments.
One of the challenges, however, is that many companies are reluctant to take apprentices because of the costs involved. I have even suggested that degree programmes could include a semester of unpaid apprenticeship. Students already pay to learn in a classroom; many would gladly spend time learning inside a factory, even without a stipend, if it gave them meaningful workplace experience. Such an approach could also reduce the cost of participation for industry while giving students valuable practical experience.
Ultimately, the success of a skill development system cannot be measured by the number of training centres established or certificates issued. The real test is whether young people become employable and whether industry is willing to absorb them into productive work.
Much of our discussion so far has focused on preparing people for work. Equally important, however, is creating industries that can productively absorb those skills. Industrial policy often involves balancing competing interests rather than pursuing a single objective. From your experience, how should governments navigate those trade-offs?
One thing I have learnt is that the conflict is often not between government and industry. It is between different parts of the same industry.
Take the solar sector. A company that develops solar power plants wants the cheapest possible solar panels because lower input costs allow it to generate electricity at lower prices. Ultimately, consumers benefit because electricity becomes cheaper.
On the other hand, manufacturers of solar panels have a completely different concern. They want domestically manufactured panels to be used and Government to help them, because imported panels, like from China, are often cheaper and difficult to compete against.
That is where government policy comes in. Without some initial regulatory support, very few firms would invest in domestic manufacturing capacity. The Government enabled it through schemes where only domestically manufactured panels could be used for certain government-supported projects. Such measures provide domestic firms with the opportunity to build capability and become competitive over time.
This is why industrial policy is rarely about choosing between government and industry. It is about balancing competing interests. Consumers want affordable products, developers want lower costs, manufacturers need time to become competitive, and the government has to think about long-term national capability.
The challenge for policymakers is to strike a balance among these objectives, recognising that no single policy can maximise every outcome simultaneously.
India has introduced a range of policies to strengthen domestic manufacturing. Looking beyond production capacity, what will determine whether Indian industry becomes globally competitive over the long term?
Policy support can create opportunities, but it cannot by itself create globally competitive industries. That ultimately depends on whether firms continue to improve their technology.
Take the solar sector. China did not become competitive simply because it protected and incentivised its manufacturers. Chinese companies invested continuously in improving efficiency and reducing costs. Programmes such as the Top Runner initiative encouraged firms to keep developing better technologies rather than simply expanding production.
In India, we have often taken a different approach. Our instinct has been to acquire technology rather than develop it ourselves. That may help firms begin production more quickly, but it does not build long-term technological capability.
This distinction becomes evident when we look at research and development (R&D) expenditure. Even among many of our largest companies, investment in R&D remains relatively modest. Innovation requires sustained investment, and that is something we still need to strengthen.
For many years, India’s competitive advantage has been built around labour and cost arbitrage. That strategy has served us well, but it cannot be the basis of long-term industrial leadership. Over time, competitiveness has to come from creating better products and better technologies rather than simply producing existing ones at lower cost.
That, I think, is the next stage of India’s industrial journey. The government can create the enabling environment, but sustained innovation must ultimately come from industry itself.