The Brief
- Women accounted for 12.65% of ITI admissions in the paper’s cumulative 2019–24 dataset.
- They represented 56.36% of PMKVY 4.0 certifications in its March 2026 snapshot. These measures are not directly comparable.
- The working paper proposes support from school through employment; its recommendations are not a newly announced entitlement.
- Our policy test: track whether women enter their chosen occupations, what they earn and whether they can remain in work.
A training certificate cannot tell a woman whether her first month’s wages will cover the cost of reaching work. For women in non-traditional livelihoods, that calculation belongs inside skills policy. A programme can pay for instruction and still leave a qualified candidate unable to take the job it prepared her for.
Published in June, Girls and Women at the Centre: Advancing Non-Traditional Livelihoods in India examines ITI, PMKVY and DDU-GKY records. It is a NITI Aayog working paper, whose authors’ views do not necessarily represent the institution’s position. [1]
Non-traditional livelihoods expand access to occupations where women have historically been scarce, including technical trades. The paper finds women represented 4.8% of electrician admissions but 98.3% in cosmetology in its 2019–24 ITI data. [1]
Those figures should prompt questions about the options available before an application is submitted. They cannot establish why each woman chose her course, or whether she would prefer another. Treating an enrolment pattern as proof of women’s natural interests would close the discussion before policy has done its work.
There is also a danger in implying that moving women into technical work makes the work they already do less valuable. A woman who chooses beauty services, tailoring or care deserves decent earnings and protection. An effective policy should widen the choices she can realistically make, while improving conditions across occupations.
Ask what happens after the course
The paper’s numerical contrast exposes a weakness in using a single participation figure to describe inclusion. Admissions and certifications measure different stages, across different programmes and periods. Neither figure tells us whether a woman obtained paid work in her trained occupation. [1]
That is where public reporting should become more demanding. A useful programme record would follow a cohort from application to completion, then into relevant paid employment or viable self-employment. It would distinguish an offer from joining, and joining from staying. The questions raised by women’s applications for frontline jobs belong in this discussion: interest, employer contact and employment are separate outcomes.
For a technical course, we would want to know how many graduates are actually using the skill six and twelve months later. Have earnings improved after commuting and accommodation costs? Are workers getting supervised practice and opportunities to progress? Have some moved to a better job, rather than simply disappeared from a provider’s records?
These are proposed accountability measures. They should help identify where a programme needs support, rather than create incentives to recruit only candidates who are easiest to place. Providers working with women facing greater barriers would need funding that recognises those costs.
Put the cost of taking a job into the budget
The paper recommends early career exposure, practical support during training and stronger links to employers afterwards. [1] Turning that approach into a usable programme requires decisions about responsibility and expenditure.
Consider a hypothetical trainee offered work outside her town. A relocation allowance paid after joining may be of little use if she cannot afford the deposit needed to move. A transport provision that ends before the evening shift finishes leaves a similar gap. The relevant question for programme design is whether support arrives when the worker needs it.
State skill missions could require proposed courses to include a costed plan for the transition into work. That plan should identify likely employers, the location and terms of available roles, necessary support and who will pay for it. A named official should be responsible for resolving gaps between the training provider and employer.
Employers, in turn, should describe the actual work before a batch begins: tasks, hours, pay, supervision and assessment standards. A training partnership deserves scrutiny when it promises opportunity but leaves the destination vague. The expansion of women’s training at Maruti Suzuki’s Manesar JIM offers one relevant setting for asking how enrolment commitments translate into occupational progression.
Give girls room to explore, without narrowing their education
There is already a policy entry point. NAVYA, launched in June 2025, targets vocational training for girls aged 16–18. A July 2026 government update describes coverage across 27 districts in 19 states and a training target of 3,850 girls. [2]
The educational question deserves care. Introducing a girl to technical work should add possibilities to her future. It should never become an excuse to steer her away from further study because a short course is cheaper or a nearby vacancy is available.
Schools could offer supervised opportunities to try unfamiliar tasks, accompanied by clear information about qualifications and further study. Counselling should explain several routes and their costs. Families should be able to ask practical questions, while the girl’s own interests remain central to the decision.
Adult women need the same respect for choice. A mother returning to training may need a different timetable from a school-leaver. Someone seeking self-employment needs a credible route to customers and payment. Counting both under one participation target tells administrators very little about whether either has received useful support.
The Change Ahead
The next policy advance should make the journey into work easier to complete and easier to scrutinise. Helping women stay in employment deserves a place in the programme budget and its public results.
Governments should be able to explain what happened to the women they trained. Employers should be able to explain the opportunities they offered. Women should be able to judge those opportunities against their own ambitions. A certificate is an achievement. The policy must remain answerable for what it helped make possible afterwards.
Editorial Note
This policy analysis draws on the June 2026 NITI Aayog working paper and an official government update on NAVYA. Figures retain their original measures and periods; they are not estimates of employment outcomes. The relocation example is hypothetical. Funding and accountability proposals are Change in Content’s analysis, not announced government commitments. No interviews were conducted.
Sources
- NITI Aayog working paper: Girls and Women at the Centre: Advancing Non-Traditional Livelihoods in India, June 2026. See methodology and definition on printed pages 9–11; ITI analysis on pages 17–21; PMKVY figures on page 23; recommendations on pages 29–40.
- Press Information Bureau: Official skilling update, including NAVYA, July 2026.
