Established in 1895 as the Engineering & Iron Trades Association, in 1992 immediately after the country threw off the yoke of Soviet-inspired socialism which had mired the economy in the 3.5 percent per year GDP growth rate rut for almost 50 years, the association rechristened itself as the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). Since then because of its strong support to the landmark economic liberalization and deregulation initiative of 1991, welcoming attitude to foreign investment and professional governance, CII has emerged as the most respected voice of Indian industry eclipsing dominant pre-liberalisation industry rep organizations FICCI (estb.1927) and Assocham (1920). Therefore, when CII issues industry reform and national growth acceleration recommendations, government and all informed and engaged individuals pay heed.

With babus of the Union finance ministry having already started work on shaping the Union Budget 2026-27, on December 14, the CII secretariat issued its recommendations for accelerating GDP growth which is headed towards 7 percent in fiscal 2025-26. Perhaps influenced by neighbouring China’s spectacular sustained double digit annual GDP growth rate for over 30 years (1978-2008) driven by heavy government investment in infrastructure development, CII has proposed 12 percent increase in capex by the Central government and 10 percent by state governments. It also recommends according priority to high-multiplier sectors such as transport, energy, logistics, and transition to green energy and creation of a National Infrastructure Pipeline (NIP 2.0) fund with a humungous capital outlay of Rs.150 lakh crore over the years 2026-32.

These and other recommendations are undoubtedly well-considered, nation-building proposals. Yet unsurprisingly CII’s Budget 2026-27 proposals don’t contain a single word about education and human resource development. Surely it’s axiomatic that capital intensive infrastructure projects require well-educated engineers and project managers to execute them. This despite universal awareness that the grandiose projects of 13 five-year plans of the pre-liberalisation era foundered on the rock of implementation by an under-educated, low productivity workforce. If mere throwing money at projects would make them bloom, India would be a wealthy 21st century nation.

Yet fractured cognition is typical of CII. A year ago your editors proposed to Chandrajit Bannerjee, the confederation’s long-tenured Secretary General, that it would serve the public interest if he endorsed EducationWorld, a strong advocate of close connect between academia and industry, in one of CII’s routine circulars to members. His advice: we should purchase a members list from CII and write to each member-company individually.

With such contempt for education and human resource development — the most vital of all factors of production — pervasive within CII and other representative organisations of industry, it’s hardly surprising that India Inc is a pathetic laggard in the international development race.

Time for regime change in India’s most respected industry representative organization.