His name is synonymous with Keralam’s IT revolution of the 90s.
G Vijaya Raghavan, the first CEO of Technopark, is someone with a vision about the state’s development. He is also the founder of the National Speech and Hearing Institute. Close on the heels of assuming office as a State Planning Board member for
the third time, Vijaya Raghavan shares with TNIE the board’s immediate priorities, long-term vision, his take on the way Technopark has grown over the years, 30 years of NISH, and his concerns over a substantial share of the population falling under the spectrum of autism. Excerpts
A New government is in office and a new Planning Board is being formed. What are the immediate priorities?
Basically, the first priority is to revive the original importance of the Planning Board. Second, we need to look at the vision of this government and identify the direction we should take. Work on the 15th Plan should have started much earlier. We are looking at how to move forward. Unfortunately, the board has lost its importance, and to some extent, its participation in government over a period of time.
There is no proper linkage between the district planning offices and the board. There is also no effective linkage between the board and the secretariat. The importance of the Planning Board has declined significantly, partly because the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) was functioning as a parallel mechanism. The board was unaware of what was happening and couldn’t involve itself in those activities. We want to bring about a change to this situation. We will reach the grassroots and obtain feedback from civil society as well.
Compared with the past, what concrete changes can we expect from the new vision?
One of the things we are saying is that the plan, and the projects or programmes under it, will have to be smart programmes. Smart means they must be specific, measurable and achievable. They must also be time-bound and result-oriented. One major difference will be that, in the past, the focus was always on the percentage of expenditure incurred.
We will continue to measure expenditure, but we are also changing the way we approach planning to focus on outcomes. Another aspect we have been considering is the introduction of social audits. We intend to have social audits for every major project. In that sense, the approach will be completely different from what existed in the past.
So, is outcome, and not output, that matters?
Yes, it is the outcome. The focus should be on what has been achieved with the money spent. Unfortunately, if you look at many projects, large amounts of money have been spent on various activities, but some of them have never been used. Others have been going on for years without achieving the intended results. For instance, there may be irrigation canals extending into areas where there is no agriculture today. These are issues that need to be examined carefully.
Are you planning to revisit some of the projects and make corrections where necessary?
We aren’t going to conduct a postmortem. However, if a project isn’t delivering the intended results, we will certainly need to stop it. One of the first tasks of the working groups being constituted for the 15th Plan is to review what happened during the previous plan. We will examine those outcomes and then decide how to proceed. There may be projects for which funds have been allocated but no work is happening. There’s no need to continue with such projects.
The government is already facing a financial crisis. How does the board intend to address these financial issues? Are we looking at alternative sources of revenue or other options?
We will examine what we call the partnership model. This involves exploring how we can work with cooperatives, private sector, and panchayats to ensure that our initiatives have a greater impact. Another issue is that multiple agencies implement programmes at different levels, using different sources of funding, but there is no actual convergence among them. This is something we want to address. You will see changes in this regard, leading to more effective use of government funding.
You mentioned private sector involvement in resource generation. What are the major impediments to this now?
We have developed the perception that private sector is bad. I’m not saying that private sector is great or that everyone in it is virtuous. But there’s nothing wrong with mobilising private funding if it serves the interests of the state. Look at Vizhinjam. The project could have been dropped at an earlier stage. It would have been very easy to abandon it. But (then chief minister) Oommen Chandy was clear that he didn’t want to drop it, and the project went ahead. Now just look at the impact the project is creating. As I said, the problem is that we don’t adequately recognise the value of private capital. The mindset has to change.
What’s the feedback from the industry? What’s the biggest hindrance we face?
There’s a perception issue and we haven’t been able to change that adequately. If you look at it closely, I don’t believe trade unions are a problem. There are certain unorganised groups that create difficulties, and some bad practices persist. Another issue is the uncertainty surrounding labour regulations.
We are now in an unusual situation where the old provisions are no longer in place, but the labour codes have not yet been implemented. As a result, people don’t know what’s going to happen. There will be a debate on whether the codes can be implemented or not. There needs to be clarity and a sense of continuity in policies.
To a considerable extent, policy continuity exists in newer sectors. However, I would say the bigger problem is not limited to the private sector. Anyone who comes to invest will look at the people available here.
Our higher education system is in a mess. It needs to be completely restructured and rebuilt because, unfortunately, it is not delivering the quality required or the quality currently available in other parts of the country.
Is the increasing migration a result of this? Is the poor quality of the higher education system the only reason for migration?
It isn’t the only reason. But look at it this way: 20 to 30 years ago, businessmen sent their children outside Keralam for higher studies. Later, senior government officials also began sending their children outside the state. Look at where politicians’ children are studying today, irrespective of whether they belong to the left or the right.
Most of their children are studying outside Keralam. Yet they don’t want to bring about those changes within the state. Why? Is it good for me but not good for the people? That cannot be allowed to happen. Unfortunately, our education system is controlled by unionised teachers who are reluctant to accept change.
That has to change. If it doesn’t, our universities risk becoming irrelevant, particularly as the new government works on the private universities bill introduced by the previous government. In academic systems abroad, the university structure revolves entirely around the student.
Unfortunately, that isn’t the case here. In our system, administrative officials and politicians have considerable influence, and teachers are often part of political setups. The student, who is actually there to study, comes last.
What’s the Planning Board’s primary focus regarding reforms in higher education?
Rather than unilaterally prescribing changes, we are relying on dedicated working groups alongside the Higher Education Council. We expect the experts to propose constructive policy shifts. The urgency stems from the fact that reforming higher education is directly linked to the board’s overarching priority: employment generation.
We need to create fruitful, aspirational jobs for our youth. The paradox in Keralam is that while we frequently debate unemployment, a significant migrant workforce is actively employed across the state. This indicates that jobs exist, but aspirational positions aligned with the expectations of our educated youth are lacking.
Addressing this requires a multi-sectoral approach rather than relying solely on IT, which is not the largest employer. We are setting up a specialised working group on employment generation with representation from diverse industries like the fisheries sector.
You mentioned there is a deep-seated negative perception regarding private industry in Keralam. Is it because of left-wing politics?
It is a mindset many of us carry as old ideological baggage. People often view the private sector solely as an engine of profit, harbouring an underlying assumption that employing someone inherently amounts to exploitation. Paradoxically, parents have no reservation about their own children working for private firms or launching their own ventures, yet the broader institutional perception remains anti-capitalist.
In reality, workplace exploitation in Keralam is minimal compared to many other parts of the country. Certain political elements and trade union setups continue to nurture class divisions, as their survival depends on maintaining a rigid binary between the employer and the worker.
When generalising class dynamics, is this mindset driven specifically by a left psyche?
Both left and right politics share responsibility. Even the BJP and its trade unions contribute to the same mindset. It is deeply rooted in our cultural approach. Another issue is that we are excessively critical.
You mentioned the example of Tamil Nadu. Are there other regions that excel at branding?
Look at Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. You will never hear an Andhra person anywhere in the world speak against Andhra Pradesh, regardless of how different their individual politics might be. Look at the development that has taken place in Tamil Nadu. Governments may change but Tamil Nadu remains the top priority, and administrations consistently do what is required for the state. Notably, there are no general strikes there.
What about the common perception that Malayalis are lazy within Keralam but exceptionally industrious when working outside the state?
Malayalis working here are actually very hardworking. I see this first hand with so many professionals across our software parks and other sectors. The real issue behind this perception is that a large number of people are not fruitfully employed. We need to create the right level of aspirational employment for our workforce.
Regarding Technopark, how did the issue of strikes first arise, and since the concept of the bandh exists in Kerala, how did you manage it?
Sometimes you have to take firm administrative action. What we did back then was declare Technopark an essential service under the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA). I feel proud that not a single man-day has ever been lost due to strikes in Technopark. Once that culture is established, people realise that strikes are unnecessary.
Meanwhile, as for the broader anxiety around AI and jobs, I don’t believe artificial intelligence takes away jobs. Rather, a person who uses AI will take away the job of someone who refuses to use it.
AI actually creates new opportunities. Looking at the previous year, even with AI present, the total headcount and the number of jobs in the IT industry have grown, though admittedly not at the rapid pace seen earlier.
There is worry among IT professionals. See the headlines...
I’ve seen the headlines. In a way, it is required too. I always tell freshers that they should be prepared to be without a job one day. The reason is that it is not a very stable industry. So, when you work for five years, you should save enough to continue with the same standard of living for another five years.
You spoke about migration. How will the brain drain impact us?
In fact, I’m not bothered about it. Look at the IT industry in India. The success of the industry is reverse migration. A lot of people who succeeded in the IT industry are people who worked abroad and came back. Brain drain is not a big issue. I’m seeing reverse brain drain on the academic side – when you will have people working outside coming into these private universities.
Are you looking at programmes to promote entrepreneurship or startups?
There will be. We have working groups on deep tech and startups. We believe startups aren’t just about IT. You need to get startups in other businesses too, like agriculture. Our working groups are looking to encourage entrepreneurship across sectors.
Technopark has now been in existence for close to 38 years old. Could you take us back to its initial stages?
One of the remarkable aspects of Technopark was that it received support across successive governments. The question before us was how Keralam could attract software and electronics industries. Tata Consultancy Services was appointed for a pre-feasibility study. We proposed that it should be located near a university.
People laughed at the suggestion because universities were not generally seen as catalysts for industrial development. Technopark was conceived primarily as an instrument of economic development and job creation rather than as a research park. Our initial target was to generate 5,000 direct jobs and 20,000 indirect jobs.
The foundation-stone-laying ceremony was the final programme of the E K Nayanar government. A new government subsequently assumed office, which decided to continue with the project. Both Nayanar and K Karunakaran helped us address labour-related challenges during Technopark’s development.
Are you satisfied with the growth of Technopark?
I can’t say I’m not satisfied. But it could have been much faster. There was a time when we suddenly focused elsewhere. They started promoting Kochi... that should never have happened. The period we lost out the most was when special economic zones were allowed.
That was the time maximum growth happened overseas. The big problem we have even today is that a majority of the IT space in Keralam is still owned by government/government bodies. In most parts of the country, 95% space is private and only 5 to 10% is with the government.
What went wrong with Smart City Kochi?
Everything has a time. What happened was that people suddenly started talking about it as being pure real estate... ultimately, it was cleared but by then we had lost time. Once you overshoot the time schedule, the focus moves elsewhere. That is one of the reasons why the Smart City project did not take off the way it should have. Otherwise, it would have delivered the kind of employment we keep harping about.
It is alleged that when file movement or approvals are delayed, or because of poor relations with the Union government, global funds get affected. Is that too a reason for the current fiscal crisis?
It may not be, but nobody is tracking the usage. Those things will come into place now and we will have people who will track that. We don’t track centrally sponsored schemes either; we often don’t give our proposals in the required format. We will have to do some structuring in that... we will have a group looking only at central schemes, another to look at where we can generate money from. We can’t increase taxes but we can ensure better tax collection. The cooperatives sector, unfortunately, got a bad name, and we need to do something to revive a strong sector.
What should Keralam show as its USP before investors?
Options like a single-window programme will help. I think we should focus on our companies and give them those clearances fast. Industry will come where local people are happy about it. They will become our ambassadors. That focus should be there, and I think some initiatives have already been taken by the industries department.
For the past few years, the state government was also concerned about central allocations...
The Finance Commission provides a substantial amount of money for urban areas. We will ensure that panchayats get the money they require, but some changes are needed. A substantial part of Keralam is urbanised and I don’t think that should worry us. At the end of the day, though we talk about agriculture, it is not a very large sector in our state.
The other big change should happen in the plantation sector. The plantation sector can be our next big area of growth, not by converting that into real estate. We need to focus heavily on the coastal and tribal communities. We need to look at how to give them the best that is possible... try to create jobs, and you will see a lot of change happening.
It’s been close to 30 years since you established NISH (National Institute of Speech and Hearing). Are you happy with its progress?
NISH started off as a personal story. It began with a proposal I made to the then CM Nayanar. Not only he, but successive governments gave me the freedom to run it. If you ask me, I’m not happy with what it is today. It should have become a national university by now. There were some political interventions. That was one of the reasons why I moved out of NISH. Even now, it doesn’t have a full-time director.
How do you recall successive CMs?
My long period of association was with Nayanar, Karunakaran... A K Antony was also there. I definitely did not have a good rapport with Achuthanandan. We had serious differences. With Pinarayi Vijayan, I share a good rapport even now. With Oommen Chandy, it was a very close rapport. As for the new CM, I know him well... he knows me... I haven’t built up a rapport yet.
What are your thoughts on the new government?
It’s too early, but I think it’s going in the right direction. At least, that’s what I see during discussions. Within a year, we will see whether the change is happening.
One of the criticisms against CM V D Satheesan, after his sponsored flight travel, is about over endorsement of private players...
Attracting private investment is not a problem. I don’t think it ever was. We should have private investment if we want to have the level of growth we talk about. Private investment does not mean that we take anything away from the public sector. We need to make the public sector efficient and run it well. We need the private sector to create jobs. Government cannot create jobs; it doesn’t have the capacity. If a private player comes in, they should get clearances without any hindrance. That confidence has to be given.
The question was about the sponsored flight...
It depends on the individual. I know instances where previous CMs used private transport. Many leaders use private cars. When they go abroad, though the embassy provides vehicles, they don’t use them. It’s again left to the individual. As for me, I don’t even use a government car.
You are also into activities related to the Centre for Autism...
Autism is something we need to focus on, as a substantial part of the population faces problems in this regard. We should have programmes to take care of early identification. There’s another area -- assisted living for adults. In these areas, there’s a big gap in society. We should find models. Those who can afford it will have to do it on their own. In the case of those who can’t, the government should look at models to accommodate them. Oommen Chandy once told me about supporting those with disabilities. We need to focus on that. We have a working group on disability too.