The Union government has been urged to enhance its support for skilling initiatives across the States, particularly by Kerala's Minister for General Education and Labour, V. Sivankutty. During a regional workshop in Hyderabad focused on skill development, he emphasized Kerala's dedication to advancing the national skilling agenda while advocating for improved cooperative federalism and fair central support.

Sivankutty called for continued backing of the institutional framework established under the ‘SANKALP’ program and proposed structured incentives along with national recognition frameworks to attract talent in the training sector. He highlighted the need for a system that recognizes high-performing States in skill development and promotes knowledge sharing.

The Minister also requested assistance from the Union government to expedite the establishment of a national-level Institute for Metro and Rail Technology in Kochi, as well as financial support for two Indian Institutes of Foreign Languages in Kochi and Thiruvananthapuram. Additionally, he sought help to position India as a leader in AI skilling through a proposed center of excellence.

Sivankutty expressed concern over limited Union government assistance over recent years, which has primarily come through specific schemes like PMKVY and SANKALP. He advocated for equitable treatment among all States and suggested increasing the Union government's contribution to ITI hub-and-spoke schemes from 50% to 80%.

Original article

The provided text is replete with various forms of bias and language manipulation, which I will thoroughly analyze below.

One of the most striking aspects of the text is its evident left-leaning bias. The language used by Kerala's Minister for General Education and Labour, V. Sivankutty, reflects a clear preference for increased government intervention in skill development initiatives. The emphasis on "enhancing support" and "improved cooperative federalism" suggests a desire for greater central control over state-level programs. This bias is further reinforced by Sivankutty's call for increased funding for specific schemes like PMKVY and SANKALP, which implies a reliance on government-led solutions rather than private sector initiatives.

Furthermore, the text exhibits cultural bias in its portrayal of Kerala as a leader in skill development. The use of phrases such as "Kerala's dedication to advancing the national skilling agenda" creates an implicit hierarchy between states, with Kerala positioned as a model to be emulated by others. This framing reinforces a narrative that Kerala is inherently more capable or progressive than other states, which may not be entirely accurate.

The text also displays linguistic bias through its use of emotionally charged language. Phrases such as "limited Union government assistance over recent years" and "equitable treatment among all States" are designed to evoke emotions rather than provide objective analysis. This type of language creates a sense of urgency and moral outrage, which can influence readers' perceptions without providing concrete evidence or context.

In terms of structural bias, the text reinforces existing power structures by advocating for increased funding for specific institutions like ITI hubs and Indian Institutes of Foreign Languages. This framing assumes that these institutions are inherently valuable and deserving of support without critically examining their effectiveness or potential biases. Furthermore, the emphasis on national recognition frameworks suggests that existing systems of authority should be reinforced rather than challenged.

The text also exhibits confirmation bias through its uncritical acceptance of certain assumptions about skill development. For example, the notion that high-performing states should be recognized and rewarded assumes that there is an objective measure of performance that can be applied universally. However, this assumption ignores potential issues with data quality or biases in evaluation criteria.

In terms of narrative bias, the story structure presented in the text creates a clear narrative arc: Kerala is portrayed as a leader in skill development; Sivankutty advocates for increased support from the Union government; this support will lead to improved outcomes across India. This framing creates a sense of inevitability around the desired outcome without providing sufficient evidence or considering alternative perspectives.

Regarding selection and omission bias, it is notable that certain viewpoints or sources are excluded from consideration in this article. For instance, there is no mention of potential criticisms or challenges facing existing skill development programs in India or any alternative perspectives on how to address these challenges effectively.

Finally, it is worth noting that some sections appear neutral at first glance but conceal implicit biases upon closer examination. For example, when discussing proposed incentives along with national recognition frameworks to attract talent in training sectors," one might assume this section presents an objective discussion about policy options." However,"the term 'talent' carries connotations related specifically Western notions regarding human capital accumulation."