An NSV Policy Perspective on IRDAI's Public Consultation Paper dated 23 September 2026, examining the future of insurance distribution, intermediary remuneration, policyholder value and the need for a balanced and sustainable reform framework.
Recalibrating Economics of Insurance Distribution
Across infrastructure, manufacturing, digital transformation, skilling, urban development, energy and social infrastructure, the country is increasingly designing programmes at unprecedented scale.
But a large public programme does not succeed merely because the policy is sound, the budget is sanctioned or the announcement is ambitious.
The real test begins after the announcement.
“What is the policy?” is no longer enough. The larger question is: “Who will convert that policy into an executable institutional programme?”
That distinction is becoming critical.
Most large public programmes involve multiple layers simultaneously:
Government departments and implementing agencies
State and Central institutions
Public-sector enterprises
Private industry
Technology providers
Financial institutions and investors
Consultants and local implementation agencies
The end beneficiaries for whom the programme was designed
Each stakeholder may individually be capable. The challenge is that capability without coordination does not automatically produce execution.
A programme can have funding but lack implementation partners. It can have strong technology but weak institutional ownership. It can have private-sector interest but unclear commercial architecture. It can have government support but no bankable project structure.
And it can have an excellent policy framework but no single mechanism that continuously aligns all these moving parts.
This is where India increasingly needs an Execution Architecture.
Execution architecture is not another layer of consulting.
It is the operating framework that connects:
It establishes who is responsible for what, how stakeholders interact, how capital moves, how risks are allocated, how implementation is monitored and how decisions are escalated.
For large programmes, this architecture needs to be designed almost as carefully as the policy itself.
In our view, six elements are particularly important.
Every programme requires a clearly defined decision-making structure.
Who owns the programme?
Who approves?
Who implements?
Who coordinates between Central Government, State Government, implementing institutions and private industry?
Who resolves bottlenecks when responsibilities overlap?
Without clarity at this level, even well-funded programmes can lose momentum through administrative fragmentation. Governance architecture therefore needs to be established early, with defined roles, timelines and escalation mechanisms.
Private industry should not be treated merely as a downstream vendor.
In many programmes, industry possesses the most current understanding of:
Bringing industry into the programme only after policy and project structures are completely frozen can limit its ability to add strategic value.
The stronger model is to create mechanisms where Government defines the public objective while industry contributes to the execution logic.
This is particularly important in programmes involving skills, manufacturing, technology, digital infrastructure and large-scale institutional modernisation.
Budget allocation and project bankability are not the same thing.
Large programmes may involve combinations of Government funding, State contribution, industry participation, equity, debt, CSR capital, institutional capital, strategic investors or long-term operating revenues.
The execution architecture must answer important questions early:
Financial structuring should therefore not be treated as a late-stage activity. It must be integrated into programme design.
Large public programmes increasingly require multiple specialist organisations.
A single company may not possess every capability required across engineering, technology, skilling, operations, financing, cybersecurity, equipment, digital platforms and programme management.
Consortiums and strategic partnerships therefore become necessary. But simply bringing logos together does not create an execution ecosystem.
Each partner must have:
The objective should be complementary capability — not merely consortium size.
One of the most underestimated stages of a public programme begins after an award is issued.
The period between:
often determines whether a project ultimately succeeds.
At this stage, programme management must continuously coordinate Government stakeholders, project institutions, industry partners, technology providers, financiers and implementation agencies.
A tender may conclude with an award. Execution does not.
For complex programmes, a strong PMO or equivalent orchestration mechanism should remain active throughout implementation.
Large programmes should ultimately be judged not by the number of announcements, tenders or contracts issued.
The more meaningful questions are:
Execution architecture therefore needs an outcome framework from the beginning — not merely a procurement framework.
India's next phase of development will increasingly involve programmes too complex to be managed through conventional linear contracting alone.
A large national or state-level initiative may simultaneously involve:
These elements cannot operate as independent verticals. They have to be orchestrated.
And that creates an emerging strategic capability for India:
Programme Orchestration
The ability to convert policy ambition into an institutionally structured, financially executable and operationally deliverable programme.
For Government, strong execution architecture can create better coordination, clearer accountability and faster implementation.
For industry, it creates visibility around participation models, investment requirements, commercial responsibilities and long-term opportunities.
For financial institutions and investors, it improves the ability to understand project structure, governance and risk.
And for implementation partners, it creates clearer interfaces between technology, infrastructure and operations.
Most importantly, it helps shift the conversation from:
“Who won the project?” to “Who will make the programme work?”
India will continue to launch large programmes. The scale will increase. The number of stakeholders will increase. Technology intensity will increase. And the interface between Government, industry and capital will become increasingly sophisticated.
The next institutional advantage, therefore, may not come only from creating better policies.
It may come from creating better architectures for executing them.
At Nexus Strategic Ventures, our perspective is built around this very convergence — connecting policy understanding, strategic partnerships, capital alignment and execution capability to help complex opportunities move from concept to implementation.
Turn policy ambition into structured, executable programmes. Connect with NSV.